As an Indian citizen, you have the right to seek information from the government. This right, enshrined in the Right to Information (RTI) Act, empowers you to hold public authorities accountable. In a significant case, an appellant, an inmate himself, sought crucial information regarding death convicts whose sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. This case highlights how RTI can be a powerful tool for accessing information that might otherwise remain hidden, even for those directly affected justice system. Understanding this case can guide you in filing your own RTI applications for similar information.
Background: What Information Was Sought
The RTI application was filed with the President’s Secretariat, seeking a comprehensive list of all individuals who were on death row but whose death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment. The appellant specifically wanted this information for the period since 1970 and also requested copies of the orders related to these commutations. Recognizing that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) would be the custodian of such records, the President’s Secretariat appropriately transferred the application to the MHA’s Public Information Officer (PIO). The PIO of the MHA responded that the available records of mercy petitions considered under Article 72 of the Constitution only dated back to 1981. They offered to provide this partial list upon payment of Rs. 4/-. Furthermore, they indicated that files for only 11 cases were readily available and could be provided for Rs. 22/-. The appellant, who had been in prison for 17 years, filed a first appeal, arguing that since he was an inmate, he should be provided the information free of cost. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the PIO’s decision, stating that only individuals holding a Below Poverty Line (BPL) card were eligible for free information, and the available information had already been offered.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Ministry of Home Affairs was restrictive. They claimed records were only available from 1981, not the requested 1970, and limited the available documentation to only 11 cases. The PIO also sought a fee for the information, citing standard procedures. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) further reinforced these limitations, emphasizing the policy of providing free information only to BPL cardholders, which the appellant did not appear to possess. This dual response – a limited scope of information and the imposition of fees – presented a significant hurdle for the appellant.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant, despite the previous responses, expressed his willingness to pay the required fee for authenticated copies of the documents he sought. However, he maintained his original request for complete information dating back to 1970. The MHA’s representative reiterated their earlier submission that records were only available from 1981, and only communications for 11 cases were on hand. The appellant, however, persisted, arguing that the information should be available from the requested period and that the authority should be able to compile it.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, after hearing both sides, delivered a landmark decision. The Commission strongly disagreed with the PIO’s assertion that the records were too old to be traced. They opined that a list of cases involving mercy petitions, especially those related to significant constitutional matters like Article 72, should be readily available with the respondent. The CIC, recognizing the broader public interest in such information, directed the PIO of the Ministry of Home Affairs to compile the complete list of mercy petitions considered under Article 72 of the Constitution, along with the communication of their orders, from the year 1970 onwards. Crucially, the CIC ordered that this information be provided to the appellant free of cost. This decision underscored that even if records require some compilation, the public authority has a duty to provide them, especially when they are not excessively old and serve a larger public interest. The directive to provide it free of cost acknowledged the appellant’s circumstances and the importance of the information.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Persistence is Key: Even if a PIO provides a limited response or claims information is unavailable, don’t give up. The CIC has often directed authorities to compile information if it is reasonably expected to exist.
- Lesson 2: Public Interest Matters: The CIC considers “larger public interest” when making decisions. If your request pertains to matters of significant public concern, highlight this aspect in your appeal.
- Lesson 3: Challenging Fee Imposition: While fees are standard, if you believe the fee is unjustified or you have a compelling reason (like being an inmate seeking information about oneself or a prisoner, or belonging to a vulnerable group), contest it during the first appeal or at the CIC. The CIC can waive fees in appropriate cases.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or ministry holds the information you seek. For matters related to the President’s consideration of mercy petitions, the Ministry of Home Affairs is generally the correct authority.
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State your request precisely. Mention the specific period and the type of information you need. For instance, if seeking information about commutations, specify “list of death penalty commutation orders” and the relevant time frame.
- Submit and Pay the Fee (if applicable): File your application with the prescribed fee (usually Rs. 10). If you believe you are eligible for a fee waiver, state your reasons clearly in the application.
- Follow Up and Appeal if Necessary: If you don’t receive a response within 30 days, or if the response is unsatisfactory, file a first appeal with the First Appellate Authority of the concerned department. If the first appeal is also unsuccessful, you can then approach the Central Information Commission (CIC).
Sample RTI question you can use:
Under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, please provide a list of all death penalty commutation orders issued President of India, under Article 72 of the Constitution, where the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, for the period from January 1, 1970, to date. Please also provide copies of the official communications or orders related to these commutations.
Conclusion
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the RTI Act is a tool for transparency and accountability. Even when dealing with sensitive information or facing bureaucratic hurdles, citizens have recourse. The CIC’s intervention in this matter ensured that crucial information, which should have been readily accessible, was finally provided to the appellant. As you navigate your own information needs, remember the principles of persistence, the importance of public interest, and the avenues available through RTI to seek justice and knowledge.
