RE: [HumJanenge] Objections regarding changes in RTI rules

The 22 nd December,2010. To, The Secretary RTI Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel Training North Block, NEW DELHI                       SUBJECT:    Submissions related to "Amendment to RTI Rules                       Reference    File No. 1/35/2008-IR  Sir,    Kindly refer to your public notice vide File No. 1/35/2008-IR dated 10.12.2010   on the subject mentioned above, which reads as follows:   G.S.R…..- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005) and in supersession of the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 and the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:- Now , we quote below the Section 27 of of the Right to Information Act, 2005   Section 27  (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:— (a) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4; (b) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6; (c) the fee payable under sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7; (d) the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees under sub-section (6) of section 13 and sub-section (6) of section 16; (e) the procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the appeals under sub-section (10) of section 19; and (f) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.   In this connection, We  have to submit that  we  oppose some of the  proposed changes for the following reasons:- RULE-4   The proposal to limit the RTI Application to (i) one subject matter and (ii) to 250 words are not only against the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, 2005, but are ill-timed also. The RTI has completed its 5 years and all the Public Authority failed to implement the  section 4 (1)(a) and 4 (1)(b) and in place of fulfilling this mandatory obligation, inserting the above lines  may prove a death nail to the RTI Act,2005..  More over,  please inform the citizens as to what shall be mechanism for counting of the words and can a genuine application be rejected on the ground of it being of 251 words for example? Other questions that may arise are why only 250, why not 300 or 200 or 1000 …  This is very much against the section 27 of the RTI Act. We therefore express our strong disagreement with the said provision and oppose any such proposal to limit the scope of the citizens' right to information    RULE-5  When we talk about the actual price in 5(b) than it will be appropriate to make the similar provision for 5 (a). Since the photocopy charge for A-4 size is Rs.0.50 P. in the open market. RULE-5  (g) This is very much against the section 27 of the RTI Act.  The proposal to charge the actual amount spent by public authority on hiring a machine or any other equipment, if any, to supply information is ill-advised, and intends to scuttle the RTI Act itself, as the Government is supposed to possess entire infra-structure for the purpose The CPIO may demand the cost of  Photo copying  machine also, if he wants to harass the applicant or may come up with some other unusual demands . This leads to absurdity; tomorrow an officer would propose why not to charge the salary of the concerned employees/Information Commissioner from the RTI Applicant;   Are there some rules prescribed for hiring of such machines or equipments and if not is it left open for the PIO to decide who will benefit from such hiring by the PIO? Are we opening a gateway to a new form of corruption by including such charges in the proposed rules? Can the supply of information be delayed on ground of the time taken for carrying out the process of hiring of machine and equipments?   RULE-5  (h) This is very much against the section 27 of the RTI Act.  This provision clearly   gives some discretionary power to CPIO for not supplying the information. An ordinary post costs Rs.5/- and another Rs. 3/- for Under certificate of Posting, which is easily manageable by in body.   RULE- 7. Appeal to the first Appellate Authority: This is very much against the section 27 of the RTI Act. The format for the first appellate Authority will  lead to lot of confusion amongst the general public and especially rural masses  RULE  15. Presentation by the Public Authority: The public authority may authorize any representative or any of its officers to present its case. In Uttar Pradesh most of the Public Authority deputes their junior clerks for hearing before the commission. If this is inserted , non of the senior officers, CPIO or FAA will appear before the commission and in their absence no any decision can be taken. This may cause further litigations by the Public Authority   This leads to absurdity. This proposal is also against the section 4(1)(a) of the RTI act which puts the onus on the public authorities to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated. It is not understood as to why the citizen should be made to pay if the concerned public authority has not fulfilled its obligations of proper maintenance and cataloguing of the records.   Kindly drop these amendments and oblige.   Yours Sincerely,       VIKRAM SINGH Chairman TRAP group of RTI activists 18 G, Royal Kaveri Apartment, Swarna Jayanti Nagar, ALIGARH-202001 Phone: 0571 2742625 Bimal Khemani RTI activist ALIGARH-202001 INDIA Mob:935-972-4625 --- On Fri, 24/12/10, Dr. NC JAIN <j_nc@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Dr. NC JAIN <j_nc@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] Objections regarding changes in RTI rules To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Friday, 24 December, 2010, 6:19 PM In my view, propsed amendment is right. It is due to the fact, that application should be  precise and to the point. Under RTI, you are getting information and not fighting a judicial case. DR N C Jain 23-12-10   > Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 05:41:44 -0800 > Subject: [HumJanenge] Objections regarding changes in RTI rules > From: rmadhok_pgm@bsnl.in > To: HumJanenge@googlegroups.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: rajneesh madhok > To: usrtidovt@nic.in > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:50 PM > Subject: Objections regarding changes in RTI rules. > > > Sir, > 1. The proposed amendment to the limitation of 250 words and > limitation to only one topic is against the purview of Right to > information Act for the general public. > 2. In other words we can say that such amendment will defeat the very > purpose of enacting the landmark legislation for the benefit of > general public. > 3. The proposed amendment made by DOPT would take away the benefits > provided to the general public as it is called the tools to seeks > information by the villagers as well. > 4. The charges proposed to be levied on RTI Applicants for money spent > by Public authority on hiring a machine or any other equipment to > supply information is against the facilities provided to the common > citizens of India. The present modification in the rules of Fee and > Cost is against the common citizen. > 5. The comments have been invited by E-mail at usrtidovt@nic.in till > December 27 is the step not in favour of common citizen as every > citizen has not having access to internet. > 6. The time period of two weeks to submit one's observations is very > less. > 7. The semi literate and illiterate people how can submit their views > regarding amendments though they are the main users of RTI Act. > 8. How illiterate people will precise its writing to the specific > words. Whether they have to seek experts services for the law framed > for the general public. > 9. If the law had been framed then the PIO will reject most of the > applications submitted to them. > 10. The Govt. in one side promise to provide infrastructure for the > common people and on the other hand creating hurdles for the general > public. > 11. I request department not to introduce the changes in the > legislation as this act has been framed for the general public. > 12. The department should provide adequate training to the staff and > most of the information should be uploaded on the websites of the > departments to avoid the use of unnecessary flow of applications > regarding general informations. > Regards, > Rajneesh Madhok, > B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar, > St. No. 2, Railway Road, > Phagwara-144401 (Pb) > Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R), 094173-06415 > Tele-fax: 01824-262569, E-mail: rajneesh_madhok@yahoo.com; > rmadhok_pgm@bsnl.in