EMERGING ISSUES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RTI ACT KERALA EXPERIENCE VINSON M PAUL IPS (RTD) Chief Information Commissioner

DEMAND SIDE Awareness among people has increased, but not to the desired level Some use it without any purpose/ meaning Useful information sought relate to issues like Survey of land Mutation of property

ATRs on petitions/representations Building permits ATRs on petitions/representations Promotion matters Implementation of projects Encroachments

Large number of applications relate to Departments like Revenue Local Self Govt Schools/Colleges/Universities Police

PSUs Transport PWD Public Service Commission Some use the Act for blackmailing, extortion, personal vendetta

Supply Side Replies furnished in time by PIOs in more than 80 % cases Irresponsible disposal by 10-15% FAAs Lack of training of PIOs/ FAAs reflected in the quality of replies- particularly in the case of aided schools/colleges, PSUs, Local Self Govt.

Poor record maintenance/digitisation adversely impacts PIOs Little progress in suo moto disclosure u/s 4 (1) (b)of the Act Lack of motivation on the part of PIOs/ fear of punishment

Adjudication Side Heavy backlog- 13500 cases Pendency from 2011 Commission strength of 1+5 never maintained

Commission works with the State CIC alone for the last 2 years Pendency with the SCIC cleared and pendency with other Commissioners are being attended to Large number of complaints against non-compliance of the orders of the Commission

Long pendency of stay orders by HC on fines Online RTI applications not accepted. Govt accepted the proposal of the Commission to accept online applications and appeals, and online replies thereon.

Recommendation of the Commission to give documents costing Rs Recommendation of the Commission to give documents costing Rs. 10 or less free of cost as postage costs more than Rs.10 has theoretically been accepted by Govt. Efforts undertaken to prepare templates for suo moto disclosure u/s. 4(1)(b) of the Act undertaken by Govt with the assistance of TISS

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION S. 7(8) of the Act mandates furnishing of particulars of the AA where a request for information is rejected. Should it not be made compulsory as the information could be incomplete, vague, misleading, wrong etc. ?

Organisations which have nothing to do with intelligence and security have been notified u/s. 24 (4) of the Act. E.g. Crime Branch CID, District and State Crime Records Bureau, Police Telecommunication Unit, State and Regional Forensic Science Labs, State and District Finger Print Bureau, Confidential Sections in the PHQ, District Police Offices.

The State Govt., under Regulation of Fee and Cost Rules, have prescribed fees for documents with a qualification that the prescribed fees under the Rules shall be charged in case no separate fee is prescribed. Depts like Revenue contest that fees prescribed by them can be charged for documents furnished by them under the above provision. Whether the above notification is in consonance with the RTI Act ?

Incorporating RTI Act as part of academic syllabus at Higher Secondary level Need for introducing RTI Act as a part of Departmental Test for declaration of probation Necessary amendment in the Act to make FAA accountable

Need for a social audit regarding the implementation of the RTI & the performance of the Commissions Need for re-defining the eligibility criteria of the Commissioners as appointments are getting highly politicised