Many government employees and citizens often encounter old Office Memorandums (OMs) or circulars that seem outdated or their current validity is unclear. This can lead to confusion and affect decisions related to service matters, pensions, and other administrative issues. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, provides a powerful tool to seek clarity on such matters. This article delves into a specific RTI case where a citizen sought to ascertain the validity of old government orders, highlighting how RTI can be used to get precise information and the challenges involved.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this case, the RTI applicant had a crucial question about the current applicability of two very old Office Memorandums (OMs) issued Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in 1958 and 1970. These OMs were likely related to government service rules. The applicant, filing an RTI application with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), wanted to know definitively if these specific historical government orders were still in effect. Furthermore, the applicant also sought clarification on a specific service matter: whether the case of a government servant who resigned from one government position to join another government job would be handled under Rule 5(f) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The Public Information Officer (PIO) initially responded that the MHA circulars were too old and were not available within the Department. The PIO did, however, provide the applicant with a copy of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the PIO indicated a lack of readily available records for the very old MHA circulars. The PIO’s statement that the documents were “not available” suggested that either they had been archived and were not easily retrievable, or they had been superseded and destroyed without proper record-keeping. While the PIO did provide the relevant service rules, the core question about the validity of the specific OMs remained unanswered due to the unavailability of the documents themselves. This is a common challenge when dealing with very old administrative issuances.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter escalated to the Central Information Commission (CIC) when the applicant was unsatisfied with the PIO’s response regarding the validity of the old MHA OMs. During the hearing before the CIC, the respondent (representing the public authority) reiterated that the MHA circulars cited appellant were no longer in use and had been superseded. They emphasized that the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, were the currently applicable regulations for such service matters. The respondent also confirmed that a copy of these rules had already been provided to the applicant, implying that this was the pertinent information available to address the applicant’s query concerning service rules.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, after hearing the arguments, ultimately rejected the appeal. The Commission’s decision was based on the assertion that the MHA circulars from 1958 and 1970 were no longer available or in use. The CIC reasoned that a PIO cannot be expected to validate or provide information that is officially unavailable or obsolete. The Commission effectively stated that the public authority had provided the information that was available and relevant based on current rules, and it was not feasible to retrieve or validate historical documents that were no longer part of the official record. This decision underscores a critical point: while RTI mandates disclosure of information, it cannot compel the creation of information or the retrieval of records that have been lost, destroyed, or are no longer officially maintained.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understand the Limits of RTI: The RTI Act requires public authorities to provide information that exists and is held . It does not obligate them to create new information, conduct research, or retrieve documents that are no longer available or have been destroyed as per record retention policies.
- Lesson 2: Focus on Current Applicability: When inquiring about old rules or circulars, it’s often more fruitful to ask about their current status or if they have been superseded regulations. The focus should be on what is currently in force.
- Lesson 3: Be Specific but Realistic: While it’s good to be specific about the information you need, as the applicant was with the specific OMs, it’s also important to be realistic about the availability of very old or obscure documents. If the authority states a document is unavailable, and it’s plausible (e.g., very old, not part of active record), the PIO may not be able to provide it.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or office is the custodian of the information you seek. For service rules and OMs, the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) or the administrative ministry concerned is usually the right place.
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State your request precisely. Mention the specific OMs, circulars, or rules you are inquiring about.
- Ask About Current Validity: Phrase your question to seek clarity on whether the mentioned documents are still valid, superseded, or withdrawn. For example, “Are the Office Memorandums bearing reference [number] dated [date] and [number] dated [date], issued by [Ministry/Department], still in effect? If not, please provide details of the superseding orders or the current applicable rules.”
- Be Prepared for Potential Responses: Understand that if the documents are very old, the authority might state they are unavailable. In such cases, the focus shifts to understanding the current rules that govern the matter.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide information regarding the current validity and applicability of the Office Memorandum(s) issued Ministry of Home Affairs, specifically the OM dated [Date of OM 1] and the OM dated [Date of OM 2]. If these OMs are no longer in effect, please provide details of the superseding orders or the currently applicable rules governing the subject matter they addressed. Additionally, please clarify if the case of a government servant who resigns from one government job to accept another government job is dealt with under Rule 5(f) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, or any other prevailing rule.
Conclusion
This case highlights that while the RTI Act is a powerful tool for transparency, its effectiveness is also bound record-keeping practices of public authorities. Citizens seeking information about very old government orders should be aware that such documents might not be available. However, their RTI applications strategically, focusing on current applicability, and understanding the limitations, individuals can still leverage the RTI Act to gain clarity on a wide range of government actions and policies. The goal is to seek what is available and relevant, ensuring that administrative processes remain transparent and accountable.
