Ever wondered about the conduct of your elected representatives? Do you want to know if they are adhering to rules regarding their personal lives and official duties? The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, empowers citizens to seek such information. This article explores a case where an RTI applicant sought details about the conduct of Members of Parliament (MPs), highlighting how the RTI Act can be a powerful tool for accountability, even when dealing with sensitive information. Understanding this case can guide you in filing your own RTI applications for similar concerns.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant approached the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs (MPA) with a comprehensive set of queries concerning the conduct of Members of Parliament. The applicant sought to ascertain information on several critical aspects, including whether MPs had more than one spouse, if they had outstanding dues for air travel, their consumption of electricity and water, and their adherence to rules regarding government accommodation. The initial response from the Public Information Officer (PIO) at the MPA was a mixed bag: some queries were answered, while others were deemed to fall under the purview of different public authorities and were thus transferred. Subsequently, PIOs from these various transferred authorities provided partial information.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs (MPA) initially responded to the RTI application. However, recognizing that some of the information sought was not maintained ministry, they transferred relevant parts of the application to other public authorities. This is a common procedure under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, where if the information sought is held public authority, the PIO is mandated to transfer the application. The PIOs of the respective authorities, to whom the application was transferred, then provided whatever information they possessed. However, the appellant felt that the information provided was not exhaustive or entirely satisfactory, leading to further proceedings.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter eventually reached the Central Information Commission (CIC) for a hearing. During the proceedings, the appellant presented detailed arguments for each of their queries, strongly advocating for the disclosure of the requested information. The appellant emphasized their right as a citizen to know about the conduct of their elected representatives. The respondents, including the PIO from the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and PIOs from the authorities to whom the application was transferred, presented their cases, explaining the limitations of the information they held or the reasons for its non-disclosure.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, after hearing both sides, made several crucial observations and issued directions. The Commission noted that some of the queries posed appellant were not precisely defined and that a few were based on information gleaned from newspaper reports, which may not always be factually accurate. Furthermore, the Commission recognized that the information sought was diverse and not consolidated within a single public authority. Despite these challenges, the CIC directed the concerned PIOs to provide specific information that was ascertainable and held respective departments. Crucially, the Commission advised the appellant to strategically target their RTI applications towards the specific public authorities that would hold the relevant information, rather than expecting one authority to possess all the answers. The Commission also provided guidance to the PIO of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, emphasizing the need for careful consideration before transferring RTI requests. They stated that transfers should be based on a thorough understanding of the Allocation of Business Rules, ensuring that the subject matter genuinely relates to the receiving public authority. This ensures that applications are efficiently processed and reach the correct custodians of information, aligning with the spirit of Section 7 of the RTI Act which mandates timely disposal of requests.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Be Specific in Your Queries: When filing an RTI, ensure your questions are clear, concise, and unambiguous. Vague or broadly worded queries, especially those based on hearsay or newspaper reports, may be difficult for public authorities to address effectively and can lead to delays or incomplete responses.
- Lesson 2: Target the Right Public Authority: Understand which government department or authority is likely to hold the information you are seeking. If your query spans multiple areas, consider filing separate RTI applications with each relevant authority. This increases the chances of getting accurate and complete information.
- Lesson 3: Understand the Transfer Process: While PIOs can transfer applications under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, it’s essential they do so correctly. If your application is transferred, follow up with the new authority. If a transfer seems inappropriate, you have the right to appeal. The CIC’s advice to the MPA PIO underscores the importance of proper transfer procedures.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Information Needed: Clearly define what specific information you want regarding the conduct of MPs or any other public official.
- Determine the Relevant Public Authority: Research which government ministry or department is responsible for the area you are inquiring about. For issues related to MPs, the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs is a starting point, but specific issues like accommodation or travel dues might lie with other departments.
- Draft Your RTI Application: Write your application in simple language, clearly stating your queries. Avoid making assumptions or relying solely on unverified reports.
- Submit and Follow Up: Pay the requisite fee and submit your application to the PIO of the identified authority. Keep a record of your application and the acknowledgement. If you don’t receive a response within 30 days (as per Section 7 of the RTI Act), you can file a first appeal under Section 19.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide details of any outstanding dues against air travel claims for Members of Parliament under the purview of your department for the period [start date] to [end date].
Conclusion
This case clearly demonstrates that the RTI Act is a potent tool for seeking information about the conduct of public representatives, including Members of Parliament. While challenges may arise due to the nature of the information or the structure of public authorities, a well-drafted RTI application, targeted at the correct authority, can yield valuable insights. Remember to be specific, persistent, and utilize the appeal process if necessary. your rights under the RTI Act, you can contribute to greater transparency and accountability in governance.
