Imagine you need a substantial amount of information from a government department. You file an RTI application, pay the required fees, and then you’re told to personally collect thousands of pages from their office! This is exactly what happened to an RTI applicant, highlighting a crucial aspect of your rights under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This case underscores that while the RTI Act facilitates access to information, the process must be fair and convenient for the citizen. Let’s explore how the Central Information Commission (CIC) addressed this unusual situation and what it means for you.
Background: What Information Was Sought
The RTI applicant in this case was seeking detailed information about the installation of computers across various zones and departments of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Specifically, they requested copies of file notings, correspondence related to computer installation, the name of the company that received the order, the value of the contract, the terms and conditions of the order, installation costs, and importantly, invoice copies for both original and pirated software for at least one computer from each zone. This was a significant request, involving a large volume of documentation.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the MCD responded that the requested information comprised approximately 7000 pages. The PIO then informed the applicant that they would need to pay an additional fee of Rs. 14,000/- for the certified copies of these extensive documents. The applicant duly paid this substantial amount. However, after paying the fee, the applicant did not receive the information. Instead, they received a communication asking them to personally visit the office to collect the 7000 pages. Frustrated lack of information and the inconvenient demand, the applicant escalated the matter a first appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) acknowledged the large volume of information and directed the PIO to provide the 7000 pages within 15 days.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
When the matter reached the Central Information Commission (CIC), the Commission recognized that dealing with 7000 pages of information would indeed require considerable time and effort from the PIO. However, the core issue that troubled the CIC was not the time taken, but the *method* of delivery. The PIO had asked the applicant to personally collect the information, which is contrary to the spirit and practice of the RTI Act. The RTI Act mandates that information should be provided to the applicant, typically or other convenient means, and not compel the applicant to travel to the public authority’s office, especially for such a massive volume of documents. The CIC questioned the PIO about the rationale behind this decision, seeking an explanation for why the applicant was summoned to collect the information instead of it being sent to them.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The PIO was unable to provide a satisfactory justification for asking the applicant to collect the 7000 pages in person. The CIC, in its order, emphasized that while the information was voluminous, the PIO had an obligation to send it to the applicant. The Commission noted that even for such a large volume, alternative delivery methods like using a messenger or speed post could have been employed. Consequently, the CIC directed the PIO to provide the complete 7000 pages of information to the appellant without further delay. Furthermore, the Commission ordered the PIO to refund the Rs. 14,000/- that the applicant had paid as an additional fee. In a significant move, the CIC also recommended that the Municipal Commissioner consider recovering the Rs. 14,000/- from the salary of the PIO, holding him accountable for the inconvenience and financial loss caused to the applicant due to his improper action. While the RTI Act does not have a direct provision for recovering additional fees from a PIO, public authorities can take administrative action against employees for losses incurred due to their negligence or misconduct.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Your Right to Receive Information Conveniently: The RTI Act is designed to empower citizens. You have the right to receive information at your address, especially when dealing with large volumes of documents. A PIO cannot arbitrarily ask you to collect it in person without a very compelling and justifiable reason.
- Lesson 2: Accountability for PIOs: This case highlights that PIOs are accountable for their actions and omissions. If a PIO fails to act diligently or causes undue hardship and financial loss to an applicant, the CIC can take strong measures, including recommending recovery of costs from the PIO.
- Lesson 3: The Importance of Appeals: If you face an unreasonable response or denial from a PIO, do not hesitate to file a First Appeal and, if necessary, a Second Appeal to the CIC. The appellate process is a crucial mechanism to ensure your rights under the RTI Act are upheld.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Ensure you are filing your RTI application with the department or office that holds the information you seek.
- Be Specific in Your Request: Clearly state the information you require. For large volumes, mention the approximate number of pages or documents if you have an estimate.
- Pay the Initial Fee: Submit the RTI application with the prescribed fee (usually Rs. 10 for the application itself).
- Follow Up and Appeal if Necessary: If you don’t receive a response within 30 days or if the response is unsatisfactory, file a First Appeal. If the First Appellate Authority’s decision is not satisfactory, you can then file a Second Appeal with the CIC.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide copies of all file notings, correspondence, tender documents, and invoices related to the procurement and installation of [specify item, e.g., computers, furniture] in [specify department/zone] during the period [specify dates]. If the volume of information is substantial, please provide it via speed post to the address mentioned above, along with a detailed breakdown of the copy charges as per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Conclusion
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the RTI Act is a tool for transparency and accountability. Public authorities must facilitate access to information in a manner that is convenient and accessible to the citizen. If you are seeking a large volume of information, remember that the burden is on the public authority to provide it to you, not for you to collect it. Don’t be deterred page counts or seemingly high fees; understand your rights, use the RTI Act effectively, and don’t hesitate to appeal if your rights are being compromised.
