A Training Module on "Transparency and Accountability" has been prepared by  
State Institute of Rural Development, Dept. of Panchayati Raj for capacity 
building of Panchayat Representatives in Orissa. This work is a part of Project 
Dakhayat, an ambitious project funded by DFID and Govt. of India. Very recently 
we happened to come  across  the above document in course of a training 
programme organised for Panchayat Representatives in Angul district. Just a 
close look into the contents of this module, and one realizes what a misleading 
and misinforming document it is ! If allowed as a manual for the trainers, 
which it is slated to be, we are sure, this so-called training module will not 
only confuse the Panchayat Representatives about the historic RTI Act but also 
certainly discourage them from using it.


So far following lacunae of major types have come to our notice:



1.  Page No- 47

In an attempt to define "Information", it is mentioned that "File Noting" does 
not come within the definition of information. This is false, since nowhere it 
is written in the Act. The Central Information Commission has already made it 
clear that  File Noting comes within the purview of the definition of 
Information. Not only in Orissa but also in many States across the country, the 
Public Authorities have been providing copy of the 'file notings' to the 
applicant citizens. For instance, on 29th January 2009, the PIO, Dept. of 
Panchayat Raj Orissa has provided  a copy of  the File Noting of Minister for 
Panchayati  Raj on Project Dakhyata in response to the application by Mr. 
Pradip Pradhan, an Applicant under RTI Act.



2. Page-48

Under the Head "Type of the information", it is mentioned that the information 
relating to Human Rights can be given within 45 days. Such an over-simplistic   
statement is misleading, because firstly, it is not information relating to 
'human rights' as such but information in respect of 'allegations pertaining to 
violation of human rights' or that pertaining to 'corruption' which are subject 
to disclosure by the notified security and intelligence agencies, despite the 
exemption from disclosure allowed to them in respect of other types of 
information.  Secondly, information in respect of allegations pertaining to 
human rights violation can't be provided within 45 days as such, but subject to 
approval by the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, 
as the case may be, whose approval might have been sought within the specified 
period of 45 days. But as regards the information pertaining to corruption, 
there is no exemption from disclosure or conditionality of Commission's 
approval or extended time limit of 45 days. Thus the information pertaining to 
allegations of corruption has to be provided by the notified agencies within 30 
days from the date of request as required under Section 7 of Act. (Vide Section 
24 of Act).



3. Page-51

The above Manual has created confusion by clubbing together 'appeal and 
complaint' under on head. In fact, the RTI Act has made two separate 
arrangements, one for Appeal (Section 19) and another for Complaint 
(Section-18). While the appeal is a two-stage process, the complaint is a 
single-stage, direct method to reach to the Commission. The manner in which the 
Manual has confused between the two, the reader shall not get any correct idea 
about either.



4. Page -55

The Manual mentions that prior to penalising PIO, opportunity will be given  to 
him  for his opinion. Such a statement is not only one-sided but also biased in 
favour of the defaulter PIO and against the appellant/complainant. Nowhere it  
is found in the Act. In fact, the RTI Act speaks of two things on this matter. 
On one hand, it says, before penalisng a PIO, the PIO 'shall be given a 
reasonable opportunity of being heard'. But next to it, it is mentioned on the 
other, " Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably 
and dilligently shall be on the Central  Public information Officer or State 
Public Information Officer as the case may be." (vide Section 20-1).



5. Silence on Citizens' right to access suo motu information under Section-4:

The Manual deals very scrappily about an outstanding feature of RTI Act i.e. 
the obligation of every public authority to make as much proactive disclosure 
of information about itself as possible so that the people shall feel the least 
compulsion. to apply under the Act to get an information (Section 4-2). In fact 
the Section 4 of the Act provides for two things at a time i.e (1) Obligation 
of public authorities for making such suo motu disclosures; and (2) Citizens' 
Right to inspect and access instantly such suo motu disclosures without having 
to make any application or to deposit application fee. Further, Rule 2(2) of 
Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006 obligates every public authority to maintain 
a register to record the particulars of citizens visiting an office for 
inspecting suo motu information under Section 4 of Act. But the Manual has 
simply mentioned about 17 types of documents to be disclosed but is totally 
silent on citizens' right to access such information and procedure thereof.



6. Silence about exemption of BPL families from any payment under RTI Act:

The above Manual is completely silent about the exemption of BPL families from 
paying any fees, as mandated under Section 7(5) of the RTI Act. The latest 
guideline dated 27th Feb. 08 issued by the national level nodal agency for RTI, 
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, GOI, which the State 
nodal agency Dept. of I&PR displays on its website says at Para-18 , "If the 
applicant belongs to below poverty line (BPL) category, he is not required to 
pay any fee. However, he should submit a proof in support of his claim to 
belong to the below poverty line". Besides the official version of Oriya 
translation of RTI Act, which is available on Orissa Suchana Commission's 
Website clearly says at Section 7(5) that BPL families can't be charged with 
any of the three fees (application fee, cost of information fee and additional 
cost of information fee), which non-BPL persons are required to pay. The 
Manual's silence on this important legal right of BPL families is simply 
unwarranted in view of the fact that as much as 47% of Orissa's population 
belong to BPL category.





7. Silence about the right of the citizens aggrieved by the Commission to 
approach the Governor:

It has been noticed that many citizens whose complaints or appeals have not 
been entertained by the Orissa Suchana Commission or who have been aggrieved by 
an allegedly unjust decision of the Commission don't know what to do next. In 
fact the Section 17 of the Act provides for the powers of Governor to enquire 
into the allegations against the Commissioners on charges of corruption, 
incapacity or moral turpitude and also to suspend or dismiss them from office 
on these grounds. As such the Section 17 confers a great power to the common 
citizens to move against the apparently highest appellate authority under RTI 
Act i.e Suchana Commission and as well entrusts a great obligation on the 
Governor to take penal, remedial or deterrent action against the Commissioners. 
The above Manual by its silence over Section 17 has sought to keep the people 
of the State in dark about a great right of theirs to question the questionable 
act and behaviour of the Commissioners.



8. Silence about the procedure of access and appeal in respect of Central Govt 
Offices:

Everybody knows that besides the offices under the control of State Govt there 
are several Offices under the control of Central Govt. located in Orissa such 
as Post Office, Railway, BSNL, Nationalised Banks, Reserve Bank of India, 
Regional Research Laboratory, Geological Survey of India, Doordarshan and All 
India Radio etc. The above Manual only informs about the RTI Rules applicable 
to Offices of Govt of Orissa, but completely ignores that which is applicable 
to Central Govt. Offices. It is a fact that the Rules applicable to Central 
Govt Offices are not only dissimilar but also much simpler and cheaper than the 
Orissa RTI Rules. For instance, just to make application for information to any 
Office of State Govt., one has to take the trouble of getting together a filled 
Application Form (Form-A), a photocopy of voter's card, disclosure of personal 
information like permanent address, spouse name and particulars of citizenship 
identity besides a treasury challan for application fee or submission 
physically to the PIO of application fee in cash; whereas he/she needn't 
undergo any such hassles to apply for information to a Central Govt office. The 
above Manual by remaining silent about the simpler and citizen-friendly RTI 
Rules of Central Government, does, not only keep the people ignorant about how 
to avail their right to information in respect of Central Govt Offices, but 
also promote the spread of a misleading impression as if the Orissa RTI Rules 
is applicable to every office, be it of State Government or of Central 
Government.

 

Reply via email to