Are you a concerned citizen wondering about the quality and composition of the fuel you use every day? Many of us grapple with questions about government standards and the substances added to essential products. This case highlights how the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be a powerful tool to seek clarity from regulatory bodies, even on complex technical matters. It shows that even when faced with detailed standards and policy discussions, RTI can help ordinary citizens understand government decisions and practices.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this instance, an individual filed an application under the RTI Act with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). The core of their query revolved around the use of markers and dyes in automotive diesel fuel. The applicant pointed out that a notification from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in 2007 had reportedly withdrawn the use of markers, yet dyes continued to be used. This raised a question about the prevailing standards and practices concerning fuel additives.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) at BIS provided a point-wise response to the RTI application. However, during the subsequent hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the BIS representative submitted that dyes were indeed prescribed in their standard, IS 1460, way back in 1995. This standard was later revised in 2005 to permit the use of both dyes and markers in automotive diesel fuel. The BIS also raised a procedural point, stating they hadn’t received a copy of the appeal memo, which hindered their ability to respond comprehensively. The CIC acknowledged this and adjourned the hearing to allow the BIS to review the appeal memo. The Commission also noted that the appellant had raised complex policy issues and that the exact information being sought from BIS wasn’t entirely clear from the initial submission. The appellant was then asked to personally appear for a second hearing to better explain their case.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the second hearing, the BIS representative provided further clarification. They explained that IS:1460, revised in 2005, permits the use of either markers or dyes in automotive diesel fuel. The primary purpose of these additives is to help in tracing adulteration. The BIS further clarified that the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas had issued its own notification stating that if a refinery uses a marker, it must be of a type that leaves no traces in the fuel. Crucially, the BIS emphasized its status as an autonomous body, separate from the Government of India, and that the Ministry has the authority to set standards that might differ from those prescribed . The appellant, in their second appeal, had also alleged that Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) was misusing the BIS logo test reports as per IS:1460. The BIS respondent countered this that IOCL adheres to the standards set and therefore, there was no misuse of the BIS logo.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
Ultimately, the Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal. The Commission cited two main reasons: firstly, the appellant was absent during the second hearing and did not present their arguments, and secondly, the BIS respondent had provided sufficient clarifications regarding the matter. This decision underscores that while RTI is a powerful tool, applicants must actively participate in hearings and clearly articulate their information needs for effective resolution.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Clarity is paramount. When filing an RTI application, especially on technical or policy-related matters, be very specific about the information you require. Vague or broadly worded queries can lead to confusion and potentially unfavorable outcomes, as observed CIC in this case.
- Lesson 2: Understand the role of different bodies. Recognize that various government departments and autonomous bodies have distinct roles and authorities. The BIS sets standards, while ministries can issue directives that might complement or even vary from these standards. Knowing this helps in framing your RTI queries correctly.
- Lesson 3: Active participation is crucial. If your RTI case reaches the CIC, be prepared to attend hearings and present your arguments. The appellant’s absence in the second hearing contributed to the rejection of their appeal.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or organization is responsible for the information you seek. In this case, it was the Bureau of Indian Standards concerning fuel quality standards.
- Draft Your RTI Application: Clearly state your request for information. Use precise language and refer to specific standards or notifications if known.
- Submit the Application: Pay the prescribed fee and submit your application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned authority.
- Follow Up: If you do not receive a satisfactory response within the stipulated time (usually 30 days as per Section 7 of the RTI Act), you can file a First Appeal (under Section 19). If still unsatisfied, a Second Appeal can be filed with the CIC.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide the current standards and regulations governing the use of markers and dyes in automotive diesel fuel, along with the rationale for their inclusion or exclusion. Please also provide copies of any notifications or amendments related to these standards issued Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the Bureau of Indian Standards in the last five years.
Conclusion
This case serves as a reminder that the RTI Act is designed to empower citizens with information. While technical and policy matters can be complex, a well-drafted RTI application and active engagement can help demystify them. the process and the nuances of government functioning, you too can use RTI to gain valuable insights into issues that affect your daily life.
