In a major boost to citizens and activists, a Committee set up by DoPT has recommended that there is no provision in the RTI Act or Rules to make any standard format for applications and so it should be done away with

Many Right to Information (RTI) applicants in Maharashtra and perhaps in other States where a standard format has been laid out by the respective governments face problems if they do not abide by it. Now, however, they are not bound by such a diktat, as a Committee appointed by the Department of Personnel & Training ( DOPT) has made it clear that no such provision (for specific format) exists in the RTI Act.

In the summary of the report issued by DoPT on 11th November, which will soon be circulated to the Public Authorities as guidelines, the Department clearly stated, “There should not be a model/ standard format for reply to the RTI application, as there is no such provision in the RTI Act or the RTI rules.”

The observations/ recommendations of the DoPT appointed Committee, instituted to evolve model format for RTI replies, comprised representatives of the Department, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Central Information Commission (CIC) and was submitted on 29th October.

Similarly, the Committee has recommended that the Public Information Officer (PIO) too need not have any typical format for replying though relevant details should be given in the reply and relevant sections should be quoted in case of denial of information.

After the circular of 17th October in Maharashtra by the state government, regarding, non-disclosure of “personal” details under RTI Act, there has been a lot of confusion and suppressing of information by the PIOs. Now, that this relevant and pro-public guidelines have been uploaded on the DoPT website, one hopes the Maharashtra government would issue a formal note.

Leading RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, says, “The state government, which has been issuingcirculars by the dozens on issues like removing Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) from the RTI Act or confusing PIOs with the ‘personal’ information circular, should now gracefully make this important pro-people circular known through media and official websites of all public authorities. People are still harassed in case they do not file the RTI application in the required format as has been laid down by the state government.”

RTI activist and research scholar, Venkatesh Nayak though says that the DoPT did not do public consultation, before issuing the note. “The Government has issued guidelines for PIOs on how to reply to RTI applications. Strangely, the Committee comprising of a few government representatives has issued these guidelines without any consultation with others on the supply and demand side of information. While the guidelines are not bad, they are minimalistic. Civil society organisations (CSOs) and activists could have provided better advice to the Committee, if only if they had advertised this Committee's constitution. So much, for compliance with the consultation policy that was announced in January this year.”

Following are the observations of the Committee:

I. There is neither any provision in the RTI Ad or RTI Rules for a model/standard format of RTI application nor any provision for a model/standard format for reply to the RTI applications.

II. Presently, neither any standard practice nor any standard format is being used by the CPIOs in reply to the RTI applications.

In view of the above observations, the Committee has made the following recommendations :

a) There should not be a model/standard format for reply to the RTI application, as there is no such provision in the RTI Act or the RTI rules.

b) Moreover, keeping in view that there is no standard format for RTI applications, there could not be a standard format for their reply.

c) However, the following points can be uniformity adopted by the CPIOs while replying to the RTI applications:

i. The name, designation, official telephone no. and email I.D. of the CPIOs should be clearly mentioned.

ii. In case the information requested for is denied, reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Ad should be clearly mentioned.

iii. In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.

iv. In the concluding para of the reply, there should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.

v. The name, designation, address, official telephone no. and e-mail I.D. of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned.

 vi. Wherever the applicant has requested for certified copies of the documents or records, the CPIO should certify the documents or records by putting a seal of his name, designation and signing with date. Above the seal, the remarks that "documents/records provided under the RTI Act" should be endorsed.

(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)

Source:  moneylife.in