As an Indian citizen, understanding the flow of communication between state and central governments is crucial for transparency and accountability. This case highlights how the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be used to seek such information, even though the outcome might not always be what the applicant expects. It sheds light on the practical limitations of gathering vast amounts of official correspondence and the principles guiding information disclosure under the RTI Act.
Background: What Information Was Sought
The RTI applicant approached the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) with a detailed request. They sought copies of all letters exchanged between Chief Ministers of various states and the Prime Minister of India, starting from the year 2004. Furthermore, the applicant wanted to know the specific actions taken government on the letters received from Chief Ministers. Additionally, the application extended to requesting copies of all letters sent Central Government to the Chief Ministers of states, dating back to 1999. This was a broad request aiming to map the inter-governmental communication over nearly two decades.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the PMO responded that the information, as requested, was not available in a readily accessible format. The PIO argued that collecting and compiling such a massive volume of data, spanning numerous years and involving correspondence from all states and the central government, would disproportionately divert the resources of the PMO. Essentially, it was deemed an unreasonable burden. The applicant then escalated the matter to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA, while not overturning the PIO’s decision, directed the PIO to provide a more detailed explanation to the appellant regarding the reasons for not being able to furnish the information.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The case eventually reached the Central Information Commission (CIC) for adjudication. During the hearing, the CIC acknowledged the significant scope of the information requested. The Commission noted that the request encompassed not only all letters from Chief Ministers to the Prime Minister but also the follow-up actions on these letters. It also included all communications from the Central Government to the Chief Ministers. The CIC recognized that collating such extensive information across various departments and ministries within the Central Government would be an enormously challenging, if not impossible, task. The Commission considered the practicalities of fulfilling such a request and the potential strain on government machinery.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC, after careful consideration of the arguments and the nature of the information sought, upheld the decision of the PIO and the FAA. The Commission concluded that it would be practically impossible to collect and collate the requested information across the entire Central Government. Therefore, the appeal was rejected. This decision underscores that while the RTI Act aims to promote transparency, it also recognizes the limitations of public authorities in providing information that is not systematically maintained or would require substantial effort to compile. The CIC’s order implicitly refers to the spirit of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, which states that information shall be provided within thirty days of the receipt of the request public authority, provided that where the request is in respect of any information or record, which is held third party or which has been abstracted or compiled, the public authority shall make reasonable efforts to supply the information to the applicant. However, in this case, the sheer volume and scattered nature of the information made “reasonable efforts” impractical.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Scope and Feasibility: Be mindful of the scope of your RTI request. While the RTI Act is powerful, requests that involve extensive data collection, compilation, or analysis across multiple departments might be deemed impractical and rejected on grounds of disproportionate diversion of resources.
- Lesson 2: Specificity is Key: Whenever possible, narrow down your request to specific periods, departments, or types of information. Vague or overly broad requests are more likely to face challenges in retrieval and might be denied.
- Lesson 3: Understand Information Availability: The RTI Act mandates disclosure of information that is held under the control of public authorities. If the information is not systematically recorded or is too scattered, it may not be possible to obtain it through an RTI application.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or office is most likely to hold the information you seek. In this case, it was the PMO.
- Draft Your Application Clearly: State precisely what information you require. Be specific about dates, subjects, and the format in which you want the information.
- Quote Relevant Sections (Optional but helpful): You can mention the RTI Act, 2005, as the basis for your request.
- Submit and Pay the Fee: Submit your application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned authority and pay the prescribed fee (usually Rs. 10).
Sample RTI question you can use:
Under the RTI Act, 2005, please provide copies of all official correspondence exchanged between the Chief Minister’s office of [Specific State, if applicable, otherwise leave general] and the Prime Minister’s office concerning [Specific Policy Area or Issue] during the period from [Start Date] to [End Date]. Also, provide details of the actions taken on these communications.
Conclusion
This case serves as a valuable reminder that while the RTI Act is a potent tool for citizens, its effectiveness is also bound considerations and the existing record-keeping practices of public authorities. Applicants are encouraged to frame their RTI requests thoughtfully, ensuring they are specific, feasible, and target information that is likely to be held public authority. these nuances, citizens can better leverage the RTI Act to foster transparency and accountability in governance.
