Sundargarh District level Workshop on Right to Information Act 2005, organized jointly by District Press Club and Pragati

at Lephripara, Sundargarh on 4^th Dec. 2005

A district level Workshop on Right to Information Act 2005 was held in open field adjacent to the Lephripara High School on 4^th of December 2005 under the joint aegis of Sundargarh District Press Club and Pragati (a voluntary organization), involving the students and teachers of the school along with officials, media persons, PRI representatives, women leaders and social activists of the district.

After the welcome songs presented by the students and women social workers, Sri Sushim Sahani of the District Press Club spoke about the objective of the Workshop. He observed that the Workshop was convened to make the people aware about the various provisions of the historic RTI Act 2005 and as well to initiate an open debate in the district as to how far the Rules made by the Govt of Orissa are in consonance with the letter and spirit of the mother law.

Then Sri Khirod Kumar Rout, Joint Secretary of Orissa High Court Bar Association initiated the discussion by saying that the Govt of Orissa in stead of publishing a draft rule under the RTI Act for pubic scrutiny as required under both Central and Orissa General Clauses Act, straight away imposed it on the people by way of a sudden notification on the internet. As a result a lot of unwarranted commissions and omissions have crept into the text of the Orissa RTI Rules, which if not remedied soon would frustrate the very wholesome intentions of the original Act.

Sri Jagannath Behera, the  Project Director DRDA, Sundargarh hoped that the RTI Act being a novel exercise for the whole administration, there are bound to be certain operational bottlenecks in the initial period, and these are sure to be overcome as the administration gathers more and more experience in the field.

Sri Chitta Behera, a social scientist while presenting a comprehensive critique of the Orissa RTI Rules, made a categorical observation that the whole of the said Rules are not only anti-people, but also ultra vires of the main Act and should therefore be withdrawn and be replaced by a fresh set of appropriate, citizen-friendly Rules based upon the public.

Smt. Sujata Kartikeyan, Collector Sundargarh district who was the Chief Guest on the occasion delivered the concluding speech. She observed that the omissions and commissions in the Orissa RTI Rules, if there be any should be sorted out in due course by the Government. She further assured that however adverse the Orissa RTI Rules might be, she would ensure that no citizen in her district is harassed or penalized by the public authorities in course their seeking information under the RTI Act. She further emphasized that the poor and disadvantaged people of the district should avail the provisions of this Act to realize their manifold human rights. The Workshop came to a close after the vote of thanks was offered by Sri Satyabrata Jena, Secretary District Press Club.

Based upon the deliberations of the Workshop, a Memorandum as follows was drafted by the organizers for endorsement to the concerned authorities for amending the existing Orissa RTI Rules. 

MEMORANDUM OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL WORKSHOP ON RTI ACT 2005 AND ORISSA RULES HELD AT LEPHRIPARA, SUNDARGARH ON 4.12. 2005 

1.   The RTI Act in its Section-7(5) has categorically said 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 of 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 Sections 27 and 28 of RTI Act have categorically specified the four kinds of fees only, beyond which no appropriate Government or competent authority can impose any other fees. But the Orissa Rules have made an ultra vires provision in prescribing such extraneous fees as fee for 1^st and 2^nd appeals and inspection of documents (vide Schedule- 1) and also in prescribing the cost of damage under Rule-10 and deposit of expenditure for production of witness or documents under the Rule-12 to be paid by the applicant and appellant respectively. These extraneous provisions need to be struck off to bring the Orissa Rules in compatibility with the RTI Act 2005.

3.  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, made by the concerned PIO in course of collecting the material sample, on to the shoulders of the citizen who applied for the said sample, is not only ultra vires of the RTI Act, but also contravenes natural justice. How is it that the citizen shall pay for the nuisance if any committed by the PIO? Rather the Section 19(8b) of the RTI Act obliges the concerned public authority to compensate for any loss or damage 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.

4.    The Rule-12 (Deposit of Expenditure) is another detestable and ultra vires provision made under the Orissa RTI Rules, which 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.  

5.(A)   Abolish 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, 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.’

5.(B)     Abolish 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” which is ultra vires of the Section 6(2) of the RTI Act.

6.  (A)    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 too of 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).

6. (B)   Any attempt to prescribe a compulsory, written application form, as is sought to be imposed by the Orissa RTI Rules is ultra vires of the RTI Act, which in its Section 6(1b) allows the citizens to make 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 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 as provided currently under Form-C on the ground that the Application Form has not been filled up  “ complete in all respects”.

7.  The Form-B (Intimation for Payment) under the Orissa Rules may be retained, with one amendment i.e. it should mention the detail break up of the fees, in stead of the block amount only, that a citizen applicant has to pay as required under the Section 7(3a) of the RTI Act.

8.   The Form-C (Intimation of Rejection) as it stands now is not only prohibitive of people’s right to information, but also ultra vires of 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 on corruption and human rights violation to be disclosed though 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 of the mother Act:

Col. (ii)- Your application was not complete in all respects.

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 both redundant and ultravires in many respects and therefore deserves to be recast thoroughly in line with Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005. 

9. 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 have conspicuously failed to make the appropriate Rules on the following matters, which need to be made up at the earliest and that too following the due procedure, as mandated under the RTI Act.

a.       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.

b.      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.

c.       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.

d.       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

10.. As per the Section 24 of the Orissa General Clauses Act 1937, every rule made under an Act should be published widely in various media to elicit public opinion thereon. Again, the Section 4(1c) of the RTI Act says that every public authority should ‘publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public’. Again, the Section 4(1b-vii) emphasizes that every public authority should have an arrangement “for consultation with or representation by the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof.”  But the arbitrary manner in which the recent notification of the Orissa RTI Rules has been made just on the verge of the scheduled date of final enforcement of the Act violates the above two statutory obligations. So the Govt. of Orissa and all competent authorities in the State should place their respective draft rules under the RTI Act in the public domain for opinion by the members of the public, following which the same could be finally notified in the Gazette of Orissa, as required under Section 27(1) of the Act.

ON BEHALF OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL WORKSHOP ON RTI ACT 2005 AND ORISSA RULES HELD AT LEPHRIPARA, SUNDARGARH ON 4.12.2005.

Copy to-

- Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Govt of India, New Delhi

- Mr. Navin Patnaik, Chief Minister, Orissa, Bhubaneswar

- Mr.Debasis Nayak, Minister of State for I & PR, Orissa, Bhubaneswar

- Governor, Orissa, Bhubaneswar