Many Indian citizens face situations where they need to understand if an organization they have dealt with, especially concerning their employment or grievances, is subject to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This is crucial because if an organization is a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act, you have the legal right to seek information from it. This article delves into a case where the Central Information Commission (CIC) clarified whether the Afro-Asian Rural Development Organization (AARDO) qualifies as a public authority, a decision that has significant implications for anyone seeking information from similar inter-governmental bodies.
Background: What Information Was Sought
The RTI applicant in this case had a service dispute with the Afro-Asian Rural Development Organization (AARDO). He had filed petitions with the Secretary of Rural Development and the Ministry of Rural Development regarding his termination from AARDO. Subsequently, he filed an RTI application with the Ministry of Rural Development (MRD) seeking details about the action taken on his petitions. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Ministry of Rural Development responded that the information requested pertained to the administrative matters of AARDO and that AARDO is not considered a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. This classification meant that the Ministry believed they were not obligated to provide the information directly under the RTI Act.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the PIO of the Ministry of Rural Development was a denial of the information based on the assertion that AARDO is not a public authority. This is a common initial hurdle in RTI applications when the status of the organization is unclear. The PIO’s stance was that since AARDO was not a public authority, the Ministry could not be compelled to furnish information related to its internal administrative affairs through an RTI application directed at the Ministry.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter escalated to the Central Information Commission (CIC) because the applicant was not satisfied with the PIO’s response. During the hearing before the CIC, the respondent (representing the Ministry of Rural Development) presented a detailed explanation of AARDO’s nature. It was clarified that AARDO is an autonomous inter-governmental organization with 29 member countries from Africa and South Asia. India, through its Minister for Rural Development, had served as the President of AARDO for the triennium of 2009-2011. The respondent further explained that all member countries contribute annual subscriptions to finance the organization’s operations. Crucially, it was stated that the matter involving the appellant and AARDO had been heard Secretary (Rural Development) in his official capacity as the President of AARDO’s Executive Committee. Following a final hearing, a compromise was reached, and the dispute between the appellant and AARDO was settled amicably between both parties.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, after considering the submissions from both sides, made a significant observation. The Commission noted that the dispute between the appellant and AARDO had already been resolved and settled. Given this settlement, the CIC concluded that no further action was required on its part concerning the information request. While the CIC did not explicitly rule on whether AARDO is a public authority under the RTI Act in this specific order, the context of the hearing and the respondent’s explanation provided valuable insights. The fact that the Ministry official, in his capacity as President of AARDO’s Executive Committee, heard the matter and facilitated a settlement, highlights the close ties and potential for government involvement in such organizations. However, the primary reason for the CIC’s decision was the settlement of the underlying dispute, rendering the RTI request moot from their perspective.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understand the Definition of a Public Authority: Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines a public authority broadly. It includes bodies established under the Constitution, , or notification, and importantly, includes organizations substantially financed directly or indirectly government, or bodies owned or controlled government. When in doubt, always try to gather information about the organization’s funding and control mechanisms.
- Lesson 2: Inter-Governmental Organizations Require Careful Scrutiny: Organizations like AARDO, which are inter-governmental and receive contributions from member states, can present a complex case for RTI applicability. While they may not be directly established Indian law, their substantial financing or control Indian government can bring them under the ambit of the RTI Act. The nature of the government’s involvement, such as holding leadership positions or providing significant financial support, is key.
- Lesson 3: Settlement of Disputes Can Impact RTI Requests: As seen in this case, if the underlying grievance or issue that prompted the RTI application is already settled between the parties, the CIC might deem the RTI request unnecessary, even if the organization could potentially be a public authority. It is always advisable to explore resolution mechanisms outside of RTI if possible, as this can sometimes expedite the process or, as in this instance, lead to the closure of an RTI case.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Appropriate Public Authority: Determine which government department or ministry has oversight or a connection to the organization you are seeking information from. In this case, it was the Ministry of Rural Development.
- Draft Your RTI Application Carefully: Clearly state the information you are seeking. Be specific and avoid vague requests. Mention any previous correspondence or petitions filed.
- Clearly State the RTI Act is Being Invoked: Begin your application it is filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
- Submit and Pay the Fee: Submit the application to the PIO of the identified public authority along with the prescribed fee of Rs. 10. Keep a copy of your application and the submission receipt.
Sample RTI question you can use:
With reference to my service termination from Afro-Asian Rural Development Organization (AARDO) and my previous petitions filed on [Date(s)] to the Secretary, Rural Development and the Ministry of Rural Development, please provide details of all actions taken Ministry of Rural Development, including any communication, decisions, or investigations, concerning my petitions and the resolution of my service dispute with AARDO. Please also provide information on the extent of financial and administrative control the Ministry of Rural Development exercises over AARDO.
Conclusion
The case of AARDO and the RTI application highlights the nuances of applying the RTI Act to inter-governmental organizations. While the CIC’s decision focused on the settlement of the dispute, it underscores the importance for citizens to understand the broad definition of a public authority under the RTI Act. If you have a grievance with an organization that receives government funding or is substantially controlled government, exploring an RTI application can be a powerful tool to seek transparency and accountability. Always be prepared with clear information and understand the potential avenues for resolution.
