Many Indian citizens and even organizations wish to access information from government bodies to understand decisions, hold authorities accountable, or simply gain clarity. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a powerful tool for this. But who exactly can use this Act? A recent case before the Central Information Commission (CIC) sheds light on a crucial aspect: can a Company Secretary, acting on behalf of a company, file an RTI application? This case is vital for understanding the fundamental eligibility criteria for seeking information under the RTI Act.
Background: What Information Was Sought
The case involved M/s Lyka Labs Limited, a company, which filed an RTI application through its Company Secretary with the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers. The specific details of the information sought company are not elaborated upon in the ruling, but the core issue revolved around the eligibility of the applicant to file the RTI request in the first place. The company eventually escalated the matter to a second appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) after what they perceived as a deemed refusal of their request public authority.
How the Public Authority Responded
While the details of the initial response from the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers are not explicitly stated, the fact that the matter reached the CIC indicates that the company’s RTI application was either rejected, information was denied, or a deemed refusal occurred due to a lack of response within the stipulated time frame under Section 7 of the RTI Act. The public authority’s stance, which was later examined CIC, was likely based on the identity of the applicant.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The Central Information Commission (CIC) reviewed the appeal filed /s Lyka Labs Limited. A critical observation made CIC was regarding the applicant’s identity. The RTI application and the first appeal were initially filed in the name of the Company Secretary. However, the second appeal before the CIC was filed individual acting as the Company Secretary. The CIC focused on the fundamental principle enshrined in the RTI Act. They noted that the RTI Act, 2005, is designed to empower citizens of India to obtain information. The Commission held that a company, such as M/s Lyka Labs Limited, does not qualify as a ‘citizen’ under Section 3 of the RTI Act. Therefore, a company, in its own right, cannot directly initiate RTI proceedings. This meant that the initial RTI application filed company, even through its representative, was deemed ineligible from the outset under the strict interpretation of the Act.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC’s order in this case was based on a strict interpretation of who qualifies as an applicant under the RTI Act. The Commission held that the Company Secretary, in their capacity as an employee or representative of the company, is not a citizen of India and thus cannot initiate RTI proceedings. This ruling emphasizes that the right to seek information under the RTI Act is a personal right vested in the citizens of India. A company, being a separate legal entity, does not possess this right. However, the CIC also made a crucial clarification. While the company itself cannot file an RTI, an application filed individual, such as a Company Secretary, in their personal capacity, should not be summarily declined. This implies that if the Company Secretary had filed the application as an individual citizen and not as a representative of the company, the outcome might have been different.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Eligibility is Paramount: The RTI Act, 2005, explicitly grants the right to seek information only to citizens of India. Companies, NGOs, or other legal entities are not considered citizens under the Act and cannot file RTI applications in their own name.
- Lesson 2: Individual Capacity Matters: An individual acting as a representative of a company (like a Company Secretary, Director, or employee) can file an RTI application, but it must be in their capacity as an individual citizen. The application should clearly state this or at least not explicitly state it is filed on behalf of the company.
- Lesson 3: Focus on the Act’s Intent: While the CIC’s ruling is strict, the underlying spirit of the RTI Act is to promote transparency and accountability. If an individual citizen, regardless of their professional role, seeks information that is lawfully available, their application should ideally be processed.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Public Authority: Determine which government department or public body holds the information you need.
- Draft Your RTI Application: Clearly state the information you require. Be specific and avoid vague requests. If you are an individual citizen, you can file it.
- Pay the Fee: Attach the prescribed RTI fee (usually ₹10 via postal order, demand draft, or cash) to your application.
- Submit the Application: Send your application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned public authority. Keep a copy for your records. If your application is deemed refused or rejected unjustly, you can file a First Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. If the First Appellate Authority’s decision is unsatisfactory, you can then file a Second Appeal with the CIC.
Sample RTI question you can use:
As a citizen of India, I request you to provide details regarding [specific information relevant to the company’s situation, e.g., the criteria used for a particular government tender, the reasons for a specific policy decision, or the status of a public project].
Conclusion
The case of M/s Lyka Labs Limited and the Company Secretary serves as a crucial reminder of the legal framework governing the RTI Act. While the intention to seek information is commendable, it is essential for applicants to understand and adhere to the eligibility criteria. The RTI Act is a powerful tool for citizens to demand transparency and accountability from the government. the nuances of who can file an RTI and how to do it correctly, more citizens can effectively leverage this Act for their benefit and for the greater good of transparency in governance.
