Many Indian citizens face situations where they need to know the status of their complaints or representations made to government bodies. Whether it’s about financial transactions, property disputes, or service deficiencies, understanding what action has been taken is crucial. This is where the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, becomes an invaluable tool. This case highlights how an RTI applicant successfully pursued information about action taken on her complaints regarding share purchases, demonstrating the power of RTI in ensuring accountability and transparency from public authorities.
Background: What Information Was Sought
The crux of this case revolves around an RTI application filed with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The applicant had previously sent multiple letters, representations, and complaints to SEBI concerning the purchase of shares in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Dissatisfied with the lack of clear responses, she invoked the RTI Act to seek specific information. Her RTI applications aimed to ascertain the action SEBI had taken on the issues she had raised and to obtain copies of any correspondence exchanged with various entities related to her complaints. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of SEBI provided some information, but the applicant felt it was incomplete.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the PIO of SEBI was to provide certain information. However, the applicant and her husband believed that the information provided was selective and did not cover all aspects of their RTI queries. They specifically highlighted that information regarding the action taken against the broker or sub-broker involved in the share purchase was missing. The PIO’s submission was that much of the available information had already been disclosed. The core of the applicant’s grievance was to get a definitive answer: if action was taken, what was it, and if not, a clear statement that no action was initiated.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter eventually reached the Central Information Commission (CIC) for a hearing. During the hearing, the husband of the appellant presented their case, emphasizing that the PIO had not furnished the complete information requested in both RTI applications. He argued that only partial, or selective, disclosures were made. He reiterated the applicant’s request for SEBI to take appropriate action against the broker/sub-broker through whom the shares were purchased. Crucially, he sought clarity: if action had been initiated, the PIO should provide details; if no action was taken, this fact should be unequivocally stated. This focused approach appellant aimed to elicit a direct and comprehensive response from the public authority.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, after hearing both sides, recognized the applicant’s need for clear and unambiguous information. The Commission observed that the PIO had not adequately addressed all the queries. Consequently, the CIC issued a significant order directing the PIO to re-examine the RTI applications. The PIO was instructed to provide categorical and unambiguous information against each specific query made appellant in both her RTI applications. Furthermore, the CIC directed the PIO to provide any existing material records in the form of correspondence. Importantly, if for any of the queries, no material record existed, the PIO was explicitly ordered to clearly state that “no records are available.” This order underscored the principle that RTI applicants are entitled to a definitive response, even if it’s to state that no information exists.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Be Specific in Your Queries: Clearly articulate what information you are seeking. Vague questions can lead to vague or incomplete answers. In this case, the applicant’s focus on “action taken” was precise.
- Lesson 2: Follow Up on Incomplete Responses: If you receive partial information or feel your query hasn’t been fully addressed, don’t hesitate to pursue the matter further, including filing a first appeal and then a second appeal to the CIC.
- Lesson 3: Understand Your Right to a Definitive Answer: Under Section 7 of the RTI Act, public authorities are obligated to provide information or reject the request within 30 days. If information doesn’t exist, the PIO must state so clearly. The CIC’s order reinforces this right.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Relevant Public Authority: Determine which government department or agency is responsible for the matter you are inquiring about. In this case, it was SEBI for matters related to securities and share transactions.
- Draft Your RTI Application Carefully: Clearly state your name, contact details, and the public authority you are applying to.
- Formulate Your Queries Precisely: List your questions clearly and concisely. Use plain language and avoid jargon. If you are asking about action taken, specify the nature of the action you expect to know about.
- Submit the Application and Fee: Pay the prescribed fee and submit your application to the PIO of the concerned public authority. Keep a copy for your records.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide details of any action taken department in response to my representation dated [Date of Representation] concerning [Brief description of the issue]. If no action has been taken, please state this unambiguously. Also, provide copies of all correspondence related to this matter.
Conclusion
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the RTI Act is a potent tool for citizens to hold public authorities accountable. pursuing their right to information, citizens can uncover details about governmental actions, ensure transparency, and seek redressal for grievances. Remember, even if a public authority states that no information is available, that itself is a piece of information you are entitled to receive. So, don’t hesitate to use RTI to seek clarity on matters that affect you.
