Have you ever sent a suggestion, a complaint, or a representation to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) with hopes of it being considered? Many citizens do, believing their voice matters. But what actually happens to these submissions? This article explores a real RTI case that sheds light on how the government handles public input and what you can find out through the RTI Act.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this case, an RTI applicant wanted to understand the process behind the drafting of the Lokpal Bill. Specifically, they sought to know what actions were taken on the suggestions they and other members of the public had sent to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) over time. The applicant also requested any information available in material form related to these submissions. The Public Information Officer (PIO) initially provided the information that was readily available in documented form.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officers (PIOs) from the PMO and DoPT responded to the RTI application. While some information was provided, the process wasn’t entirely smooth for the applicant. During the subsequent hearing at the Central Information Commission (CIC), the applicant pointed out that one of the replies sent PIO of the DoPT had unfortunately not reached him. He requested that this missing reply be resent.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) brought clarity to the applicant’s concerns. The representatives from the PMO and DoPT explained the general procedure for handling public communications. They clarified that while representations, complaints, and suggestions from the public are received and processed at an official level within the PMO, they are typically forwarded to the relevant Ministries and Departments for further action. Crucially, they stated that not all such communications are presented directly to the Prime Minister for his personal review. The respondents also addressed the applicant’s query regarding bill drafting, explaining that there is no mandatory requirement to consult the public before formulating a bill. Decisions on incorporating public input during the drafting of any particular bill are made on a case-by-case basis.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC), after hearing both sides, made an important observation. The CIC noted that the explanations provided respondents during the hearing helped to alleviate some of the doubts the appellant had. This highlights how the RTI process, and particularly the CIC hearings, can serve as a platform for clarification and dispute resolution. In addition to this observation, the CIC issued a specific direction: the PIO of the DoPT was ordered to resend the reply that had not reached the appellant previously. This direction is significant as it ensures that the applicant eventually receives all the information they are entitled to under the RTI Act, even in cases of postal delays or errors.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understand Government Processing: Public authorities often have standard operating procedures for handling public communications. While your input is valuable, it might be processed at an official level and forwarded to relevant departments rather than directly reaching the highest authority. The RTI Act helps you understand these processes.
- Lesson 2: RTI Can Clarify Doubts: If you have unanswered questions about how government decisions are made or how your input is handled, an RTI application can be a powerful tool to seek clarification. The CIC’s observation in this case shows that explanations provided through the RTI process can resolve confusion.
- Lesson 3: Follow Up on Missing Information: If you don’t receive a complete or timely reply to your RTI application, don’t hesitate to pursue it. You can bring this to the attention of the First Appellate Authority and, if necessary, the Central Information Commission (CIC) during the second appeal stage. The CIC’s order to resend the missing reply demonstrates that the system can correct errors.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or office is most likely to hold the information you seek. In this case, it was the PMO and DoPT concerning bill drafting and public suggestions.
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State your request precisely. Mention the specific bill or policy you are interested in and the type of information you are seeking, such as actions taken on public suggestions or the process followed.
- Specify Supporting Documents: If you are asking for documents, clearly state what kind of material form you expect the information in.
- Be Prepared for a Hearing (if necessary): If your request is denied or you receive an unsatisfactory response, you have the right to appeal. The CIC hearing can be crucial for getting your questions answered and ensuring your rights are upheld.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide details of the process followed [Relevant Department/Ministry] in considering public suggestions and representations received concerning the drafting of the [Name of Bill/Policy]. Also, provide information on what actions were taken on suggestions submitted public between [Start Date] and [End Date] regarding this bill/policy, if any records are maintained.
Conclusion
This RTI case is a valuable reminder that the Right to Information Act is not just about accessing documents; it’s also about understanding government processes and ensuring accountability. Even when dealing with high-level offices like the PMO, the RTI Act empowers citizens to ask questions, seek clarifications, and ensure that their concerns are acknowledged and processed according to established procedures. how the system works and utilizing the RTI Act effectively, you can gain valuable insights and contribute to a more transparent governance system.
