RTI to get more directives, but info still hard to obtain
NEW MOVE With implementation of last year’s guidelines still pending, DoPT to now issue fresh rules for public information officers
NEW DELHI: The right to information (RTI) law is getting some more lip-service.
Nine years after the right to information law came into force, the department of personnel and training (DoPT) is still struggling to drive home the basic steps to be taken in handling information requests.
The department — that is the nodal policy-making body for the information law — has decided to issue guidelines listing out the basics that central public information officers (CPIO) should never skip.
The guideline is the fall-out of a committee that was set up last month to explore the possibility of coming up with a model format of replies that CPIOs could give to save them time. It concluded after just one meeting that this was impossible since there was no single format of the questions in the first place.
But every reply from a government department should contain the name, designation, phone number and email ID of the CPIO concerned.
Similar infor mation about an officer who can be approached to appeal against the decision should also be provided.
“In case the information requested for is denied, reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned,” the panel report said.
“That a committee had to lay down such basic points in its report indicates the resistance to transparency and the disdain for this law within sections of the civil service,” said a retired naval officer.
That sentiment appears to flow right from the top.
The cabinet secretariat — that sits at the head of the bureaucracy — hasn’t even started implementing the DoPT’s guidelines issued last year that required everyone to pro-actively put out information
When this correspondent filed an RTI application to ascertain what the cabinet secretariat had done with the proactive guidelines, the cabinet secretariat insisted it wasn’t even aware that they existed till they received the application. A month later, its website still hasn’t been updated.
It rejected another application on changes made to travel rules for ministers, saying a decision had been taken against releasing the information without citing under which provisions it was claiming exemp
tion.