Are you confused jargon or definitions used in government replies? Do you feel entitled to understand the exact meaning of terms used against you? This case highlights how the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be a powerful tool for citizens to seek clarity and ensure they receive information as per the law, even when faced with unhelpful responses or demands for unjustified fees. It underscores the importance of understanding your rights when dealing with public authorities.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this scenario, an individual had previously filed an RTI application. Following the response to that application, the appellant filed a fresh RTI application. The core of this new application was to seek clarification on specific words or phrases that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had used in an earlier order concerning the appellant’s initial RTI request. Additionally, the appellant sought information about the relevant rule for depositing the prescribed fee for information, the date of receipt of a particular letter, and contact details like the phone numbers of the Public Information Officer’s (PIO) office and the office of the Post Master General (PMG). The definition of “prescribed fee” was also sought. Unfortunately, the PIO failed to respond to this RTI application altogether. The FAA, in their response, seemed to misinterpret the appellant’s intent, suggesting that instead of filing a second appeal, the appellant was trying to resolve a grievance for “imaginary information.” The FAA also pointed out that a PIO can only provide information that is already held under the control of the public authority.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the Public Information Officer (PIO) was a complete lack of response, which is a violation of the RTI Act’s time limits. Subsequently, the First Appellate Authority (FAA), while addressing the situation, seemed to dismiss the appellant’s queries as an attempt to seek “imaginary information” and advised against filing a second appeal, suggesting the appellant file another RTI. The FAA also stated that the PIO’s role is limited to providing information already in their possession or control.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that they had not received proper information in response to their RTI application. They also contended that charges for furnishing information in their earlier RTI application had been wrongly demanded. The PIO, on the other hand, maintained that all available information had been provided and that the charges were levied for the supply of documents as previously directed FAA. The CIC, in its deliberation, referred to a significant Supreme Court judgment in the case of CBSE & Anr. V/s Aditya Bandopadyay & ors. This judgment clarified that while public authorities might voluntarily offer advice or guidance as a public relations exercise, this should not be mistaken for an obligation under the RTI Act.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC) made crucial observations. Firstly, it noted that many of the appellant’s queries in the second application were essentially seeking definitions of words and phrases, along with the PIO’s opinion. The Commission found that the FAA had made an error the PIO to collect charges for the supply of documents. This was a violation of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. This section clearly states that information should be provided free of charge if the public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in Section 7(1) of the Act. Consequently, the CIC directed the PIO to provide the information that the appellant had originally sought in their *previous* RTI application, and this was to be done free of cost. Furthermore, the PIO was advised to exercise due diligence to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished to RTI applicants in a timely manner, as mandated Act. The CIC warned that failure to do so could lead to penal proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act in the future. This decision is significant because it not only ensured the disclosure of information that was originally requested but also corrected the procedural lapse regarding the fee, reinforcing the principles of the RTI Act.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Definitions are Information: You have the right to seek definitions of words or phrases used in official communications or responses you receive. If a term is unclear, you can use RTI to get a clear explanation.
- Lesson 2: Free Information for Delays: If a public authority fails to provide information within the stipulated time limits (usually 30 days), you are entitled to receive that information free of charge, even if the PIO later tries to levy a fee. This is a crucial protection under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
- Lesson 3: PIO’s Opinion is Not Required: The RTI Act mandates the disclosure of factual information held authorities. You cannot compel a PIO to provide their personal opinion or interpretation of terms, though they must provide factual definitions if available.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Clearly identify the information sought: Be precise about the words or phrases you need defined and the context in which they were used.
- Reference previous correspondence: If the terms were used in a specific order or reply, mention the date and nature of that document.
- State your right to free information: If there were delays in previous responses, you can cite Section 7(6) of the RTI Act to claim information free of cost.
- Submit the application: Fill out the prescribed RTI application form and submit it to the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO) of the relevant department.
Sample RTI question you can use:
“Please provide the definition of the term ‘[Specific Word/Phrase]’ as used in your letter dated [Date of Letter/Order] regarding [Subject Matter]. Also, please provide the relevant rule under which a fee is prescribed for providing such definitions if applicable.”
Conclusion
This case serves as a reminder that the RTI Act is a tool for transparency and accountability. Don’t hesitate to use it to seek clarity, challenge unjustified fees, and ensure that public authorities adhere to the law. your rights and the provisions of the RTI Act, you can navigate government processes more effectively and obtain the information you are rightfully entitled to.
