Navigating the Right to Information (RTI) Act can sometimes feel like a maze, and even the simplest steps, like paying the application fee, can present unexpected hurdles. This case highlights a common frustration faced applicants across India: the hassle of submitting the correct form of payment for their RTI applications. It also raises a forward-thinking question about how to streamline this process for the benefit of both citizens and government bodies. If you’ve ever been confused about how to pay your RTI fee, or if you’ve faced delays due to payment issues, this case offers valuable insights and a glimpse into potential future solutions.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this instance, an RTI applicant approached the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) with a specific request. They wanted to obtain information concerning the resignation of a former Union Finance Minister from his position as Chairman of the ISI. This is a typical example of how citizens use the RTI Act to seek accountability and transparency from public authorities regarding the actions of prominent figures and government institutions.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) at the ISI did not directly address the substance of the information requested. Instead, they returned the Indian Postal Order (IPO) that the applicant had attached with the RTI application. The reason given was that the IPO was not drawn in favour of the correct payee. The PIO instructed the applicant to resubmit a fresh IPO or Demand Draft (DD) specifically drawn in favour of the “Indian Statistical Institute.” This type of response, while procedural, can be a significant roadblock for applicants, leading to delays and additional effort.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
Frustrated rejection of their IPO, the applicant escalated the matter to the Central Information Commission (CIC) a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the applicant argued that public authorities are obligated to accept all IPOs made out to the Accounts Officer of the public authority, as per existing rules. The applicant also revealed that they had managed to obtain the desired information through a separate RTI application. However, their primary focus in this complaint shifted to a broader issue: the inefficiency and harassment caused current payment methods for RTI fees.
The applicant proposed a novel solution: the introduction of “RTI stamps,” similar to revenue stamps. They believed that such stamps would significantly reduce the harassment faced petitioners and also cut down the considerable handling costs incurred departments in processing individual IPOs. This suggestion aimed to simplify the fee payment process, making it more accessible and efficient for everyone involved.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, while acknowledging the applicant’s grievance and the practical challenges highlighted, recognized that their scope of direct intervention was limited. The Commission could not unilaterally implement a new system of payment. Therefore, the CIC decided to forward a copy of its order to the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Secretary of the Department of Posts, Government of India. The purpose was to ensure that the appellant’s valuable suggestion regarding the introduction of RTI stamps for fee payment would be duly examined relevant government departments responsible for policy-making in this regard.
This decision, while not providing an immediate solution for the applicant, signifies the CIC’s role in identifying systemic issues and recommending improvements to the government. It shows that the Commission takes citizen feedback seriously and can act as a conduit for policy change, even if indirectly.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Pay Close Attention to Payment Details: Always double-check the exact payee name specified public authority when purchasing an IPO or DD for your RTI application fee. Errors in this detail can lead to your application being returned, causing delays. Check the website of the public authority or contact them if unsure.
- Lesson 2: The CIC Can Facilitate Policy Change: Even if you don’t get the exact relief you sought, if your complaint highlights a systemic issue or a practical suggestion for improvement, the CIC can forward your recommendations to the appropriate government bodies for consideration. This means your RTI efforts can contribute to broader reforms.
- Lesson 3: Consider Alternative Payment Methods: While the current system relies heavily on IPOs, be aware of other acceptable payment methods like Demand Drafts or online payments if offered. Proposing innovative solutions like RTI stamps, as this applicant did, can help pave the way for a more efficient future for RTI applications.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Public Authority: Determine which government department or office holds the information you need.
- Draft Your Application: Clearly state the information you are seeking. Be specific and concise.
- Determine the Fee: The standard RTI fee is Rs. 10. Check if the authority requires an IPO, DD, or has other payment options.
- Submit Your Application: Send your RTI application along with the required fee payment to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned authority. If your application is rejected on payment grounds, carefully review the PIO’s objection and resubmit with the correct payment. If you believe the rejection was unfair, consider filing a first appeal or a complaint with the CIC.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide details of all payments received for RTI applications filed with your department during the last financial year, including the mode of payment and any associated administrative costs incurred department in processing these payments.
Conclusion
This case serves as a practical reminder of the procedural aspects of filing an RTI application and underscores the potential for innovation within the RTI framework. While the applicant faced an initial setback due to a technicality in payment, their proactive approach in suggesting a more efficient system highlights the power of citizen engagement. The CIC’s action in forwarding this suggestion demonstrates that the RTI Act is not just about seeking information but also about improving governance and making citizen services more accessible. As citizens, we can learn from this experience to be meticulous in our applications and to actively contribute to making the RTI process smoother for everyone.
