Re: [HumJanenge] INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6(3) OF THE RTI ACT 2005 IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 13 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT 1897

This is another attempt by the DoPT, representing the govt. of India in the matter of RTI, to blunt the RTI Act.  It seems that a group in the govt. has been set up to conduct the research on the Act and find such lucane and use them to make the Act toothless.   Mr. Bhanot's reply has exposed the DoPT and it should immediately withdraw the circular. If this is not done, DoPT's interpretaton should be challenged in the Court on the basis of general clauses Act and on other grounds.. --- On Sun, 1/5/11, Surendera M. Bhanot <surendera@avissoftware.com> wrote: From: Surendera M. Bhanot <surendera@avissoftware.com> Subject: [HumJanenge] INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6(3) OF THE RTI ACT 2005 IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 13 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT 1897 To: ""*Dir RTI DoPT"" <dirrti-dopt@nic.in> Date: Sunday, 1 May, 2011, 11:38 PM INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6(3) OF THE RTI ACT 2005 IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 13 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT 1897   To Sh. K.G. Verma, Director, RIGHT TO INFORMATION, Department of Personnel and Training,  Government of India New Delhi India Sir, Please refer to Part IV, Section 5(3) of Guide to RTI Act 2005 circulated by DoPT vide its Number No. 1/4/2009-IR dated 5.10.2009. it has been directed that under section 6(3) of the RTI act, the application under RTI is to be transferred to only one public authority. The justification has been given that sub-section (3) refers to 'another public authority' and not to 'other public authorities' and that use of singular form in the Act in this regard is important to note.  In this regard it is submitted that the interpretation of the DoPT that the PIO is not required to transfer the under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, if the information "which is held by another public authority; or  the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority", is not as per the law of the land. The interpretation is 'misconceived', in the light of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which  refer to Gender and number and says " In all (Central Acts) and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.- Words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females, and words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa.".   There is absolutely nothing in Section 6 of the RTI Act 2005 to indicate that the legislature intended that the request for information should confine to one subject or one public authority only."   The only requirement of the Section is that the request shall be in writing and accompanied by prescribed fees and the particulars of the information sought by the applicant are specified. Contrary intention to exclude the operation of the rule that the singular includes the plural cannot be inferred merely because the relevant provision is drafted in the singular. The act has been enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and casts responsibility on every public authority to provide information unless it is exempt under the act. The interpretation suggested by the commission tends to defeat the very purpose of the act." Moreover, it is the settled law that the instruction, guidelines, directives, orders, rules and regulations must be in consonance with the law of the land (here Section 13 if the General Clauses Act, 1897) and does not have any overriding effect over and above the provisions of law of the land. Any such instruction, guidelines, directives, orders, rules and regulations are ultra-virus and null and void ab-nitio. The recent example in this case is the striking down of the Central RTI Regulations by the Delhi High Court, which were found to be having overriding effect over the basic law. DoPT has not learnt the lesson from it and has repeated the same mistake by an over enthusiastic officer of the DoPT who looked upon to find novel ways to suppress information or to put the information seekers to a greater difficulty. This argument was also lead before the Sh. Kulbir Singh,  Hon'ble State Information Commissioner, Punjab in an Appeal No. AC-141 of 2011 being heard by him. He had been passing the orders as suggested by the DoPT in its above Circular. But in this case he has to reserve the orders after I insisted that the matter argued before him and written submission made to him in this regard may be brought on record. It is also pertinent to draw your kind attention that Section 218 of IPC invokes in this case, which reads as under: Section 218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.-Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. The reading of other provisions of IPC Section 181 to Section 221 are also very relevant in this case. In view of above, it is requested that the above instruction may please be withdrawn immediately from the retrospective date and all the CIC/SIC may be instructed to reopen and review all such cases wherein the decision/orders were passed n the basis of this erroneous circular of the DoPT. Thanking you, copies sent to all RTI forums, press and human right NGOs -- "Our biggest competition is never with the others. Instead, it is always within ourselves. It doesn't matter if where we end up - first or at last. If we do our best to do better than before, we've won" Warm Regards Surendera M. Bhanot - President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh - Youth for Human Rights International YHRI - South Asia - CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh  - Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh - Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh - Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh - Member, RTI Activist Federation, Punjab, Chandigarh No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022 Mob: +91-9888-810-811 PHONE: +91-172-2780838 FAX: 0871 266 8523  Mail Me DISCLAIMER: You have received this email because you any one time contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word 'UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body of the mail. Please do not disturb the Subject line. I am sorry to see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help me improve my services in future. Thanks