To
Sri D.N.Padhi, Chief Orissa Information Commissioner,
Orissa Suchana Commission,
State Guest House,
Bhubaneswar
SUB: A Memorandum on suggestions to Orissa Suchana Commission for reforming its manner of functioning and for intervening in the interest of replacing the existing anti-people Orissa RTI Rules ultra vires the parent Act with the appropriate, citizen-friendly Rules to be made in due manner in conformity with the Right to Information Act 2005.
Sir,
As you know, more than 6 months have elapsed since the Orissa Rules under the Right to Information Act 2005 was announced on 7th of October 05 last, and about 5 months since the State Information Commission was constituted on 20th of November 05 last with a mandate to oversee the operationalisation of the Act in the State. As you might know, we as a platform of civil society groups working for the cause of RTI in our State have been keenly watching the performance of the State Government, a myriad of public authorities working under it and above all Orissa Suchana Commission in regard to the role assigned to them under the parent Act. Based upon the experience of our active involvement in the campaign for right to information across the State coupled with our observation of the developments taking place in related fields, we like to draw your kind attention to certain concerns and issues, which hopefully can be addressed to by your august office in the very interest of furthering the cause of RTI in our State.
1) From the huge pile of complaints that have reached you meanwhile through post and otherwise from the common citizens from across the State, it must have been clear by now that there are some intractable problems arising out of the very nature of the Orissa RTI Rules-2005 itself, which prohibits the people from accessing the official information under the RTI Act 2005.
2) The downward revision of certain fees as reportedly announced by the Government of Orissa on the floor of the State Assembly on 3rd of April 06, though seemingly a wholesome move in itself in the direction of bringing Orissa’s fee regime in line with the Centre and most States of the country, has however failed to address to the basic malaises with which the Orissa RTI Rules is afflicted with and which serve as the root cause of the stumbling block, standing since the very day of the announcement of the said Rules, before the people of our State to access official information from various public authorities as sanctioned under the parent RTI Act 05.
3) Needless to remind you, Sir, the RTI Act 05 in its Section 25(5) enjoins upon a State Information Commission, just as on the Central Information Commission, to step in where ‘the practice of a public authority . . . does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act’ and to ‘give to the authority a recommendation specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformity’. Comparing the record of the performance of the Central Information Commission during this period with that of the State Information Commission, the latter appears to be too dismal and disappointing for any words to describe. While the Central Information Commission has meanwhile disposed of 60 cases involving both complaints under Section 18 and appeals under Section 19 of the Act, the State Information Commission of Orissa had done nil on this front. More disconcerting is the conspicuous failure of the State Commission in persuading the State Government to announce a set of rules, which is barely necessary for the Commission to dispose of the complaints/appeals lodged under the Act.
4) As you might have observed, the Central Information Commission has been discharging their duty under Section 25(5) of the Act to dispel the skewed and faulty understanding, if any found among the public authorities on different provisions of the Act, the latest instance being the Commission’s favourable decision on the right of a citizen to inspect and access ‘the notings on a file’ (vide CIC decision dated 31.1.2006 in Appeal No.ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006 of the appellant Satyapal against public authority of CPIO of TCIL). However, the State Information Commission of Orissa, in striking contrast, has chosen to remain not only tightlipped on the ultra vires nature of the State RTI rules and but also a mute spectator to innumerable acts of undue denial by various public authorities in the State to the citizens seeking information under the RTI Act.
5) No doubt, there have been some visible efforts by the State Information Commission for spreading awareness about the RTI Act among the officials and people in different parts of the State. But as you know, the Act under Section 26 places this responsibility squarely on the appropriate Governments, and in the instant case on the State Government of Orissa, with the Information Commission supposed to monitor the process (vide Section 25). Further as per the Act, the main job of the Information Commission is not to spread awareness about the Act, but to decide on the complaints and appeals made by the aggrieved citizens arising out of their failure to secure information under the Act, to penalize the defaulter PIOs responsible for wrongful denial of the information sought and to compensate the aggrieved citizen for the loss or detriment suffered by him/her due to such denial (vide Sections 18,19 and 20), besides their overall job of monitoring the public authorities and taking them to task for their acts of non-compliance to the letter and spirit of the Act. But the act of appropriation by the members of the Commission to themselves the role, which is assigned by the parent Act to the public authorities such as for awareness-generation among the people, however commendable it might seem at first instance, is an instance of double error in the eyes of the Act; firstly the Commission escapes its primary role as a civil court to adjudicate the complaints and appeals made under the Act, and secondly the Commission helps the public authorities escape the primary obligation entrusted to them under the Act i.e. to create an enabling environment for the public to avail their rights and entitlements guaranteed under the Act.
6) Again, what kind of awareness about the Act has been created by or through the State Information Commission so far? The Act expects of the Commission to play a proactively discerning role in regard to the Rules framed by the State Government. But to the best of our knowledge, the awareness programmes organised so far with the involvement of the State Information Commission or public utterances made by the Commissioners on different occasions have in stead proved only apologetic in defense of the otherwise disputable Orissa RTI Rules. As you know, we have mentioned before you on several occasions that the current State Rules has been framed in such a way as not to encourage the common citizens to seek information from the public authorities, but to frighten them away from approaching the public authorities for getting any information under the Act. Moreover, it has been so shrewdly designed as to put a common citizen into a never ending state of hassles and harassment, if he or she at all decides to apply for a piece of information before a public authority of the State or make a complaint or appeal before the State Information Commission against the concerned PIO or public authority. Don’t you know that the Rule-13 of the Orissa Rules, in blatant violation of all canons of law and justice aims at auctioning off a citizen-applicant’s landed property, and even putting him behind the bars just on the flimsy ground of non-realisation of certain dues, which are as such ultra vires the mandates of the Act?
7) Furthermore, the State RTI Rules have been framed and finalized by a coterie of 5 bureaucrats only, who have never cared to subject the same to a public scrutiny as legally required under the law. As you might know, the Orissa General Clauses Act 1937 in its Section 24 makes it obligatory on the part of the State Government to publish first of all in the mass media a draft Rule proposed under a State or Central Act to invite opinions and objections if any within a deadline, from the members of public likely to be affected. Moreover, the Section 4(1c) of the RTI Act 2005 does also require a public authority to publish all relevant facts for the knowledge of the public while formulating a policy or announcing a decision. Both these legal requirements have been given a clean goodbye by the State Government in respect of framing and finalizing the Rules under the RTI Act 2005, though its subject-matter affects directly and in very many ways the fate of the entire population of Orissa.
8) And above all, the Orissa Information Commission being the apex authority for the State as a whole under the RTI law should itself serve as an ideal for the public authorities in respect of transparent functioning. As you shall agree, the Commission is itself a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and has therefore the bounden obligation to make proactive disclosure of 17 categories of information as mentioned under Section 4(1b) such as the structure, manpower, activities, salaries and allowances, budget, modus operandi of disposal of cases and of interaction with public and the like concerning their organization itself. While the Central Information Commission has complied with this legal requirement as found on their website (http://cic.gov.in), the State Commission has not made even a humble beginning towards this end. In absence of such proactive disclosures coupled with absence of any appeal rules at the level of the State Information Commission, the people are largely in dark about what the Commission is doing in compliance with the mandates of the Act, how and how much public money is spent for and by the Commission, and how does the Commission dispose of the grievances received from the people? In absence of the information on such crucial matters being made available by the Commission to the public at large through their website and otherwise, the people shall, for your kind information, continue to harbour a lurking suspicion that the Orissa Information Commission is another white elephant eating into the depleting coffers of the country’s poorest State.
9) Under the circumstances, we still have the hope that the State Information Commission should remaining true to its mandate under the RTI Act first of all focus itself on cleansing the Orissa RTI Rules of the debris i.e. the omissions and commissions ultra vires the parent Act. To facilitate your task, we present below, mostly by way of reiteration, our suggestions under two broad heads, (A) Provisions to be deleted, and (B) Provisions to be incorporated, the sole objective being to bring the Orissa RTI Rules in conformity to the RTI Act 2005.
PROVISIONS TO BE DELETED FROM ORISSA RTI RULES
1). The Sections 27 and 28 of RTI Act have categorically specified the four kinds of fees only [such as towards the cost of information under suo motu disclosures under Section 4(4), application fee under Section 6(1), cost of providing information under Section 7(1) and cost of electronic medium under Section 7(5)], beyond which no appropriate Government or competent authority can impose any other fee. But the Orissa Rules have prescribed certain extraneous fees ultra vires the parent Act, such as fees for 1st and 2nd appeals under Rule-7. These extraneous fees need to be struck off to bring the Orissa Rules in compatibility with the Sections 27 and 28 of the RTI Act 2005.
2). The Rule-10(Calculation of cost of Damage) of Orissa Rules, which throws the burden of paying the cost of damage to the public property, if any, on to the shoulders of the citizen who applied for the said sample, is not only ultra vires the RTI Act, but also contravenes natural justice. How is it that the citizen shall pay for the damage to the structure, if any caused by the PIO while collecting a sample on the request of the applicant ? Rather, in an opposite vein, the Section 19(8b) of the RTI Act obliges the concerned public authority to compensate for any loss or detriment suffered by the complainant in course of his act of seeking the information from a public authority. Rule 10 under the Orissa RTI Rules should therefore be abolished.
3). The Rule-12 (Deposit of Expenditure) is another detestable provision under the Orissa Rules ultra vires the parent Act. It says that an appellant before the Information Commission has to bear the expenditure to be incurred for production of evidence/witness that may be necessary in course of the adjudication of his appeal. This provision flagrantly violates the categorical injunction given under the Section 19(5) and Section 20(1) of the RTI Act which says that in any appeal proceedings the onus or burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall lie on the PIO himself, against whom a complaint or an appeal has been made. The Rule 12 under Orissa RTI Rules should therefore be struck off.
4). The Rule-13 (Realisation of penalties and damage) under the Orissa RTI Rules, is a draconian provision that reminds us of the colonial rule of East India Company in our country. It provides for the recovery of any pending dues from an applicant-citizen by way of realization of the arrears of land revenue. Going by the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act 1962, this provision implies that the Government can auction off the landed property of a defaulter citizen or alternatively put him under civil imprisonment extending from 6 weeks to 6 months, to recover the arrears, if the concerned citizen fails to pay the dues within 30 days of the notice of the same made to him. As a matter of fact, the RTI Act nowhere provides any room for charging any penalty or compensation from the citizen. Rather the law upholds just the opposite principle i.e. penalty or compensation if any shall have to be paid by the PIO or public authority, as the case may be [Vide Sections 19 and 20]. The provision under the Rule-13 of Orissa RTI Rules which is thus outrageously ultra vires the mother law should therefore be struck off.
5). The provision made under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule-4 under Orissa RTI Rules that the Applicant has to satisfy the PIO about his/her identity before his/her application is considered, is ultra vires the parent Act, since the Section 6(2) of the RTI Act categorically says that an applicant ‘shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.’
6). The provision made under Sub-Rule 2(e) on the “identity” of an applicant defined as “an evidence to show the citizenship like an electoral photo identity card/passport or any other document which can satisfy the authority about the citizenship of the person” is ultra vires the Section 6(2) of the RTI Act for the aforesaid reason and should therefore be struck off.
7). The Form-A (Application for Information) under Orissa Rules is too long, complex and over-demanding one, which would not only frighten away the ordinary members of the public from applying for information under the Act, but is also ultra vires the mother law. The Column-2 asking for Father/Spouse name, Column-3 asking for permanent address and Column-4 asking for particulars in respect of identity of an Applicant are very much the personal details, the disclosure of which by an applicant before the PIO has been forbidden under the Section 6(2) of the RTI Act. Again, the Column-8 (Is this information not made available by the Public Authority) is absolutely redundant. It is just a common sense that if a citizen happens to know where a piece of information is available, why should he go at all for applying under the Act by paying fees? Similarly, the Column-7 asking ‘Has this information been provided earlier?’ is simply redundant, since a person might ask for the same information again by paying the required fees, if he has somehow lost it. Again, the Column-9 asking, ‘Do you agree to pay the required fee?’ is redundant, since a person may not afford the high price that a PIO shall demand in the Form-B (Intimation for payment). Anticipating the possibility of a PIO charging the higher price than the due, the Section 7 (3b) obliges a PIO to mention in his first reply to the applicant the latter’s right to appeal inter alia against the amount of fees so charged by him. Thus the Form A (Application Form) has to be drastically revised into a much shorter one containing only the name and contact details of the applicant along with the kind of the information wanted.
8). Any attempt to prescribe a compulsory, written application form, as is sought to be imposed by the Orissa RTI Rules is ultra vires the RTI Act, which in its Section 6(1b) allows the citizens to make even oral requests for information and in its Section 7(9) obliges a PIO to provide the information to the applicant in the very form in which it has been asked for. The Central Information Commission also in their Decision dated 30th Jan 6 [Vide Review Application No.CIC/C/1/2006 of the Applicant MsMadhu Bhaduri vs. Public Authority- Director (LM), DDA, Delhi] has affirmed the view, “In the RTI Act, no Department is proscribed from designing an application form that facilitates identification and therefore ease of access to information sought. It cannot be treated as a substitute for a simple application as laid down in Sec 6(1). . . Its absence cannot be grounds for rejection of an application”. Thus the Application Form, if at all to be prescribed, should be made optional, simple to fill up, and user-friendly one. Therefore no application for information should be rejected on the ground as provided currently under Form-C of Orissa Rules that the Application Form has not been filled up “complete in all respects”.
9). The Form-C (Intimation of Rejection) as it stands now is not only prohibitive of people’s right to information squarely, but also ultra vires the mother law. The Section 7(1) of the RTI Act says that a request for information can be rejected ‘for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9’ only. But the Form-C in its column (i) without specifying the particular reasons under the said Sections, mentions just in a blanket, roughshod manner that ‘it comes under exempted category covered under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act’. Similarly, the Col. (iv) spaciously saying that ‘The information is contained in published material available to public’ as a ground for rejection carries no meaning for the citizen at all. Again, the Column (vi) saying, ‘The information sought for is prohibited as per section 24(4) of the Act’ is negatively slanted against the citizen’s quest for information, since the said Section permits the information relating to cases of corruption and human rights violation to be disclosed albeit after getting the approval of the Information Commission. So in stead of saying just ‘no’, the said column might say, ‘Your application has been forwarded to the Information Commission for their opinion’. The Column (vii) saying that ‘The information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of any person’ is absolutely redundant, since this factor is covered under Section 8(1j), already taken care of by the Column (i) mentioned above. Then the said Form contains the following Columns, which are ultra vires the mother Act for the reasons already shown above:
Col. (ii)- Your application was not complete in all respects ( vide
Col. (iii)- Your identity is not satisfactory.
Col. (ix)- For any other reason see overleaf.
Thus the Form-C (Intimation of Rejection), which in the present form, is not only afflicted with multiple redundancies, but also ultravires the mother law in many respects and therefore deserves to be recast thoroughly in line with Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
10). The Rule 3(4) that says, “If, for any reason beyond the control of the Public Information Officer furnishing of information is delayed, he shall record reasons with justification thereof and shall communicate the Head of the office about such delay” dilutes the provision made under Section 7(1) of the Act that the requested information shall have to be furnished, “as expeditiously as possible and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request” and “where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.” Thus when the Act is absolutely clear on the maximum time-limit allowed to a PIO to furnish the information sought i.e. 30 days in case of information of normal nature, and 48 hours in case of information of emergency nature relating to life and liberty of a person, there is no justification for the Orissa Rules to provide the PIO with a handle to escape the said statutory obligation on excuses whatsoever. The Rule 4(4) should therefore be struck off from the Orissa RTI Rules.
PROVISIONS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO ORISSA RTI RULES
1). The RTI Act in its Section-7(5) has categorically stipulated that no fee shall be charged from the BPL persons for application, cost of providing the information and cost of the print or electronic medium. But the Orissa Rules have allowed the exemption of application fee only {vide Rule-4(1)}, while depriving the BPL families of their lawful right to avail the exemption of the other two fees. This very provision made under Orissa RTI Rules, being ultra vires the mother law should be struck down, and the Orissa Rules should allow the exemption of all the three categories of fees for the BPL persons as prescribed by the RTI Act.
2). The worst of absurdities that the Orissa Rules is afflicted with is that while it enables a citizen both to submit his application and as well to receive the requested information from the concerned PIO through the medium of postal service (vide Rule 4 and Form-A), the applicant can’t however deposit the required fee towards ‘the cost of providing information’ through postal or other medium. As both Form-B and Schedule of Fees indicate, an applicant has to deposit all such fees by cash only, and as such he has to travel physically all the way from wherever he may be stationed to the office of he concerned public authority just to hand over the required amount by cash to the PIO. This single thoughtless provision, which has possibly no parallel anywhere in the world renders the whole set of Orissa RTI Rules absurd par excellence and a laughing stock for everybody. Moreover, it is the wonder of the wonders, how such a ludicrous provision could escape the wit of the Chief Minister and Governor before they put their seal of approval on the Orissa RTI Rules and how it still eludes the supposedly scanning vigil of the learned Information Commissioners of our State? Thus the single mode of payment and that too through cash only to meet the cost of providing the information deserves to be immediately replaced by the provision of multiple modes of payment such as through money order, postal order, bank cheque/draft, court fee stamp and treasury challan etc besides cash of course, to suit the convenience of the applicant-payer. And there should be no doubt left in anybody’s mind that the money deposited through any of these modes shall ultimately reach the same destination i.e. the treasury of the Government. And technically speaking, the money paid through non-cash modes has a better chance to reach to the Govt treasury than through cash by hand.
3). The Form-B (Intimation for Payment) under the Orissa Rules is ultra vires on such grounds as (a) it provides for the mention only of the block amount to be paid by an applicant, not the detail break-up of the same as required under the Section 7(3a) of the RTI Act, (b) it doesn’t provide for the applicant’s right of appeal against the fees charged or form of access allowed by the PIO in response to the application for information, as required under Section 7(3b) of the Act, and (c) it doesn’t provide for the mention of the particulars of appellate authority as required under the Section 7 (3b) of the Act. The Form-B for its several omissions of critical nature is thus ultra vires the parent Act and therefore needs to be appropriately redesigned in conformity to the standing provisions of the Act.
4). Neither the RTI Act nor the Central Rules provides for any format to be imposed for submitting of an appeal or complaint by an aggrieved citizen, though the Central Appeal Rules provides for the kinds of papers to accompany an appeal. Viewed thus, the compulsory prescription of the Form-D and Form-E by the Orissa Rules for the purpose of 1st and 2nd appeal respectively is ultra vires the mother law. Such Forms, if at all necessary for ease of reference at the level of the appellate authorities, may be declared as optional ones, and an appellant/complainant may be asked to submit his/her appeal on a plain paper, appending therewith of course the necessary papers, a list of which may be prescribed under the State Appeal Rules. Moreover, the provision of an acknowledgement receipt to be issued by the concerned appellate authority to the citizen-applicant on submission of his/her appeal/complaint, which is presently lacking in the existing Form D and Form E should be incorporated there as a must.
5). A serious technical incongruity has been noticed between Form-G (Cash register), where at its Column-4 Bank Draft has been mentioned as a mode of payment on one hand, and the Schedule-1 on fees, where there is no mention at all of Bank Cheque/Draft at all on the other. It is suggested that the said incongruity should be removed by way of providing for various other modes payment such as Postal order, Money order, Bank Cheque and Court fee besides Cash and Treasury Challan to be mentioned consistently in both the places. The suggested variety in modes of payment shall not only serve the convenience of payment by the citizens belonging to various stations of life, but also enhance the level of collection of various fees under the RTI Act for the State exchequer.
6). Another serious case of incongruity is that while the Rule 4(1) allows a citizen to submit his/her application through electronic mail system, the Form-A containing the Application Form omits to mention the email system and limits thereby all the correspondence under the Act to be conducted through post or person only. The omission of Form-A to mention the electronic mode for transaction between the applicant and PIO is in clear violation of the letter and spirit of the provisions made under the RTI Act [vide Sections 4(1a), 4(1b-xiv), 4(2), 4(Explanation), 6(1), 7(5) and 7(9)]. So the Orissa Rules should provide for the citizen’s right to send and receive all the correspondence under the Act including those on appeal related matters through the medium of email too.
7). It is true that the RTI Act doesn’t provide for a time-limit within which the complaints and appeals made before the Information Commission under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act respectively shall be disposed of. But since the Section 27(1) generally empowers an appropriate Government ‘to make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act’, it is very much in fitness of law and competence of the Government of Orissa to fix a time-limit for disposal of appeals and complaints by the State Information Commission just as the Government of Madhya Pradesh has done by prescribing a time-limit of 30 days for the same.
8). The Section 27(1) of RTI Act says that every ‘appropriate Government may make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act’. But the Orissa RTI Rules has conspicuously failed to make the appropriate Rules on the following matters, which need to be made at the earliest and that too following the due procedure, as mandated under the RTI Act.
a. Transfer of an Application for information within 5 days of its receipt with intimation to the applicant, by the PIO to another PIO when the information asked for is available with the latter as required under Section 6(3) of the Act.
b. Provision for the PIO to help the persons unable to write in the matter of making his oral request
into a written application as required under Section 6(1b) and help the sensorily disabled persons
to access and inspect the documents as required under Section 7(4) of the Act.
c. The provision for procedure and forms necessary for issuing notices to the third party in
connection with disposal of an application for third party information as required under Section
11 of the Act.
d. The provision for serving the severe-able information by the PIO to the Applicants as required
under Section10 of the Act.
e. Provision for inspection of offices of public authorities by the citizens as required under the
“Explanation” appended to the Section 4(4) of the Act.
f. Provision for application for information to Security and Intelligence agencies of the State
pertaining to “corruption and human rights violation” as required under Section 24(4) of the Act.
g. Provision for supply of information by the public authorities to the applicants within 48 hours of
the application so made concerning the ‘life or liberty of a person’ as required under Section
7(1) of the RTI Act.
h. Provision for adoption by each public authority in Orissa of the ‘Template for Information
Handbook under the RTI Act’ (prepared by the Ministry of Personnel, GOI), to be incorporated
under the Orissa RTI Rules for disseminating the suo moto information of 17 categories as
required under Section 4(1b) of the RTI Act.
i. Provision for awarding of compensation on the part of public authorities to the complainant for
any loss or detriment suffered in course of seeking an information, as required under Section
19(8b) of the RTI Act
j. Provision for modalities of disciplinary action to be ordered by the Information Commission
against the recalcitrant PIOs as required under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act.
k. Provision for a time-limit for disposal of a complaint/appeal received from an aggrieved citizen
by the Information Commission under Sections 18 and 19 of the RTI Act.
l. Provision for procedure of supplying the ordinarily exempted, copyright-related information to
an applicant-citizen ( Section-9 of the RTI Act), if the ‘public interest in disclosure outweighs
the harm to the protected interests’ as required under the qualifying provision of Section 8(2) of the Act.
MISCELLANEOUS SUGGESTIONS TO THE COMMISSION
1). The 11-member Core Committee of the Govt. of Orissa set up for implementation of the RTI Act in their 1st meeting held on 22.8.05 had decided inter alia that Rs.10 lakh shall be placed with Gopabandhu Academy of Administration for the purpose of training {Vide para 4(c)}, and a tentative budget of 1.16 crores shall be allotted for implementation of the Act in the State {vide para 11 of the proceedings of the meeting}. The detail expenditure of such earmarked amounts of money (e.g. Rs.1 crore and 26 lakh) along with further item-wise sanctions, disbursements and utilizations of money on the head of RTI by the State Government and State Information Commission separately by 31st March 2006 should be publicized suo moto by the Government of Orissa as required under Section 4(1b-xi) of the Act. The so-called disclosure of financial details under the heading ‘Right to Information (Budget)’ on the State Government’s website (http://orissagov.nic.in/rti/index.htm) is not only confusing but misleading too, since the budget mentioned there in at tabular form doesn’t relate to the State Government’s budget on RTI as such, but to the department-wise and subject-wise allocations of the State as a whole on various heads other than RTI during the period 2003-04 to 2005-06. Thus the people of the State remain in dark as to what the Government spent or plans to spend on the front of RTI, the disclosure of which is a statutory obligation on the part of the State Government under Section 4(1b) of the Act.
2). The Core Committee in the above said meeting had also decided to hold a special training programme for NGOs and Civil Society Organisations at Bhubaneswar, out of the allotted funds. The Govt. of Orissa should publicize the details thereof, if any such programme were at all held and the detail expenditure incurred thereon, as required under Section 4(1b-xi) of the RTI Act.
3). It has been observed from the website of Orissa Suchana Commission that under the title ‘Upcoming Events’, some outreach programmes on RTI are being held in different parts of the State involving district administration, NGOs and Nehru Yuva Kendra. We are interested to know, who funds these events, what are the criteria adopted to select NGOs as organizers or participants of such events and above all what is the role of the Orissa Soochana Commission in the matter of organizing such events. As is well known, the main job of the Suchana Commission is to dispose of the complaints/appeals under the RTI Act in the capacity of a civil court (vide Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act- Powers and Functions of the Information Commissions), but not to organize, sponsor or get involved in such awareness or sensitisation events on RTI, which is basically the job of an appropriate Government to do (vide Section 26 of the Act) and the role of Suchana Commission is obviously to play the role of a monitor over the appropriate Government and public authorities in this respect. Under the circumstances, the State Information Commission being a public authority itself should clarify its role in the matter of organizing of these events and the source and manner of utilization of the funds spent after each of them as required under Section 4(1b) of the Act. The people have also a right to know from the Suchana Commission the reports and results of the events already organized, since it is Commission’s website that hosts the publicity of these events.
4). As you know, as per the Section 25(1) of the Act, the State Information Commission is supposed to prepare a report at the end of each year on the implementation of the Act in the State and forward the same to the State Government for its onward presentation in the State Assembly. As per Section 25(3) the said Report should contain inter alia information on the number of appeals made and disposed of by the Commission, disciplinary action taken against any defaulter officer and recommendation for reform of practices of public authorities for implementing the provisions of the Act. Though the financial year of 2005-06 has already come to an end, the legislators and people of the State are yet to see such Report coming from the Commission.
5). As you further know, the State Government apart, the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, Speaker of the Orissa Legislative Assembly and Governor Orissa are also competent authorities within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the RTI Act and are supposed to make rules as per Section 28 of the Act for implementing the provisions of the Act among the public authorities functioning under their control. But as you might know, these top functionaries of the State are yet to make the necessary rules as mandated under the Act. However the State Information Commission is empowered under Section 25(5), and again under Section 18(1) of the Act to take cognizance of these lapses and recommend to these competent authorities to make up for these lapses. Has the State Commission taken any step worth the name to discharge this all-important role entrusted to them under the Act?
6). For your kind information, we don’t have any hesitation to share with you the feeling that the State Information Commission is itself behaving in a bureaucratic manner as bad as the mainstream Government agencies do. Just as most of the government offices, being still steeped in the colonial tradition, are not in the habit of acknowledging even the receipt of a letter from a citizen despite the RTI Act, so do the State Information Commission refrain from acknowledging a complaint or appeal received from a citizen, let alone dispose of it. Only when the Suchana Commission, a proud creature of the RTI Act can reform itself so as to be transparent, responsive and responsible to the citizenry at large, the State Government and all the public authorities serving under it shall transform themselves likewise. Otherwise not.
7) Last but not the least, as you know, quite many suggestions stated above in course of this Memorandum were put forth on different occasions before the State Information Commission and as well before the State Government of Orissa by eminent spokespersons of RTI movement such as Mrs. Aruna Roy of MKSS, Mrs.Maja Daruwala of CHRI and Mr.Shailesh Gandhi of NCPRI, to name only a few. Apart from the present forum, hundreds of civil society groups from across the State have also conveyed at different times and through different means to the Commission and State Government their reservations on Orissa RTI Rules (vide website www.orissarti.com). But neither the Government nor the Commission have so far evinced any inclination worth the name to hold any genuine dialogue on the issues raised by various quarters. Hopefully, this Memorandum shall evoke a positive response in the State Information Commission, the kind of which has been much craved for, but not realised so far.
Looking forward to your judicious response at the earliest,
Yours sincerely,
Pradip Kumar Pradhan Dated 7th June 2006
Lalit Kumar Mishra Bhubaneswar
On Behalf of
Orissa Right to Food Campaign,
Plot No.17A, Laxmi Vihar, PO: Sainik School,
Bhubaneswar-6, Orissa
Email: thehumanity@rediffmail.com
Mobile: 9937843482
Copy to:
- Dr.Man Mohan Singh, Prime Minister of India, New Delhi,
- Mr.T.Jacob, Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Govt of India, New Delhi
- Joint Secretary, Administrative Reforms Commission, 2nd Floor, Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi, Email: arcommission@nic.in
- Shri Wajahat Habibullah, Chief Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, Block No.4(5th Floor), Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110 067
- Mr. Navin Patnaik, Chief Minister, Orissa, Bhubaneswar
- Shri Rameswar Thakur, Governor, Orissa, Raj Bhavan, Bhubaneswar
- Sri Maheswar Mohanty, Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly
- Prof. Radha Mohan, State Information Commissioner, Orissa, At- State Guest House, Bhubaneswar
- Mrs.Aruna Roy, vill- Devidungri, PO- Barar, Dist- Rajasmand, Rajasthan-313341, Email: mkssrajasthan@yahoo.com
- Mrs.Maja Daruwala, Director CHRI, B-117, Second Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi-17, Email:majadhun@vsnl.com