The use of official vehicles, especially with special privileges like red lights, is a matter of public interest. When citizens suspect misuse of power or resources, the Right to Information Act, 2005, becomes a powerful tool to seek clarity. This case highlights how an RTI application can be used to question the propriety of such privileges and understand the rules governing them, even when the information sought is about the conduct of a senior official.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant approached the Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI) with a specific request. The applicant wanted to obtain copies of documents that would shed light on the use of a red light on the official car Director of the institute. Additionally, the applicant sought clarification on whether the Director held the position of ex-officio Vice Chancellor. This dual request aimed to ascertain both the adherence to rules regarding official vehicle embellishments and the official designation of the institute’s head.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the IVRI presented the institute’s stance during the proceedings. The PIO asserted that the information available in the official records had already been furnished to the applicant. Crucially, the PIO stated that the Director had ceased using the red light, complying with the prevailing rules and regulations. Concerning the query about the Director being an ex-officio Vice Chancellor, the PIO explained that the Institute holds the status of a Deemed University. In such a context, the head of the institute could indeed be considered the Vice Chancellor. However, the PIO also clarified that no specific notification had been issued competent authority to formalize this designation. This response indicated that while the practice might be permissible due to the institute’s status, it wasn’t officially codified through a notification.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter eventually reached the Central Information Commission (CIC) after the applicant pursued the issue further. During the hearing, the PIO reiterated the points made earlier. The core of the PIO’s submission was that the information requested, as per available records, had been provided. The PIO emphasized the compliance regarding the red light usage and explained the rationale behind the Director’s potential claim to the Vice Chancellor’s designation due to the Deemed University status. The applicant’s grievance likely stemmed from a perceived lack of transparency or a desire for more definitive proof of compliance and designation.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC), after considering the submissions from both sides, ultimately rejected the appeal. The CIC’s reasoning focused on the distinction between the use of a designation and the adherence to rules. The Commission observed that it was the responsibility of the Director himself to determine the appropriateness of using the term “Vice Chancellor” in official communications. The CIC did not delve into the technicalities of whether a notification existed or not. Instead, the order implied that the internal decision-making and communication practices of the Director were within his purview, provided they did not violate any explicit rules or laws. The rejection of the appeal suggests that the CIC found the PIO’s response satisfactory concerning the availability of information and the explanation provided regarding the Director’s designation and the red light usage. This case underscores that while RTI can be used to seek information, the interpretation and application of rules related to designations and privileges are often left to the discretion of the concerned authorities, as long as they are not acting illegally or arbitrarily.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understand the Scope of RTI: RTI is primarily about seeking existing information held authorities. It is not a tool to compel authorities to create new documents, answer hypothetical questions, or make subjective judgments. In this case, the CIC focused on whether information was available and provided, not on whether the Director *should* use the title “Vice Chancellor”.
- Lesson 2: Focus on Factual Information: When seeking information about privileges or designations, frame your questions to elicit factual details, such as “What are the rules governing the use of red lights on official vehicles?” or “Is there a specific government order or notification designating the Director as ex-officio Vice Chancellor?”. Vague or opinion-based questions may not yield satisfactory results.
- Lesson 3: Be Aware of Discretionary Powers: Some matters are left to the discretion of competent authorities. While you can seek information about the exercise of this discretion, the CIC may not interfere if the authority has acted within its powers and without malafide intent, as suggested in this case regarding the Director’s use of the Vice Chancellor title.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Public Authority: Determine which government department or public institution holds the information you need. In this case, it was the Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI).
- Draft Your Application Clearly: State your request for information precisely and concisely. Use simple language. Mention the specific documents or information you are seeking.
- Pay the RTI Fee: Attach the prescribed fee (usually ₹10) in the form of a postal order, demand draft, or cash.
- Submit Your Application: Send your application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned public authority. You can submit it in person, , or sometimes online through the government’s RTI portal.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide copies of all relevant rules, notifications, and official communications pertaining to the use of specific lights or beacons on official vehicles head of this institution for the past five years. Please also provide any official communication or documentation that clarifies the designation of the head of the institution as ex-officio Vice Chancellor, if applicable.
Conclusion
This case serves as a valuable reminder that the RTI Act empowers citizens to probe into matters of public governance. While the outcome might not always lead to the desired definitive action, the process of filing an RTI application itself can bring transparency and accountability. the nuances of what can be sought and how to frame requests effectively, citizens can continue to leverage RTI as a vital tool for informed citizenship and good governance across India.
