The Right to Information (RTI) Act empowers every citizen to seek information from government bodies. But what happens to an RTI request if the applicant passes away before the Central Information Commission (CIC) can hear the case? This scenario, while uncommon, raises important questions about the continuation of legal proceedings and the rights of applicants. Understanding this situation can help clarify the process and ensure that justice, as intended RTI Act, is served.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this particular case, an individual filed an RTI application with the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC). The applicant was seeking specific information concerning a property, which involved a ‘third party’. Following the initial application, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) to disclose the requested information to the appellant. However, the ‘third party’ involved in the property dispute then approached the Central Information Commission (CIC). The ‘third party’ argued that the FAA had ordered the disclosure of information without properly hearing their objections. The CIC, upon receiving this appeal, decided to put a stay on the FAA’s order until it could thoroughly examine the matter. Subsequently, the original RTI applicant filed a complaint with the CIC, asserting that they should have been heard before the stay order was issued and requesting that the FAA’s original order be reinstated.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the PIO and FAA of the NDMC was to direct the disclosure of information to the applicant. However, the ‘third party’s’ appeal to the CIC led to a stay on this disclosure. The subsequent development was the original applicant’s complaint to the CIC, highlighting procedural concerns regarding the stay order.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing at the Central Information Commission, a crucial piece of information was presented ‘third party’: the original RTI applicant had passed away. The ‘third party’ further elaborated that the deceased applicant had previously filed a police complaint. This complaint alleged that the ‘third party’ had committed a criminal offense the appellant’s signature on an affidavit and no-objection certificate. This document was intended for submission to the NDMC to facilitate the mutation of the property into the ‘third party’s’ name. The ‘third party’ also informed the Commission that the police had concluded their inquiry into this matter, finding that the applicant’s allegations could not be substantiated. Additionally, the ‘third party’ submitted evidence that the deceased applicant had executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the ‘third party’s’ father and had received a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs for it.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, after considering the submissions, made a significant observation. Given that the RTI applicant had expired, the Commission ruled that the case stood abated. This means that the proceedings of the RTI application could not continue because the original applicant, who had the locus standi to pursue the matter, was no longer alive. The significance of this order lies in establishing a precedent for how the CIC handles cases where the applicant dies during the pendency of their appeal or complaint. It highlights that the right to information, in this context, is personal to the applicant. The CIC’s decision directly refers to the abatement of proceedings, a legal principle that terminates a case due to an event, such as the death of a party, rendering further litigation pointless or impossible.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: The Personal Nature of RTI: This case underscores that an RTI application and its subsequent appeals are generally personal to the applicant. If the applicant dies, the case typically abates, as the right to seek information ceases with their demise.
- Lesson 2: The Importance of Third-Party Rights: While the case abated due to the applicant’s death, it began with a third-party objection. This highlights the importance of the provisions in Section 11 of the RTI Act, which mandate the PIO to provide an opportunity to the third party to make their case before disclosing information that concerns them.
- Lesson 3: Timely Pursuit of Information: If an RTI application is crucial, especially in matters involving property or significant financial stakes, it is advisable for applicants or their legal heirs to pursue the matter diligently and promptly. In cases where the applicant is elderly or unwell, they might consider authorizing a representative or ensuring their legal heirs are aware and prepared to continue the process if necessary.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or body holds the information you need.
- Draft Your Application Clearly: State your request precisely. For property-related information, specify the property details and the exact information you require (e.g., ownership records, mutation status, property tax details).
- Pay the Application Fee: As per RTI rules, attach the prescribed fee (usually Rs. 10) through IPO, DD, or cash.
- Submit and Track: Submit the application to the PIO of the concerned authority and keep a record of your submission. If you don’t receive a satisfactory response within 30 days (or 35 days if the FAA is involved), you can file a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act. If still unsatisfied, a Second Appeal can be filed with the CIC under Section 19(3).
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide certified copies of all documents pertaining to the property located at [Full Property Address], including ownership records, mutation history, property tax assessments, and any related correspondence held department for the period from [Start Date] to [End Date]. Also, please provide the basis and authority under which the current ownership, if different from the applicant’s records, is recorded.
Conclusion
While the death of an RTI applicant can lead to the abatement of their case, it is a reminder of the personal nature of this right. This case, though ending in abatement, started with a dispute involving a third party and highlighted the procedural safeguards within the RTI Act. For citizens seeking information, especially on critical matters, understanding these nuances and acting promptly can be crucial. The RTI Act remains a powerful tool for transparency, and knowing how it operates, even in challenging circumstances, empowers every Indian citizen.
