Many Indian citizens grapple with questions about the scope of their rights and the services they are entitled to. When seeking clarity on complex legal or administrative matters, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, becomes a powerful tool. This article delves into a case where an RTI applicant sought to understand a crucial aspect of pharmaceutical practice – whether diploma holder pharmacists can prescribe medicines. The outcome highlights the boundaries of what can be asked through an RTI application and the role of Public Information Officers (PIOs).
Background: What Information Was Sought
The appellant, a concerned citizen, filed an RTI application with the Supreme Court of India. Their primary query was straightforward yet significant: could diploma holder pharmacists legally prescribe medicines to patients? To support their inquiry, the applicant referenced specific matters that were either pending before or had already been decided Supreme Court. The intention was to leverage the apex court’s pronouncements to gain clarity on this professional practice. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Supreme Court acknowledged the application and directed the appellant to relevant Supreme Court judgments that addressed the issue. The PIO also advised the applicant to access these orders from the Supreme Court’s official website and, if certified copies were required, to follow the procedure outlined in Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules.
How the Public Authority Responded
The PIO’s response was primarily guidance-oriented. Instead of directly answering the question about prescribing rights, the PIO pointed the applicant towards existing judicial pronouncements. This approach aimed to empower the applicant to find the answer themselves the relevant legal documents. The PIO also provided instructions on how to obtain official copies of these documents, ensuring that the information provided was verifiable and accessible through established channels. However, the core question of interpretation was not directly addressed.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
Dissatisfied with the response, or perhaps seeking a more definitive answer, the appellant escalated the matter to the Central Information Commission (CIC). The crux of the appeal before the CIC was whether the PIO had adequately discharged their duty under the RTI Act directing the applicant to existing documents, or if a more interpretive stance was expected. The appellant likely argued that the PIO should have provided a clear interpretation of the Supreme Court’s stance on the matter. The CIC, however, took a different view. The Commission observed that the Supreme Court, acting as a public authority, could not be expected to provide advisory opinions on whether diploma holder pharmacists were authorized to prescribe medicines. The CIC emphasized that the role of the PIO was to provide information that already exists, not to interpret it or offer legal advice. If the Supreme Court had indeed passed orders on this subject, it was incumbent upon the applicant to study those orders and draw their own conclusions.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission ultimately rejected the appeal. The Commission’s ruling underscored a fundamental principle of the RTI Act: PIOs are custodians of information and facilitators of access, not legal interpreters or advisors. The CIC held that the PIO could not be expected to act as an interpreter of Supreme Court orders and tender advice on such complex subjects. The responsibility to understand the implications of judicial pronouncements lies with the information seeker. This decision is significant because it clearly delineates the boundaries of the PIO’s role. It prevents the RTI mechanism from being used as a substitute for legal consultation or for seeking interpretations of existing laws and judgments. The CIC’s directive reinforces that the RTI Act is about providing access to factual information and documented records, not about generating new interpretations or opinions.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understand the PIO’s Role: A Public Information Officer’s primary duty is to provide existing information, not to interpret laws, judgments, or policies. They cannot act as a legal counsel or an advisor.
- Lesson 2: Access and Interpret Documents Yourself: If your RTI query pertains to legal matters or pronouncements courts, the PIO may direct you to the relevant documents. You are expected to study these documents and draw your own conclusions.
- Lesson 3: Focus on Factual Information: RTI applications are most effective when they seek specific factual information, records, or copies of documents, rather than opinions, interpretations, or advice.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or public authority holds the information you seek. In this case, it was the Supreme Court.
- Clearly State Your Query: Formulate your question precisely, focusing on the information you need. Avoid asking for interpretations or opinions.
- Provide Relevant Context (Optional but helpful): If your query relates to specific past events, judgments, or policies, briefly mention them to help the PIO locate the relevant information.
- Submit the Application and Fee: Fill out the prescribed RTI application form, attach the required fee (usually Rs. 10 via postal order or demand draft), and submit it to the concerned PIO.
Sample RTI question you can use:
“Please provide copies of all Supreme Court judgments and orders passed between [start date] and [end date] that specifically address the authority of diploma holder pharmacists to prescribe medicines.”
Conclusion
This case serves as a valuable reminder for all RTI users in India. While the RTI Act is a powerful tool for transparency and accountability, it has its limitations. Understanding these boundaries, particularly the distinction between seeking information and seeking interpretation or advice, is crucial for filing effective RTI applications. on factual requests and being prepared to interpret the information provided, citizens can better leverage the RTI Act to empower themselves and gain clarity on matters that affect their lives.
