Many Indian citizens use the Right to Information (RTI) Act to get crucial information from government bodies. But what happens when the Public Information Officer (PIO) asks for an extra fee? This case highlights a situation where a PIO demanded a ‘further fee’ for a large number of pages, only to admit later that he didn’t know the law and had made an illegal demand. The Central Information Commission (CIC) stepped in, awarding compensation and issuing a show-cause notice for penalty. This article breaks down what happened, what the CIC decided, and what it means for you when filing your RTI applications.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant filed an application seeking detailed information about a complaint lodged against a Deputy Commissioner of a Municipal Corporation. The applicant specifically requested certified copies of a Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) letter related to the complaint, the Action Taken Report (ATR) on the complaint, and a list of pending RDA (Request for Decision/Action) and police cases, including names and designations of involved officials. Additionally, the applicant sought complete details of officers or officials suspended Commissioner, along with copies of their charge sheets and suspension orders. After the First Appellate Authority (FAA) ordered the disclosure of this information, the PIO asked the applicant to pay an additional fee, claiming the information comprised 190 pages.
How the Public Authority Responded
The PIO, who was an Assistant Law Officer (ALO) in the Municipal Corporation, initially claimed that the RTI application submitted online was not received office. He then stated that he demanded the additional fee because he was unaware of the relevant laws. Subsequently, he admitted to having made an “illegal demand of money” and claimed to have sent the complete information to the appellant. However, the appellant argued that the information provided was only 09 pages long and pertained to just one of the queries raised in the RTI application, indicating a significant deficiency in the response.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO reiterated his initial stance about not receiving the application and his lack of legal knowledge when demanding the fee. He admitted to the illegal demand and stated that he had later sent the information. The appellant countered the inadequacy of the information received, pointing out it was a mere fraction of what was requested and only covered a single query. This discrepancy between the PIO’s claim of sending “complete information” and the appellant’s actual receipt of only 09 pages formed a crucial part of the Commission’s deliberation.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC) found the PIO’s conduct to be a case of “gross inefficiency and carelessness.” The Commission specifically noted that such behaviour from a law officer within the Vigilance Department was “completely unacceptable.” In its order, the CIC directed the PIO to send the complete information to the appellant without further delay. Crucially, under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, which empowers the Commission to require a public authority to take such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with its directions, the CIC awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant. This compensation was awarded for the loss and detriment suffered appellant due to the delay in receiving the information and the effort involved in pursuing the appeal. Furthermore, the CIC issued a show-cause notice to the PIO, directing him to explain why a penalty should not be levied under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for his failures.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: PIOs Cannot Make Arbitrary Fee Demands: A PIO can only demand a ‘further fee’ under Section 7(5) of the RTI Act if the information sought is expected to be available on more than 30 pages, or if it involves providing information in a prescribed format. The demand must be reasonable and based on the actual volume of information to be provided, not on a PIO’s ignorance of the law or arbitrary assumptions.
- Lesson 2: Inefficiency and Carelessness Can Lead to Penalties and Compensation: As demonstrated in this case, PIOs who exhibit gross inefficiency, carelessness, or malafide intent in handling RTI applications can face penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act and be directed to pay compensation to the applicant under Section 19(8)(b) for the suffering caused.
- Lesson 3: The CIC is a Powerful Redressal Mechanism: When faced with inadequate responses, delays, or unfair demands from PIOs, the RTI Act provides a robust appeal mechanism. The CIC has the power to direct disclosure, award compensation, and impose penalties, ensuring accountability of public authorities.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or office is responsible for the information you seek.
- Draft Your Application Clearly: State your request precisely and unambiguously. Mention the specific complaint, inquiry, or subject matter.
- Specify the Information Required: List out the documents, reports, lists, or details you need. Be as specific as possible.
- Be Prepared for Potential Fees: While PIOs cannot make arbitrary demands, be aware that for voluminous information (over 30 pages), a reasonable fee may be charged as per the rules. Ensure you follow the prescribed procedure for fee payment if asked.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide certified copies of any correspondence with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) regarding complaint number [Complaint Number] dated [Date of Complaint]. Also, please provide the Action Taken Report (ATR) on this complaint and a list of all pending Request for Decision/Action (RDA) and police cases related to this matter, including the names and designations of the involved officers. Furthermore, furnish complete details of all officers/officials suspended Commissioner of this department, along with copies of their respective charge sheets and suspension orders.
Conclusion
This case serves as a strong reminder that the RTI Act is a powerful tool for citizens to demand transparency and accountability. It underscores that public officials must act diligently and within the bounds of the law when handling RTI applications. If you encounter delays, inadequate responses, or unfair demands for fees, remember to pursue your appeal. The CIC is there to ensure your right to information is upheld, and that public authorities are held accountable for their actions. Your persistence can not only get you the information you need but also contribute to a more transparent governance system for all.
