Every Indian citizen has the right to access information held bodies, a right guaranteed Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. This ensures transparency and accountability. However, sometimes, navigating the process can be challenging, and obtaining information can be delayed. This case highlights a situation where a citizen sought crucial details from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and the subsequent proceedings offer valuable insights for all RTI applicants, especially concerning the efficiency of public authorities in responding to information requests.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant filed a request with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare seeking specific information related to the ministry’s interactions with the World Health Organization (WHO). The applicant wanted to see the request letter sent to the WHO for aid, including any related file notings concerning expenses for meetings or conferences. They also inquired about any reply from the WHO regarding financial aid granted. Furthermore, the applicant asked if the Ministry had ever refused a significant quantity of H IN I vaccine from the WHO and requested file notings or correspondence related to this. They also sought information on whether the Ministry had ever refused help from the Bill Gates Foundation for health programs in India, along with relevant documents. The Public Information Officer (PIO) initially stated that part of the information would be provided upon payment of Rs. 74/- for 37 pages. For the remaining queries, the application was transferred to another section (CDN-II) for processing. The appellant filed an appeal, arguing that the initial part of the information should be provided free of charge and that the rest of the information had not been furnished. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) noted that since there was no delay PIO, the request for free information was not applicable. The FAA then directed the CDN-II section to transfer the application to the PIO of the IH section for the remaining information.
How the Public Authority Responded
During the proceedings, the respondent from the Ministry stated that while the RTI application was sent via speed post on September 14, 2011, it was only delivered on September 21, 2011. They reiterated that the application for the remaining queries had been sent to PIO CDN-II. However, the PIO of the IH Section claimed that the RTI application was never sent to them and they only became aware of it upon receiving the FAA’s order. They subsequently sent the information on March 29, 2012, to the appellant. This PIO also mentioned sending the application to various other PIOs within different sections like Child Health & Immunization, CCD & Malaria, RCH&MH, NRHM, and DGHS, to gather the necessary information. The appellant, meanwhile, reported receiving letters from several departments stating they had no information. Crucially, the appellant pointed out that RTI applications should not be transferred between officers within the same public authority; instead, the PIO should seek assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act to provide the information.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted the unfortunate reality that speed post delivery within Delhi could take as long as seven days. The Commission upheld the PIO’s demand for additional fees for the partial information, deeming it valid. However, the CIC expressed concern over the immense amount of time and resources wasted Ministry, yet failing to provide the complete information to the applicant. Taking note of the PIO’s admission that the Ministry’s system for responding to Parliament questions was efficient, the Commission, under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, directed the Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to establish a proper process for responding to RTI queries. This was aimed at preventing the wastage of public resources. The Commission emphasized that the same efficiency shown when answering queries from Members of Parliament should be applied to RTI requests. Furthermore, the PIO (CH & Immunization) was directed to provide the remaining information to the appellant. Under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, which deals with penalties for delays or denial of information, the Commission issued a show-cause notice to PIO CDN-II, asking why a penalty should not be imposed for the delays and lack of proper handling of the application.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
During the hearing for the show-cause notice, the respondents submitted that the information for the remaining queries had been sent to the appellant and also provided a copy of an office memorandum on streamlining RTI request handling. However, the Commission found it impossible to pinpoint responsibility for the delay among the six officers who appeared for the hearing. The CIC concluded that this situation was a direct result of a lack of a proper system within the Ministry. The Commission expressed hope that the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, would implement the suggested measures to ensure RTI applications are handled in accordance with the law. This order is significant because it underscores the need for public authorities to have robust internal mechanisms for processing RTI requests and not just to respond, but to do so efficiently and effectively, mirroring the diligence expected in other official communications.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understanding Section 5(4) of the RTI Act: This section allows a Public Information Officer (PIO) to seek assistance from any other officer in the performance of their duties. It’s crucial for the PIO to utilize this to gather information, rather than simply transferring the entire application, which can lead to delays and confusion.
- Lesson 2: Importance of Timely Responses: The RTI Act mandates specific timelines for providing information (usually 30 days). Delays can lead to penalties for the PIO under Section 20 of the Act. This case shows that while penalties are a recourse, the primary goal is efficient information delivery.
- Lesson 3: Public Authorities’ Responsibility for Systemic Efficiency: The CIC’s direction to the Ministry’s Secretary highlights that public authorities have a responsibility to develop and maintain efficient systems for handling RTI requests. Citizens have a right to expect prompt and accurate information, and authorities must facilitate this.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or ministry holds the information you need.
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State your request for information precisely. Be specific about the documents, records, or details you are seeking.
- Pay the Application Fee: If required, pay the nominal application fee as prescribed RTI rules.
- Submit and Track Your Application: Send your application to the designated PIO of the authority. Keep a record of your submission and follow up if you don’t receive a response within the stipulated time.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide details of any correspondence, file notings, and decisions made Ministry regarding [specific issue, e.g., procurement of vaccines, requests for international aid, or collaboration with international health organizations] for the period [start date] to [end date]. Also, please provide copies of any reports or documents related to the outcomes of such interactions.
Conclusion
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the RTI Act is not just about asking questions, but about receiving timely and accurate answers. While the appellant faced delays and a complex process, the CIC’s intervention emphasized the need for public authorities to streamline their operations and treat RTI requests with the seriousness they deserve. As citizens, understanding our rights and the mechanisms available under the RTI Act empowers us to demand transparency and accountability from our government. Remember, a well-drafted RTI application and persistent follow-up can be your tools to access the information you are rightfully entitled to.
