Many Indian citizens use the Right to Information (RTI) Act to access crucial government information. But what happens when the information you seek is massive and requires significant effort to compile? This case highlights an important aspect of RTI: the cost and effort involved in providing information. It’s a reminder that while RTI is a powerful tool, it comes with certain considerations for both applicants and public authorities. Understanding these nuances can help you file more effective RTI applications and navigate the process smoothly.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An individual, identifying as an RTI activist, filed a detailed RTI application with the Election Commission of India. The application sought a vast quantity of information related to the 2012 State Legislative Assembly elections held in five different states. Specifically, the applicant requested pre and post-election voter lists, including the addresses and photo IDs of each voter from all five states. Additionally, the applicant inquired about the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), questioning if there was any guarantee against their manipulation or similar destructive programs. The applicant also curiously asked about the role of networking sites like Google.com, Rediff.com, and Yahoo.com in the Commission’s work, referring to them as “friends of the Commission.” The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information that was readily available in recorded form. However, the PIO also pointed out that the requested information was extremely voluminous and would require significant compilation, potentially diverting the Election Commission’s resources disproportionately, as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. Furthermore, the PIO deemed some queries, such as the guarantee against EVM manipulation, as impressionistic and beyond the scope of the RTI Act.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Election Commission of India acknowledged the RTI application. While providing readily available information, the PIO duly informed the applicant about the sheer volume of the data requested. The PIO invoked Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, which states that an information request that would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority shall not be furnished. The PIO also clarified that certain questions, particularly those seeking subjective assurances or guarantees about the non-manipulability of EVMs, were not within the purview of the RTI Act, which is designed to provide factual information and not opinions or assurances.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter eventually reached the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC carefully reviewed the RTI application, the PIO’s response, and the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The Commission found that the PIO had already furnished all the information that was readily available. The CIC agreed with the PIO’s contention that providing the complete list of voters, along with their photo IDs, for all five states would involve an enormous volume of data, making it impractical to compile. The Commission also noted that such detailed information is generally accessible through the relevant official websites of the Election Commission. The CIC viewed this case as an illustration of how the RTI Act could be misused without considering the substantial costs and efforts required for information compilation. The Commission expressed concern that such applications could trivialize a significant right granted to citizens.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority and rejected the appeal. The CIC concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the existing decision. The significance of this order lies in its emphasis on the practical limitations of the RTI Act, particularly concerning information that is excessively voluminous or requires disproportionate effort and resources to compile. It reinforces the principle that while citizens have a right to information, this right is balanced against the operational capacity of public authorities. The CIC’s observation that the information was available on websites is also a crucial point, encouraging applicants to first explore readily available public sources before filing extensive RTI requests.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Be Mindful of Volume and Effort: Before filing an RTI application, consider the sheer volume of information you are requesting. If it’s likely to be extremely large, like nationwide voter lists, understand that the PIO may invoke Section 7(9) if compilation disproportionately diverts resources. It’s advisable to narrow down your request to specific, manageable sets of information.
- Lesson 2: Check Publicly Available Sources First: Many public authorities make vast amounts of information available on their official websites. Always check these resources before filing an RTI. If the information is already in the public domain and easily accessible, your RTI application might be rejected or deemed unnecessary.
- Lesson 3: Focus on Factual Information: The RTI Act is for seeking factual information, not opinions, assurances, or subjective interpretations. Questions about guarantees or hypothetical scenarios are unlikely to be entertained under the Act. Frame your questions clearly and focus on what is documented.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Ensure you are filing the RTI with the specific department or authority that holds the information you need.
- Be Specific and Concise: Clearly state the exact information you require. Avoid vague or overly broad requests. Break down complex requests into multiple, focused queries.
- Acknowledge Potential Volume: If your request is for a large dataset, consider if it can be obtained in parts or if there’s a specific period or geographical area you need information for.
- Pay the Fee and Submit: Fill out the RTI application form accurately, pay the prescribed fee, and submit it through the appropriate channel (online or offline).
Sample RTI question you can use:
Under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, if the information sought is voluminous and requires disproportionate diversion of resources, what is the procedure for providing partial information or directing the applicant to the source where the information is available? Please provide details on how this is applied in practice department.
Conclusion
This case serves as a valuable lesson for all RTI applicants. While the Right to Information Act is a powerful tool for transparency and accountability, it’s essential to use it responsibly. mindful of the volume of information requested, checking publicly available sources, and framing questions precisely, you can significantly increase the chances of receiving a satisfactory response and contribute to the effective functioning of the RTI Act. Remember, a well-crafted RTI application is more likely to yield the information you need, ensuring that this vital right continues to serve its intended purpose.
