Too high a bar

New RTI rules make queries too dangerous

The notification of new rules for the Right to Information (RTI) Act announced two weeks ago has raised the bar for information seekers. The new rules mean that many RTI applications could cost more. Also, in cases where the applicant appeals to the Central Information Commission (CIC) due to a reluctance on the part of the relevant public authority to provide information, the rules imply that the applicant must be present or available on video-conference. This provision is wrong-headed: it could inconvenience applicants, or even put them in physical danger.

The salient changes start with a stipulation that applications should “ordinarily” be restricted to 500 words, though “no application shall be rejected on the ground that it contains more than five hundred words”. This attempt to impose brevity is reasonable, though in complex cases the suggested word limit may be severely restrictive. The applicant will have to pay additional postal charges in cases of “supply of information that exceeds fifty rupees” unless the applicant is below the poverty line and provides BPL certificates. The additional charges will be equal to the excess over Rs 50. In practice, this could mean significant cost-inflation for applicants. It may also cause delayed responses, given a back-and-forth process in which the public authority determines speed post charges and collects excess before disseminating information. It may even encourage obfuscation if the public authority decides to provide irrelevant information to drive costs over the Rs 50 limit. Would it not be simpler to allow the option of either physically collecting the documents or receiving them on email?

 

The RTI process has two levels of appeal. If the public authority concerned does not respond or responds unsatisfactorily, the applicant may go to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). If the FAA response is also unsatisfactory, the applicant may appeal to the CIC. A set format, including an index of documents to be attached, has now been laid down for such appeals. This is fair since it makes appeals easier to process. Under the old rules, however, this appeal could be processed in absentia with the CIC furnishing written responses. Under the new rules, the applicant or an appointed representative must be either present before the CIC or available on video-conference (not simply telephone). The public authority may be represented at the appeal by an authorised representative (which may mean a lawyer), rather than the respective public information officer (PIO). This implies that information seekers in effect have to be present at appeals to the CIC. This requirement will inconvenience information seekers, who are not based in Delhi, where the CIC is located, or are unable to organise video-conferencing facilities from wherever they are. Apart from causing additional expenses and potential inconvenience, the insistence on physical presence or on video-conference (where the applicant’s appearance is revealed) could also reinforce an existing factor of possible intimidation. There have already been multiple instances of RTI activists being physically assaulted, or even murdered, in the past few years. In the seven years since the Act came into force, RTI has led to a sea change in terms of transparency of governance. The new rules could impact this, by raising the burden of expenses in many cases, encouraging potential obfuscation and perhaps enhancing the scare factor.