The Right to Information Act, 2005, empowers every citizen to seek information from government bodies. This case highlights how RTI can be used to understand the complexities of nominations and exclusions from important government institutions, even when the information is not straightforward. It’s a reminder that with persistence, citizens can unravel details about governance and the decision-making processes that affect public life.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant approached the Rajya Sabha Secretariat with a crucial set of queries. They wanted to know the details of the governing bodies of autonomous government institutions where Members of Parliament (MPs) were nominated Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. More importantly, the applicant sought to ascertain who held the authority to exclude MPs from these boards. Additionally, the applicant requested file notings from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat concerning a specific notification issued Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers, Department of Pharmaceuticals, which involved the concurrence for that notification. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat provided the available information and stated that they did not possess information regarding the authority that could exclude MPs from such boards. For the query related to the Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers notification, the RTI application was transferred to the Department of Pharmaceuticals. The PIO of the Department of Pharmaceuticals clarified that MPs could not represent on the board of that particular institution, citing a legal opinion from the Ministry of Law that such representation would amount to holding an office of profit.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the PIO of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat was limited. While they provided the information they had about the governing bodies and nominations, they explicitly denied having any information about the authority responsible for excluding MPs. The application was correctly transferred to the Department of Pharmaceuticals for the part of the query related to their specific notification. The Department of Pharmaceuticals’ response, however, highlighted a legal constraint that led to the exclusion of MPs from their specific board, based on the ‘office of profit’ rule.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that since the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is responsible for nominating MPs to various boards and committees, any decision individual ministry to disallow a nominated MP from functioning on a board under that ministry should require the approval of the Chairman. Therefore, the appellant contended that this information should have been provided. The respondent from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat reiterated that they possessed no such information, meaning they had no record of the Chairman’s approval being sought or given for such exclusions ministries.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC, in its observation, acknowledged the process: the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha nominates MPs based on the requisitions from individual ministries. While the Rajya Sabha Secretariat holds information about these nominations, the CIC recognized that if a ministry decides not to allow a nominated member to function on its board, the rationale for that decision would primarily lie with that specific ministry. Regarding the notification from the Department of Pharmaceuticals, the CIC directed the PIO of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to re-examine the case. They were asked to investigate whether any action was taken Rajya Sabha Secretariat upon receiving the intimation from the Department of Pharmaceuticals and to communicate the findings to the appellant. This direction signifies that even if the initial information is not available, the CIC can direct the PIO to revisit and ascertain if any official communication or action occurred within the Secretariat concerning the matter.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understand Information Ownership – Recognize that different government departments hold specific information. If your query pertains to a notification or decision particular ministry, the PIO of that ministry is likely to have the relevant details. The initial PIO may need to transfer your application as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
- Lesson 2: Persistence on Procedural Matters – Even if a direct answer about “who has the authority” isn’t readily available, the CIC can direct the PIO to check if any official communication or action was taken regarding a specific event or notification. This is crucial for understanding the procedural aspects of governance.
- Lesson 3: The ‘Office of Profit’ Rule is Key – This case indirectly highlights the ‘office of profit’ rule, which often governs the eligibility of individuals, including MPs, to hold positions in government bodies. This legal principle can be a basis for exclusion and understanding such limitations is important.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Concerned Department: Determine which ministry or department issued the relevant notification or made the decision you are inquiring about.
- Draft Your Application Carefully: Clearly state the information you are seeking. Be specific about the governing bodies, the nominations, and the authority for exclusion. If referring to a specific notification, mention its details.
- Address it to the Correct PIO: Send your RTI application to the Public Information Officer of the identified department. You can also send it to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat if your query relates to their nomination process.
- Follow Up on Transfers and Responses: If your application is transferred, keep track of the PIO handling it. If the response is inadequate, be prepared to file a First Appeal as per Section 19 of the RTI Act.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide the details of the governing bodies of autonomous government institutions to which Members of Parliament are nominated Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Further, please provide information on who holds the authority to exclude Members of Parliament from such boards and the procedure followed for such exclusions. Also, provide copies of file notings from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat regarding concurrence for the notification [mention notification details if known] issued Ministry of [mention Ministry name], Department of Pharmaceuticals.
Conclusion
This case demonstrates the power of the RTI Act in shedding light on administrative processes and decision-making authorities. While not all information is always readily available, the legal framework and the oversight CIC ensure that citizens can seek clarity. the nuances of information ownership and the procedural aspects, citizens can effectively use RTI to hold authorities accountable and gain deeper insights into how government institutions function.
