Draft rules won’t undermine the RTI Act
Everyone has a right to get the information sought by an applicant, even if that person were to die
The government issued a circular on March 31 proposing changes to the right to information (RTI) Act. Most citizens and the media have shown considerable concern at these and there has been a feeling that the government is trying to emasculate RTI. Most people and institutions hail transparency for others, but are reluctant to give information about themselves. For this reason, I am suspicious when changes are sought to be made in RTI.
In the draft rules the most controversial is rule 12, which proposes that a second appeal can be withdrawn by the appellant and it would abate on the death of an appellant. This appears to be in the belief that when the seeker of information does not want the information it need not be given. By the same logic when she dies, it cannot be given to the applicant.
It has not been appreciated that the information sought in RTI belongs to all citizens since they own the government and information held by it. Thus everyone has the right to get the information which is sought by an applicant. Allowing withdrawal of RTI appeals would be a direct encouragement to undesirable pressure on applicants, and deal making. This proposed rule should be modified to state that when an appeal is withdrawn or an appellant dies, the information sought shall be placed on the website.
Some have made the charge that the rules increase the fees. When a large amount of information is sought, it is reasonable if the applicant pays for the postage. Similarly there has been some concern at the information seeking being restricted to 500 words. From my experience I can state that this is adequate for most cases. In some rare case where there is a real need for a longer RTI application two applications could be filed, which would lead to an additional fee of ₹10.
The draft rules have a provision for the commission to convert a complaint into a second appeal. This is a positive provision. However, Section 13 (1)(i) requires that a RTI application must accompany every complaint. This requirement should be removed.
The rules require an appeal or complaint to be made to the commission in double spacing. This should be changed since it would lead to wastage of paper.
On the balance, this does not appear to be a move to consciously dilute the law and its efficacy. If rule 12 is changed to mandate placing on the website information sought be any appellant who has died, it would be a balanced set of rules.