Losing out on crucial information, especially when it concerns significant life events like childbirth, can be incredibly frustrating. Many citizens have faced a similar situation where they seek details from a government department or hospital, only to be told the records are no longer available. This case highlights how the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, can still offer recourse even when records are claimed to be weeded out. It underscores the importance of a proper affidavit from the Public Information Officer (PIO) to confirm the non-availability of information.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this instance, an individual filed an RTI application with a medical college. He sought specific details related to the birth of his daughter, including the names of doctors present in the operation theatre, the time it took for his wife to be moved to the ward, and the details of the medical staff who attended to her. This information was vital for him to understand the circumstances surrounding his child’s birth.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the medical college responded that the information requested could not be provided. The PIO explained that the case sheet from 2001, the year of the event, had been weeded out according to the hospital’s record retention policy. Furthermore, information pertaining to the Anesthesia Department and Blood Bank, also relevant to the request, indicated that their 2001 records were unavailable. The PIO mentioned that the only available record was an entry in a book noting the birth of a female baby.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent from the medical college reiterated their stance. They argued that records are typically retained for only seven years as per the scheduled preservation policy. Therefore, the information sought appellant was no longer available. The appellant, however, was not satisfied with this explanation and insisted on receiving the details he had requested, including the names of doctors and nurses who attended his wife.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, after hearing both sides, delivered a crucial order. The Commission directed the PIO to furnish an affidavit. This affidavit was to clearly state the factual situation and affirm that the information sought appellant could not be provided due to the non-availability of records. Crucially, the affidavit also had to include the reasons for the non-availability of these records. This order is significant because it places the onus on the public authority to officially document and justify the absence of information, rather than simply stating it verbally or in a basic letter. It ensures a formal process for record destruction or non-availability.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Demand an Affidavit for Non-Availability: If a PIO claims records are unavailable, insist on a formal affidavit. This affidavit must clearly state the non-availability and the reasons behind it. This is a procedural requirement under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, which mandates that information shall be provided or rejected within 30 days. If rejected due to non-availability, the PIO must justify it formally.
- Lesson 2: Understand Record Retention Policies: While public authorities have record retention policies, the mere completion of the retention period is not always a valid ground for denial. The PIO must be able to demonstrate that the records were indeed destroyed as per procedure, ideally with a destruction memo. The CIC’s comments in this case suggest that simply stating records are weeded out is insufficient.
- Lesson 3: Persistence Pays Off: Even when faced with initial rejections or claims of non-availability, persistent and well-articulated RTI applications, followed to the First Appellate Authority and then the CIC, can lead to favorable outcomes. The CIC’s intervention ensures accountability.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which department or institution holds the information you need.
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: Be specific about the information you are seeking. Mention the relevant period and the nature of the information (e.g., names of staff, dates, procedures).
- Submit Your Application: Pay the requisite fee and submit the application to the PIO of the concerned authority.
- Follow Up and Appeal: If you receive an unsatisfactory reply or no reply within the stipulated time (usually 30 days), file a First Appeal. If the First Appellate Authority’s decision is also unsatisfactory, you can then file a Second Appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC) or the State Information Commission (SIC).
Sample RTI question you can use:
“Please provide an affidavit from the Public Information Officer confirming the non-availability of records pertaining to [mention the specific event, e.g., the birth of my child on DD/MM/YYYY] at [mention the department/ward]. The affidavit should clearly state the reasons for the non-availability of these records and the date on which they were purportedly weeded out or destroyed, along with any supporting documentation or destruction memo, if available.”
Conclusion
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the RTI Act is a tool for transparency and accountability. Even when faced with the claim that records are no longer available, citizens have the right to demand a formal justification. their rights and diligently pursuing their requests, individuals can ensure that public authorities are held to account and that crucial information is not arbitrarily withheld. Remember to always be specific, persistent, and aware of your rights under the RTI Act.
