Many Indian citizens use the Right to Information (RTI) Act to access crucial information from government departments. However, sometimes applicants face unexpected demands for additional fees, which can be confusing and discouraging. This case highlights a situation where a public authority attempted to charge a hefty sum for obtaining employee consent to share information. Let’s explore what happened and what it means for you.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An applicant filed an RTI request with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). They wanted to know about all existing concessional telephone connections and BSNL Broadband facilities provided to both current and retired employees of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and BSNL. This kind of information is vital for understanding how public resources are utilized and benefits are distributed among employees.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) initially failed to provide the requested information. Instead, the applicant was asked to pay a significant additional fee of Rs. 3375/-. This amount was calculated at Rs. 25/- per employee, for obtaining the consent of 151 employees and ex-employees before the information could be shared. The applicant questioned this demand, as they believed there was no provision under the RTI Act to charge such a fee for employee consent.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
When the matter reached the Central Information Commission (CIC), the applicant reiterated their stance that the demand for an additional fee for employee consent was unlawful under the RTI Act. The Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) argued that the information was requested in a specific format that they did not possess, and compiling it would have been a significant burden, disproportionately diverting the authority’s resources. However, the APIO admitted that the previous PIO had indeed made an erroneous demand for the Rs. 3375/- fee. They also confirmed that the concessions provided to employees and ex-employees were in line with existing rules and agreed to provide the names, quantum of rebate allowed to each employee, and a copy of the relevant circular permitting these rebates.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC, in its decision, directed the PIO to provide the appellant with the names of the employees/ex-employees, the quantum of rebate they were receiving on their telephone and broadband bills, and a copy of the circular that allowed such rebates. Crucially, the Commission referenced its own earlier full bench decision and firmly stated that only the fees prescribed under Section 7(1) and Section 7(5) of the RTI Act can be charged. There is absolutely no provision within the RTI Act to levy any other kind of further fee, including one for obtaining employee consent. This order reinforces the principle that public authorities cannot create their own fee structures or demand arbitrary payments to provide information that citizens are legally entitled to.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understand Legitimate Fees: The RTI Act clearly outlines the fees that can be charged for providing information, primarily under Section 7. These are usually nominal charges for photocopying, postage, or the cost of information in a particular format. Public authorities cannot invent new fees.
- Lesson 2: Challenge Unlawful Demands: If you are asked to pay a fee that seems unreasonable or isn’t covered RTI Act, do not hesitate to question it. You have the right to appeal to the First Appellate Authority and then to the Central Information Commission (CIC) if your concerns are not addressed.
- Lesson 3: Focus on the Information, Not Consent Creation: The RTI Act is about transparency and the public’s right to know. Public authorities cannot use the privacy of their employees as a blanket excuse to deny information, especially when the information sought is about the distribution of benefits or concessions. The CIC’s decision implies that if concessions are granted under rules, details of those concessions and beneficiaries (without revealing highly personal data beyond what’s relevant to the concession itself) can be sought.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or organization holds the information you need.
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State your request precisely. Mention the specific information you are seeking, the period it pertains to, and the format if you have a preference.
- Submit Your Application: You can file your application online or offline the prescribed nominal fee (usually Rs. 10/-).
- Follow Up and Appeal if Necessary: If the PIO does not respond within 30 days, or if the response is unsatisfactory, you can file a first appeal. If the appeal is also not resolved, you can approach the CIC.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide the details of all concessional telephone connections and broadband facilities provided to employees and ex-employees of your department/organization during the period [Start Date] to [End Date]. This should include the name of the employee (if permissible under privacy laws, focusing on the nature of concession), the type of concession availed, and the quantum of rebate provided on their bills. Also, please provide a copy of the circular or rule under which these concessions are granted.
Conclusion
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the RTI Act is a tool for empowerment. Public authorities must adhere to its provisions and cannot impose arbitrary fees or hurdles. If you are seeking information about how public funds or benefits are distributed, remember that your right to know is protected. Always be prepared to understand your rights and challenge any unlawful demands. the RTI Act effectively, you contribute to greater transparency and accountability in governance.
