Central Information Commission
Ms. Parminder Kaur vs Vigilance Department, Chandigarh on 9 April, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Date 9.4.2009
1. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00115/LS
Complainant : Ms. Parminder Kaur
Public Authority : Vigilance Department, Chandigarh
(through Shri R.S. Ghuman, Supdt. of
Police, Shri Roop Ram, Supdt-III & Shri
Promod Kumar, OSD (Vig))
2. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00116/LS
Complainant : Ms. Parminder Kaur
Public Authority : Regional Employment Exchange
(through Smt. Nirmal Verma, Emp.
Officer & Shri J.P. Nain, SREO)
3. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00117/LS
Complainant : Ms. Praminder Kaur
Public Authority : CBWE
(through Shri D.R. Parashar, Regional
Director, & Shri Karnail Singh)
4. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00094/LS
Complainant : Vishva Jyoti
Public Authority : Department of Tourism
(through Shri Nirdosh Kumar, Sr.
Assistant)
5. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00095/LS
Complainant : Vishva Jyoti
Public Authority : Red Cross Society
(through Shri Satish Joshi, Joint
Secretary & Smt Jyoti Khanal,
Accountant)
1
6. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00096/LS
Complainant : Vishva Jyoti
Public Authority : Polytechnic for Women, Chandigarh
(through Shri Baldev Singh, ACPIO)
7. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00106/LS
Complainant : Vishva Jyoti
Public Authority : Society for Promotion of IT
(through Shri Vineet Verma, Shri
Sandeep Sharma & Shri Anil Barha)
8. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00107/LS
Complainant : Vishva Jyoti
Public Authority : Sports Authority, Chandigarh
(through Shri J.S. Negi, DSO & Shri
Prem Chand, Sr. Manager)
9. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00108/LS
Complainant : Vishva Jyoti
Public Authority : College of Architecture, Chandigarh
(through Shri Kamal Kumar, Supdt,
(CPIO))
10. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00109/LS
Complainant : Vishva Jyoti
Public Authority : Land Acquisition Departments
11. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00118/LS
Complainant : Ms Prabhjot Kaur
Public Authority : Water & Supply Department, Chandigarh
2
12. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00143/LS
Complainant : Ms Prabhjot Kaur
Public Authority : Govt. Medical Colleger & Hospital, Chandigarh
(through Shri Harjit Singh, (CPIO) &
Shri Tarun Bhutani, (ACPIO))
13. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00144/LS
Complainant : Ms Prabhjot Kaur
Public Authority : Govt. Printing Press, Chandigarh
(through Shri N.P.S. Randhawa,
Controller P&S)
14. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00093/LS
Complainant : Shri Livleen Singh
Public Authority : Police Headquarters, Chandigarh
(through R.S. Dogra, Administrative
Officer)
15. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00097/LS
Complainant : Shri Livleen Singh
Public Authority : Social Welfare Department, Chandigarh
(through Smt Neena Chopra, CPIO)
16. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00098/LS
Complainant : Shri Livleen Singh
Public Authority : Museum & Art Gallery, Chandigarh
(through Shri N.P.S. Randhawa,
Controller (P&S) & Smt Poonam
Khanna, CPIO)
3
17. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00099/LS
Complainant : Shri Livleen Singh
Public Authority : Statistics Cell, Chandigarh
(through Shri Dharam Vir Singh, ARO)
18. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00101/LS
Complainant : Shri Livleen Singh
Public Authority : Union Territory of Chandigarh
(through Shri Sudhir Chand Jain, CPIO
& Shri Kartar Singh, ACPIO)
19. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00102/LS
Complainant : Shri Livleen Singh
Public Authority : Animal Husbandary Department, Chandigarh
(through Shri Amonjot Singh, Research
Officer)
20. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00103/LS
Complainant : Shri Livleen Singh
Public Authority : Administration, UT Chandigarh
21. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00104/LS
Complainant : Shri Livleen Singh
Public Authority : Estate Office, Chandigarh
(through Ms Gurdas Kaur)
22. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00105/LS
Complainant : Shri Livleen Singh
Public Authority : College of Engineering, Chandigarh
(through Shri R.S. Malik, CPIO & Shri
Surinder Singh, ACPIO)
4
23. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00121/LS
Complainant : Shri Livleen Singh
Public Authority : HUDCO, Chandigarh
(through Gairik Guru, Asstt. Law
Officer)
26. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00120/LS
Complainant : Shri Pankaj Goyal
Public Authority : Law Department, Chandigarh
27. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00145/LS
Complainant : Shri Pankaj Goyal
Public Authority : Estate Office, (HAC), Chandigarh
(through Shri Baldev Singh, CPIO
(HAC))
28. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00146/LS
Complainant : Shri Pankaj Goyal
Public Authority : Estate Office, Chandigarh
29. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00063/LS
Complainant : Ms Simrat Kaur
Public Authority : Education Department, Chandigarh
(through Shri Gurdip Singh, RECES,
Shri Arjun Dev, RECES)
30. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00122/LS
31. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00123/LS
Complainant : Ms Simrat Kaur
Public Authority : Animal Husbandary Department, Chandigarh
(through Shri H.C. Dawar, Planning
Officer)
5
32. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00124/LS
Complainant : Ms Simrat Kaur
Public Authority : Bhakra Beas Management Board
(through Shri Bikram Jeet Singh
Sabharwal, Dy. Secretary (HRD))
33. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00139/LS
Complainant : Ms Simrat Kaur
Public Authority : Information Technology, Chandigarh
34. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00140/LS
Complainant : Ms Simrat Kaur
Public Authority : UT Secretariat, Chandigarh
(through Smt Veena Kumari, ACPIO)
35. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00141/LS
Complainant : Ms Simrat Kaur
Public Authority : Model Jail, Chandigarh
(through Shri Deep Kumar)
36. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00142/LS
Complainant : Ms Simrat Kaur
Public Authority : Zila Sainik Welfare Department, Chandigarh
(through Shri Baldev Singh, Sr. Asstt.)
37. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00196/LS
38. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00133/LS
Complainant : Shri Hemant Goswami
Public Authority : Chandigarh Housing Board
(through Shri H.S. Sood, CAO & Shri
Gagandeep Kaur, AO)
6
39. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00133/LS
Complainant : Shri Hemant Goswami
Public Authority : Chandigarh Housing Board
(through Shri H.S. Sood, CAO & Shri
Gagandeep Kaur, AO)
40. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00136/LS
41. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00137/LS
Complainant : Shri Hemant Goswami
Public Authority : Chandigarh Housing Board
(through Shri H.S. Sood, CAO & Shri
Gagandeep Kaur, AO)
42. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00134/LS
Complainant : Shri Hemant Goswami
Public Authority : Education Department, Chandigarh
43. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00135/LS
Complainant : Shri Hemant Goswami
Public Authority : Registrar Schools, Chandigarh
44. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00111/LS
Complainant : Shri Hemant Goswami
Public Authority : Law Department
(through Shri Ranjit Singh, CPIO)
45. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00113/LS
Complainant : Shri Hemant Goswami
Public Authority : CAT, Chandigarh
(through Shri Gulshan Rai, SO & Shri
Ajay Walia, JAO)
7
46. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00112/LS
Complainant : Shri Dalbir Pal Singh
Public Authority : Cooperative Societies, Chandigarh
(through Shri N.P.S. Randhawa, Joint
Registrar, Shri S.K. Bansal, Inspector,
(Gr-I), Shri Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. Asstt.)
47. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00148/LS
Complainant : Shri Dalbir Pal Singh
Public Authority : CITCO, Chandigarh
(through Shri I.D. Kalra, Company
Secretary)
48. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00147/LS
Complainant : Shri Dalbir Pal Singh
Public Authority : Marketing Board, Chandigarh
(through Shri Hans Raj, Supdt.)
49. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00114/LS
Complainant : Ms. Sakshi
Public Authority : UT Secretariat, Chandigarh
(through Shri Manjit Kaur, STP)
50. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00110/LS
Complainant : Ms. Sakshi
Public Authority : Department of Cencus, Chandigarh
(through Shri D.P. Saini, OS)
51. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00119/LS
Complainant : Ms Gurmeet Kaur
Public Authority : UT Secretariat, Chandigarh
(through Shri Sunil Dutt Sharma, Asstt.
Controllers)
8
52. F.No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00700/LS
Complainant : Shri Lavleen Singh
Public Authority : UT Secretariat, Chandigarh
FACTS
The above cited complaints have been filed before this Commission by the persons named hereinabove. These complaints were heard at UT Guest House, Chandigarh on 2nd & 3rd of March, 2009. Shri Hemant Goswami appeared on behalf of all the complainants. The officers of the concerned Departments, who appeared before the Commission, have been named against each complaint. As the issues raised in these complaints are similar, it has been decided to dispose of these complaints by a common order.
2. Shri Hemant Goswami would submit that he had sent the above named complainants to the offices of the CPIOs located in Chandigarh to check out whether the RTI applications were being received by the CPIOs/ACPIOs promptly and whether the information was being published as mandated under section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act (Act hereinafter). It is his submission that his teams came back and narrated there experiences to him which were not gratifying in as much as the RTI applications submitted by the complainants herein were not accepted by the CPIOs/ACPIOs in all the cases and, resultantly, the requisite fee was also not accepted. In nearly one third of the cases, the CPIOs/ACPIOs were not available when the complainants visited their offices. It is also his say that a report has been prepared under his guidance titled "Citizens's Report - Assessment of RTI Implementation" about this experiment and that the final version of the report will be published soon.
3. His further submission is that the provisions of clauses (a)(b)(c)&(d) of sub section (1) of section 4 of the Act are not being implemented by the Public Authorities in UT of Chandigarh. Elaborating on this point, he would submit that clause (a) of section 4(1) mandates every Public Authority to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed so as to facilitate easy retrieval of information. This sub section also mandates the Public Authorities to computerize the records in a reasonable time frame so that access to such records is facilitated. It is also his say that most of the Public Authorities in Chandigarh Administration have not done it so far. As regards clause (b) of section 4(1), Shri Goswami would submit that this 9 clause mandates Public Authorities to maintain and publish information on 17 points. Most of the Public Authorities in Chandigarh have not published this information in a systematic manner. Referring to clause (c) of section 4(1), Shri Goswami would submit that under this clause, the Public Authorities are required to publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies and announcing the decisions which affect public at large but this is also not being done. His overall submission is that the mandate of section 4(1) is being generally ignored by the Public Authorities.
4. Shri Goswami would also submit that apart from the provisions of section 4 of the Act, the Public Authorities are otherwise also required to maintain records under the Public Records Act, 1993 (69 of 1993). Clause
(e) of section 2 of this Act defines 'public records'. Section 5 of this Act provides for nomination of officers as Records Officers to discharge the functions under this Act. Section 6 of the Act prescribes responsibilities of the Records Officers. Section 12 of the Act makes provisions for access to public records. It is his forceful submission that the public records are to be property maintained and made accessible to the public not only under section 4 of RTI Act but also under the aforesaid provisions of the Public Records Act, 1993. According to him, there is no dearth of resources for computrisation work as, apart from the budgets available with the local governments, the Central Government in its 11th Five Year Plan has allocated massive funds for the purposes of e-governance and computer based activities.
5. His another submission is that certain Public Authorities in Chandigarh Administration have designated non-gazetted officials as CPIOs and even as Appellate Authorities, thereby frustrating the purpose of the Act. According to him, this is being deliberately done so that senior officer escape their responsibilities under this Act.
6. Referring to Rule 3 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005, Shri Goswami would submit that prescribed fee is required to be deposited by way of cash against proper receipt or by Demand Draft or Banker Cheque to the Accounts Officer of the Public Authority. However, the experience of his team was that in more than half of test cases, the CPIOs/ACPIOs refused to accept the RTI applications and the prescribed fee in cash. He has also assailed the imposition of fee at the rate of Rs. 50/- for seeking information by the Chandigarh Administration as against the fee of Rs. 10/- prescribed by the Central Government.
107. It is also his submission that this Commission has the authority to direct the Public Authorities to fulfill the mandate of section 4(1) of Act. He has drawn my attention to sub clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (a) of Section 19(8) of the Act which empower the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, to require the Public Authorities to take such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act.
8. A large number of CPIOs/Appellate Authorities appeared before the Commission whose names have been indicated against each complaint cited above. Some of them were heard and they denied any deficiencies in the arrangements put in place by them in their respective organizations in connection with the receipt of RTI applications and the requisite fee. However, as Shri Hemant Goswami requested the Commission to issue broad guidelines, particularly, for the implementation of section 4 (1) (b) of the Act, the Commission did not think it necessary to hear all the CPIOs/ Appellate Authorities present before the Commission, without prejudice to any party.
9. In view of the Commission, the submissions of Shri Goswami are unexceptionable inasmuch as the Public Authorities can provide information to the people at large only when it is properly maintained. More importantly, section 4(1)(b) of the Act mandates Public Authorities to make suo motu disclosures so that the people have to take minimum recourse to the provisions of section 6(1) of the RTI Act which is time consuming and also involves expenses on the part of information seekers.
10. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions has been issuing a number of guidelines/instructions in regard to the implementation of section 4 of the Act from time to time. The instructions contained in the Ministry's Office Memorandum dated 21.9.2007 are extracted below :-
"2. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of the section makes it obligatory for every public authority to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed. Record management in accordance with this provision is an important step to enable the Public Information Officers to furnish information sought under the Act. The clause also requires the public authority to have its records computerized and connected through a network all over the country. The pubic authorities are expected to complete the requirements of this clause on top priority.
3. Clause (b) of the sub-section ibid mandates the pubic authorities to publish the information mentioned therein within one hundred and twenty days from the date of enactment of the Act. It is 11 expected that all public authorities would have complied with this requirement already. If it has not been done, its compliance may be ensured without any further delay. Information so published should also be updated every year as provided in the Act.
4. It is obligatory for all the public authorities under clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act to publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies and announcing decisions affecting the pubic. They, under clause (d), are also obliged to provide reasons for their administrative or quasi judicial decisions to the affected parties.
5. Section 4 of the Act requires wide dissemination of every information required to be disclosed suo motu in such form and manner which is accessible to the public. Dissemination may be done through notice boards, news papers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means. While disseminating the information, the public authority should take into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in the concerned local area. The information should be, to the extent possible, available with the Public Information Officer in the electronic format which could be made available free of cost or at such price as may be prescribed. A copy of the document published, referred to in para 3, and also the copies of publications referred to in para 4 above, should be kept with an officer of the public authority and should be made available for inspection by any person desirous of inspecting these documents."
11. As regards the question of designation of CPIOs/CAPIOs and the mode of payment of prescribed fee etc, the Ministry of Personnel has issued detailed guidelines vide Office Memorandum dated 23.3.2007. The operative para of the instructions is extracted below :-
"(i) Central Public Information Officers/Central Assistant Public Information Officers are designated immediately, if it has not been done so far. Details of these officers may also be posted on the website;
(ii) Fee paid by any of the modes prescribed in the Rules including by way of Indian Postal Order is accepted;
(iii) Demand draft/Banker's Cheques/IPOs made payable to the Account Officer of the public authorities are accepted; and
(iv) Applications submitted by the applicants are not refused on the ground that it has not been submitted in prescribed format."
12. The Ministry of Personnel has re-visited the matter in its Office Memorandum dated 25.4.2008 and had under-lined the need of 12 maintenance and computerisation of records and also issued detailed instructions/guidelines relating to suo motu disclosures, dissemination of information; publication of facts about the policy and decisions and providing reasons for decisions etc. Paras 14 to 22 of the aforesaid memorandum are extracted below :-
"Maintenance and Computerisation of Records
14. Proper management of records is of utmost importance of effective implementation of the provision of the Act. A public authority should, therefore, maintain all its records properly. It should ensure that the records are duly catalogued and indexed in such a manner and form that it may facilitate the Right to Information.
15. The Public authorities should computerize all its records which are appropriate to be computerized. Records so computerized should be connected through a network on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated.
Suo Motu Disclosure
16. Every public authority should provide as much information suo motu to the public through various means of communications so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the Act to obtain information. Internet being one of the most effective means of communications, the information may be posted on the website.
17. Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act, in particular, requires every public authority to publish following sixteen categories of information:-
(i) the particulars of its organization, functions and duties;
(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees;
(iii) the procedure followed in its decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;
(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;
(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;
(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other 13 bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meeting are accessible for public;
(ix) directory of its officers and employees;
(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;
(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by it;
(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;
(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;
18. Besides the categories of information enumerated above, the Government may prescribe other categories of information to be published by any public authority. It need be stressed that publication of the information as referred to above is not optional. It is a statutory requirement which every public authority is bound to meet.
19. An another important point to note is that it is not sufficient to publish the above information once. The public authority is obliged to update such information every year. It is advisable that, as far as possible, the information should be updated as and when any development takes place. Particularly, in case of publication on the internet, the information should be kept updated all the time. Dissemination of Information
20. The public authority should widely disseminate the information. Dissemination should be done in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public. It may be done through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcast, the internet or any other means. The public authority should take into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and most effective method of communication in the local area while disseminating the information.
Publication of Facts about Policies and Decisions 14
21. Public authorities formulate policies and take various decisions from time to time. As provided in the Act, while formulating important policies or announcing the decision affecting the public, the public authority should publish all relevant facts about such policies and decisions for the information of public at large. Providing Reasons for Decisions
22. The public authorities take various administrative and quasi-judicial decisions which affect the interests of certain persons. It is mandatory for the concerned public authority to provide reasons for such decisions to the affected persons. It may be done by using appropriate mode of communication".
13. Referring to the experiences of the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and the State Information Commission, the Ministry of Personnel had issued a circular on 23.6.2008, para (III) where of is extractd below :-
"iii. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and the State Information Commission had organized a Mass Awareness Programme last year thoughout the State. The result manifested itself in the form of increase in the number of RTI applications in the State. The following initiatives were taken for awareness generation in the State :
(a) preparation of slides for exhibition in cinema theatres and beaming of strips on TV channels;
(b) preparation of short films for telecasting on TV/cinema theatres;
(c) preparation of lessons on RTI for incorporation in school syllabi;
(d) display of information on boards and presentation of templates for rural areas;
(e) preparation of e-learning module on RTI under the technical support by the Centre for Good Governance, Hyderabad."
14. It may also be added that the Tata Consultancy Services Ltd have prepared a detailed template for the Information Hand-Book under the Right to Information Act which runs into 52 pages. The template contains detailed guidelines for voluntary disclosure under section 4 (1) (b) of the Act. It is available on the website of Ministry of Personnel viz. www.persmin.gov.in and can be accessed by the Public Authorities concerned. Chapter 17 of the template delineates means/methods for dissemination of information by the public authorities, para 17.1 whereof is extracted below :-
"17.1 Means, methods or facilitation available to the public which are adopted by the department for dissemination of information.15
like :
• Official Library • Drama and shows • Through News paper • Exhibition • Notice Board • Inspection of Records in the Office • System of issuing of copies of documents • Printed Manual Available • Website or the Public Authority • Other means of advertising"
15. The Commission hopes that this template would be useful for the Public Authorities to fulfill their mandate under section 4 (1) (b) of the Act. It is, however, clarified that this template may not be applicable to all the Public Authorities in its entirety as the data disclosable by the Public Authorities may vary. It is, therefore, open to the Public Authorities to adopt such parts of the template as may suit them, depending upon the needs and requirements of their respective organizations.
16. It may also be added that this issue came up before this Commission in Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2007/00120 (Ms. Gita Dewan Verma Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) and vide its decision dated 28/03/2007, the Commission had directed Delhi Metro Rail Corporation as follows:-
"1. A statement will be added to the disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(xi) that there are no agencies other than those for which information stands published, whose budgets are controlled by DMRC.
2. A statement of the funding pattern has to be added to the disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(xii).
3. A statement will be uploaded to the disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(xiii) that there are no permits/authorization, issued by the DMRC.
4. i) A statement has to be uploaded in compliance with Section 4(1) sub section (c) as to the source of to access for 16 information on land acquisition for DMRC/rehabilitation programmes, neither of which are administered by the DMRC.
ii) A link has to be created to ease access to information on the present and proposed network of the Delhi Metro.
iii) Details of regulation of compensation for possible mishaps.
5. At present there is no disclosure u/s 4(1)(d). A statement will be uploaded that DMRC has quasi-judicial function.
However, linkages will require to be created for details of administrative decisions regarding tenders awarded, property development projects and consultancy projects of DMRC and any other issue that the DMRC considers appropriate to meet the requirement of the public u/s 4(1)(d) of RTI Act."
17. In another complaint viz. CIC/AT/C/2009/00049 (Manoj Pai Vs. All India Radio, Goa), in its decision dated 03/02/2009, the Commission had observed as follows:-
"5. After hearing the submissions of both parties, the Commission directs the Appellant to provide comments on the information already uploaded on the website, pointing out the missing information as also information that is not relevant, to the Respondents within 10 days of the receipt of this Order and the Respondents to complete compliance with Section 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) within one month of the receipt of comments from the Appellant. This includes publishing of manuals as prescribed under Section 4(1)(b) and suo motu disclosure of information to the public at regular intervals of time through various means.
7. It has come to the notice of the Commission from the submission of the Appellant that around 34 Door Darshan Kendras, 20 CBS Units and 14 AIR stations across the country have so far not taken any steps to comply with the Section 4 of the RTI Act. If true, this dismissive attitude on the part of these Stations/Units is unacceptable since the Commission is of the opinion that an informed citizenry and transparency of information are vital to the functioning of Democracy. The Commission, accordingly, directs the Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to send the necessary directives to all DDKs, 17 AIR Stations and CBS Units to immediately takes steps to ensure compliance with the requirements of Section 4 of the RTI Act within one month of receipt of his directive."
18. In yet another decision passed in File No. RC/UG/35826mpu dated 21.12.2008 (Chanderkant J Karira Vs Indian Embassy, Washington), the Commission has held as follows :-
"As per the Complaint, the Commission directs the Public Information Officer of the Indian Embassy in Washington to modify the contents of the Embassy's website so that it conforms with the provisions prescribed under section 4 (1) (b) (i) to 4 (1) (b) (xvii) of the RTI Act, if it has not already done so, within 30 days of receipt of this order.
The complainant may first discuss the matter with the PIO of the Embassy once the modification is completed and if still not satisfied, appeal to the Commission through e-mail."
DECISION
19. Needless to say, the implementation of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act is the mandate of law and it is to be done by all the Public Authorities concerned. The importance of suo motu disclosures under section 4 (1) (b) can hardly be over-emphasized as maximisation of such disclosures would result in minimisation of recourse to the provisions of section 6 (1) of the Act and thereby save valuable time, energy and resources of the stake holders viz, the Public Authorities and the information seekers. As noted herein above, detailed instructions/guidelines have been issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions from time to time which have been extracted in the proceeding paras. Be it as it may, in exercise of its powers conferred under section 19 (8) (a) of the Act, the Commission hereby requires the Public Authorities to, inter-alia, take the following steps in this regard :-
(i) Since a reasonable time has now passed from the time of promulgation of the Act in 2005, the Public Authorities should now take urgent steps to have their records converted to electronic form, catalogued, indexed and computerized for easy accessibility through the network all over the country, as mandated in section 4 (1) (a) of the Act. The computerization, dissemination and updating of record is an ongoing and continuous process and all Public Authorities should put a proper system in place to make such sharing of records an automatic, routine and continuous process, so that access to such records is facilitated.
(ii) The Public Authorities are required to take immediate steps to publish detaled, complete and unambiguous information under the 16 categories, as on 31.3.2009 (if already not done or partially done) and thereafter update the information as and when necessary, but definitely every year, as mandated under section 4 (1) (b) of the Act.
(iii) While formulating important policies or announcing the decisions affecting the public, the Public Authorities are required to publish all 18 relevant facts about such policies and decisions for the information of public at large, as mandated under section 4 (1) (c) of the Act.
(iv) The information disclosed by the Public Authorities under section 4 (1) (b) & (c) of the Act is required to be disseminated through multiple means as provided under sub sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the Act and as also suggested in para 17.1 of the template prepared by the Tata Consultancy Service Ltd (reference para 14 above)/or as per the practice adopted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission (reference para 13 above).
(v) Needless to say, the information disclosed by the Public Authorities under section 4 (1) (b) & (c) of the Act is a proactive disclosure and the Public Authorities are required to provide immediate access to this material as and when so requested, without the requirement of filing of any written request and the charging of any fee.
(vi) The notice board (s) in the offices of all the Public Authorities should display as much information as practicable about sou motu disclosures under section 4 (1) (b) & (c). Further, this information could also be placed in the Library or Reading Room, if such facility exists, for the public convenience. The Public Authorities would, however, be at liberty to take any other steps that may be necessary and expedient for fulfilling the mandate of section 4 of the Act in the matter of sou motu disclosures of information and dissemination thereof, depending on the specific requirements of such Public Authorities.
(vii) The names, room numbers, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses of the CPIOs/ACPIOs and Appellate Authorities may be prominently displayed in each office for the convenience of the public at large. If the complete disclosures of 4 (1) (b) & (c) are also available with any other officer (s) other than the CPIOs/ACPIOs, the names, designations, room numbers and telephone numbers of such officers must be prominently displayed in the offices for easy contactability.
(viii) The CPIOs should accept the requisite RTI fee without any delay and without causing any avoidable inconvenience to the information seekers.
Such fee should be accepted in any form as prescribed in Rule 3 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005, and subsequent notification 294 (E) dated 17th May, 2005 by way of cash against proper receipt or by Demand Draft or Banker Cheque or Indian Postal order. The 'Payee" or the name of the officer in whose favour payment is to be made by the information seeker should be displayed on the notice board of the Public Authority.
(ix) The public authorities need to ensure that alternate arrangements to accept RTI applications and fee are made when CPIOs proceed on long leave or long tour.
(x) Importantly, no information be denied merely on the ground that the RTI application has not been submitted in a particular format.
19. Coming to the issue of the rank of the CPIOs and Appellate Authorities, based on its experience, the Commission finds force in the submission of Shri 19 Hemant Goswami that some Public Authorities in Chandigarh Administration have designated non-gazetted officials as CPIOs and even Appellate Authorities, thereby frustrating the purpose of the Act. Needless to say, CPIOs and Appellate Authorities are to be designated by the concerned Public Authorities and the Act does not prescribe any rank for these appointments. It has, however, been noticed that when the CPIOs are appointed from the non-gazetted ranks, their performance has not been found to be up to the mark. The Commission, therefore, directs that the Public Authorities in Chandigarh Administration may designate officers of gazetted rank as CPIOs and Appellate Authorities, as far as practicable.
20. The complaints cited above are disposed of subject to the above directions.
21. Let a copy of this decision be also sent to the following :-
(i) Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh;
(ii) Chief Secretary, UT of Puducherry;
(iii) Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development;
(iv) Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment;
(v) Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports;
(vi) Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution;
and
(vii) Chairman, CBDT
with the direction to have it implemented in 03 months time in letter and spirit.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy, Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission (K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar 20