** * * * Jharkhand News * <http://jharkhand.org.in/>
Seeking information under RTI a tough task for NRIs It had first claimed that Indian missions abroad did not come at all under the purview of RTI. And now, making access more difficult for NRIs, the Indian embassy in US has been refusing to entertain RTI applications that did not pertain to information held by it. This is despite an express provision, section 6(3) of the RTI Act, stating that if the subject matter of an application addressed to one public authority actually relates to another, then the former has to transfer it to the latter within five days. The mission in Washington admitted under RTI about a month ago that in 31 of the 45 queries received till then, the NRIs had been "advised to send their applications directly" to the public authorities based in India. The queries sought information on diverse public interest issues such as Narmada project, Nandigram, Dow Chemicals and Bhopal gas tragedy. Though section 6(3) contains no such condition, the embassy announced on its website that NRIs could send their applications to it "only when the subject matter can reasonably be presumed to pertain to the embassy." Disclaiming its statutory obligation to transfer such queries, the embassy said it would not entertain applications where "the information required obviously does not pertain to the embassy." When one of the NRIs asked it under RTI to disclose the file notings that led to the website statement, all that the embassy said was, "The information contained in the website was created by the public information officer (PIO) with the approval of the government of India." On the application filed by NRI Vishal Kudchadkar, the embassy also declined to provide the list of cases in which the applicants had been told to send their application directly to the public authorities in India. It said the disclosure of the list would violate the applicant's "privacy." The ground cited by the embassy for withholding information on the applicants flies in the face of the transparency maintained by the independent appellate body in New Delhi, Central Information Commission (CIC), which lists all its decisions on its website along with the names and addresses of the applicants. But NRIs are aggrieved with the conduct of CIC too. For, despite repeated reminders, the complaints sent by them to CIC all the way from US have not even been acknowledged, let alone being listed for hearing. Though Preeti Sampat, for instance, filed her complaint against the embassy way back on February 17, CIC has so far not sent any acknowledgement of it. Sampat's complaint is gathering dust although it brings out more evidence of the embassy's cavalier approach to RTI. On an application related to the Narmada project, the embassy's PIO first replied that the information was not available with it. When the applicant raised the section 6(3) argument in his first appeal, it was again the PIO who responded (instead of the designated appellate authority in the embassy) and he said that the transfer provision was not applicable since "an explicit request to do so" had not been made in the RTI application. Comments - Murgie Krishnan, New Jersey, says: I'm a US-based Indian citizen, academic, who sought information under RTI from SEBI and RBI. Concerned that whether or not I am a citizen may become an issue, to save time, since my passport was last renewed by the NY Consulate, I sent my RTI applications there with the PIO at the India's NY Consulate, Ms. Neena Malhotra, pointing out that I understood she would transfer it to the relevant PIO, and I even included the SEBI and RBI PIOs' contact details. After some back and forth, her secretary did not come back with the excuse in the story above -- "matter doesn't relate to the embassy" -- but said she was not "set up" to handle this, but would try and help "informally." I didn't understand what "informally" meant till I asked for at least a 1-line acknowledgment that my RTI requests had been received (I was concerned about the date that triggers off all the deadlines under the Act). I got none, and finally the secretary told me with some embarrassment that "informally" means no written acknowledgment will be given. In fairness to her, Dr. Malhotra appears to have successfully forwarded my RTI request to SEBI on email, and that SEBI acknowledgment she got she did forward me. In passing, Ms. Malhotra once said they didn't quite know what to do about application fees. (All this occurred in April 2007.) Whether she sent my RTI request to RBI, I don't know, but as it took 4 tries (4 separate RTI filings) to get RBI to acknowledge one request, the fault may not have been hers, but more likely RBI's. Even later when I finally got RBI to accept an application that I submitted with the help of a friend in Bombay, they made me send them proofs of identity and citizenship including passport pages three times. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Seeking_information_under_RTI_a_ tough_task_for_NRIs/articleshow/3224816.cms# * * * * . .
