Several circulars have been issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) — the nodal department for RTI which works under Prime Minister — since June last year which indicate the government is as committed to the RTI Act as the UPA.
The Right to Information (RTI) Act has changed the thinking and the style of functioning of government machinery in the last 10 years but it has run into official roadblocks too: many officials have learnt the fine art of how to confuse the applicant, provide misleading information or claim that the requisite information is exempt from the RTI.
While the present government has shown a commitment towards the transparency law through a number of circulars, many officers seem to be working against the spirit of transparency.
The outgoing UPA government had implemented RTI a decade ago as their flagship programme and the
Narendra Modi government is taking it forward.
Several circulars have been issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) — the nodal department for RTI which works under Prime Minister — since June last year which indicate the government is as committed to the RTI Act as the UPA.
These circulars include, a format for giving information to applicants, harmonising the RTI (Fee and Cost) Rules and Appeal Procedure Rules under Right to Information Act, implementation of Suo Motu disclosure under Section 4 of RTI Act and the uploading of RTI replies on the respective website of ministry/department.
However, the approach of officers in some government departments tells another story. Many years of experience in using the RTI to obtain information of public interest from the government offices shows that public authorities need to be trained to not misuse two sections of the RTI Act and one observation of the Supreme Court.
As per this reporter’s experience, the most misused sections of the RTI Act by the public authorities are Section 6(3) and Section 7(9).
Section 6(3) says that if a public authority receives a request for information which is held by another public authority, “the public authority, to which such an application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public
authority…”
Section 7(9) says that, “An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question…”
Some authorities pass the buck by using 6(3) without going through their own records.
Recently, a query to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CDBT) about the list of IRS officers on unauthorized absence was forwarded to every field office of the Income Tax while the information would be available in the personnel section of CBDT.
Officials often cite 7(9) for the denial of information. Moreover, a part of the Supreme Court bench’s order of August 2011 is now widely used by several authorities to avoid disclosures. The Supreme Court had stated, “The nation does not want a scenario where 75 percent of the staff of public authorities spends 75 percent of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular
duties.”
So, while the DoPT has issued regular circulars in favour of RTI, departments find ways to circumvent it.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/10-years-of-rti-while-the-government-is-willing-officials-are-not/#sthash.vxhYMdKV.dpuf
