As an Indian citizen, you have the power to seek information from government bodies through the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This empowers you to understand the workings of public authorities and hold them accountable. But what happens when the information you seek isn’t readily available, or when public bodies claim they don’t possess it? This case highlights a common challenge faced applicants and provides valuable insights into navigating such situations, especially when seeking sensitive information about public representatives.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this instance, an RTI applicant, seeking to understand the integrity of individuals holding public office, filed two identical applications under the RTI Act. These applications were directed towards the Rajya Sabha Secretariat and the Lok Sabha Secretariat. The core of the request was straightforward yet significant: the applicant wanted to know the details of current Members of Parliament (MPs) who had been charged with the serious offences of rape and murder. The intent was to ascertain if individuals facing such grave accusations were serving in the highest legislative bodies of the country. Unfortunately, the initial response from the Public Information Officers (PIOs) of both secretariats was a denial, stating that no such information was available with them.
How the Public Authority Responded
Following the initial RTI applications, the PIOs of both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariats responded that they did not maintain any information regarding MPs charged with rape and murder. This response implied that the requested data was not on their records. Crucially, they also indicated that they had no knowledge of any other public authority that might possess this specific information. Consequently, they were unable to transfer the RTI application to another department as per the provisions of the RTI Act, which would have been the next step if the information was believed to be held elsewhere.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter eventually reached the Central Information Commission (CIC) for a hearing. During the proceedings, representatives from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariats reiterated their stance. They submitted that neither secretariat maintained records detailing criminal charges, specifically rape and murder, against their respective MPs. They maintained that this kind of specific data was not part of their record-keeping practices. Furthermore, they confirmed their inability to identify any other public authority that would be responsible for compiling and holding such information, thus leaving the applicant without a clear avenue to obtain the desired details through their initial RTI filings.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, after hearing the submissions from both sides, made a crucial observation. The Commission acknowledged that the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariats, in their capacity, do not maintain specific dossiers detailing criminal charges like rape and murder against their MPs. However, the CIC also pointed towards a vital constitutional requirement that addresses the disclosure of criminal records of candidates. The Commission highlighted that during the election process, all candidates are mandated to file affidavits. These affidavits are legally required to list all criminal cases, whether registered or pending, against them. The CIC further stated that these affidavits are routinely uploaded onto the official website of the Election Commission of India. Therefore, instead of directing the secretariats to procure information they don’t possess, the CIC guided the appellant to the Election Commission’s website, suggesting it as the primary and accessible source for such information about the present MPs of both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understand Record Keeping Limitations: Public authorities are only obligated to provide information that they actually hold or maintain. If a department does not have a system for collecting or storing a particular type of data, they cannot be compelled to create it or find it from an external source. This case shows that even for sensitive information, the PIO’s response about not maintaining records is a valid one if true.
- Lesson 2: Explore Alternative Information Sources: When a direct RTI request to a specific department doesn’t yield results, it’s essential to think creatively about where else the information might be available. The CIC’s direction to check the Election Commission’s website is a prime example of looking for information in related public domains that might fulfill the applicant’s need. The RTI Act encourages seeking information from all public authorities, and sometimes the answer lies with a different body.
- Lesson 3: Leverage Election Affidavits: The RTI Act indirectly points towards the transparency mechanisms already in place. The requirement for candidates to file affidavits detailing their criminal history is a significant transparency measure. Understanding these existing legal frameworks can help applicants find information without needing to file complex or unfulfillable RTI requests. The CIC’s guidance effectively utilized this existing mechanism.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: While this specific information wasn’t held Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariats, for other types of information, correctly identifying the public authority is the first crucial step.
- Draft a Clear and Specific Request: Clearly state the information you are seeking. For instance, instead of a vague request, be precise about the details you need.
- File the RTI Application: Submit your application with the prescribed fee to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the identified authority. You can do this online or offline.
- Follow Up and Escalate if Necessary: If you don’t receive a response within the stipulated 30 days (or 35 days for certain organizations), or if the response is unsatisfactory, you have the right to file a First Appeal with the Appellate Authority. If still unsatisfied, a Second Appeal can be filed with the Central Information Commission (CIC).
Sample RTI question you can use:
Under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, what are the procedures for disclosure of criminal records of elected representatives? Please provide information on how citizens can access details of criminal cases pending or registered against Members of Parliament, as required to be disclosed during elections.
Conclusion
This case underscores the power and limitations of the RTI Act. While it is a potent tool for transparency, it also requires applicants to be informed and resourceful. The CIC’s decision, while not providing the information directly from the secretariats, effectively guided the applicant to a readily available source, demonstrating that even when direct answers aren’t forthcoming, the RTI process can still lead to the desired information existing transparency mechanisms. Always remember to explore all avenues and understand the mandate of different public authorities to make your RTI journey successful.
