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

To:
1) Shri Rajeev Kapur/JS-ATA/DoPT (& webmaster)
2) Ms. Alka Sirohi/Secretary/DoPT

Dear Sir / Madam

BY EMAIL

PUBLIC GRIEVANCE PETITION

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 department 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.

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 erroneous instruction
may please be withdrawn immediately from the retrospective date.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181