Many Indians are curious about how important decisions are made in our country, especially when it comes to matters of life and death. The Right to Information (RTI) Act empowers citizens to seek transparency from government bodies. This case highlights how RTI can be used to understand processes, even those as sensitive as mercy petitions, and what happens when information isn’t readily provided.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant approached the President’s Secretariat with two applications. The core of their request was to obtain information about how mercy petitions are handled President of India, with a specific focus on the case of Afzal Guru. The applicant wanted to understand the general procedure and the status of specific petitions.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the President’s Secretariat provided some documents related to other mercy petitions. However, for the specific case of Afzal Guru, the PIO stated that since a final decision was still pending, the requested information could not be disclosed. This response left gaps, as it wasn’t entirely clear if all available documents had been shared or if some were being withheld without proper justification.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing at the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO’s response was scrutinized. The CIC pointed out that a PIO must explicitly state whether all records have been provided or if any are being withheld. Crucially, any information withheld must be justified a specific exemption clause under the RTI Act. The PIO also raised a point that some documents were received from third parties, implying that their disclosure might depend on those parties’ consent. This argument was contested Commission.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC delivered a significant ruling emphasizing that the RTI Act places the responsibility of providing information squarely on the public authority holding it. The Commission directed the PIO to take specific actions:
- If any information was received from a third party and was considered confidential, the PIO should consult that third party under Section 11 of the RTI Act. This section outlines the procedure for handling information provided in confidence parties.
- If the PIO decided to withhold any remaining documents, they were mandated to issue a “speaking order”. This means the order must clearly state the specific exemption provision under the RTI Act that justifies withholding the information.
Regarding the Afzal Guru case, the CIC accepted the PIO’s submission that the matter was still under consideration President, and thus, information directly related to the final decision could not be disclosed at that stage. However, the principle of providing all available non-exempted information and justifying any withholding remained paramount.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Clarity in PIO Responses is Crucial: Always push for a clear response from the PIO. If they claim to withhold information, demand the specific exemption under the RTI Act they are using. A vague refusal is not acceptable.
- Lesson 2: Third-Party Information Has Procedures: If a PIO claims information is from a third party and cannot be disclosed, remember that Section 11 of the RTI Act provides a process. The PIO must follow this process and cannot simply refuse disclosure without attempting to consult the third party.
- Lesson 3: The Responsibility is on the Holder: The RTI Act clearly states that the authority holding the information is responsible for providing it. They cannot pass the buck, especially without proper justification under the Act.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or office holds the information you need. For sensitive matters, it might be a higher authority.
- Draft Your Application Clearly: State precisely what information you are seeking. Be specific but also broad enough to cover related details if necessary.
- Mention Relevant Sections (Optional but helpful): While not mandatory, referencing sections like Section 11 can show you are aware of the RTI Act’s provisions.
- Be Prepared for Appeals: If your initial application is denied or you receive an unsatisfactory response, be ready to file a First Appeal (under Section 19) and then a Second Appeal to the CIC if needed.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, please provide details of the procedure followed department for the disposal of mercy petitions, including any standard operating procedures or guidelines. If specific files or notes related to past mercy petitions (excluding those currently under final consideration President) are available, please provide photocopies of the relevant notings, correspondence, and any opinions recorded, along with the specific exemption provision under the RTI Act, if any document is being withheld.
Conclusion
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the RTI Act is a tool for demanding accountability and transparency. Even in complex and sensitive areas, citizens have the right to seek information. the nuances of PIO responses, the importance of speaking orders, and the procedures for third-party information, you can effectively use RTI to get the information you are entitled to. Don’t hesitate to exercise your right to know!
