URGENT AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO THE RTI ACT, 2005

These are the suggestions sent to the Legislation Dept on 20 April 2007.

 

URGENT AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO THE RTI ACT, 2005

The RTI Act, 2005 is one of the best legislations, post independence. But it is not without some shortcomings. But these shortcomings are visibly becoming fatal for the Act due to attitude problems of the authorities who have thrived on the colonial system of governance that had prevailed so far. Under the circumstances the following amendments are urgently required to make this Act deliver.

1.      Sub-sec 2(e). The definition of Competent Authority should be amended to read as:

‘the President of India only’.

Reasons:

1.1.  There is NO need for so many competent authorities for interpreting and modifying    

       the rules under this simple, straightforward Act.

This sub section, read in conjunction with sub sec 2(g) and Sec 28, adversely affects the uniform implementation of the Act. In particular, it gives a long rope to incompetent ‘competent authorities’ to subvert the Act itself.

 The instance of the Delhi High Court is relevant here.The application fees has been increased from Rs 10/- to Rs 500/-, the cost of a page of information has been increased from Rs 2/- to Rs 5/- and appeal fee has been increased from Rs 0/- to Rs 50/-! On the penalty side, the rates have been brought down from Rs 250/- to Rs 50/- per day of delay and the maximum penalty has been reduced from Rs 25,000/- to just Rs 500/-!

2.      Sub-sec 2(g). The definition of prescribed should be amended to read as: ‘prescribed’

means prescribed by the rules made under this Act by the Central Government.

Reasons: Same as given in sub-paras 1.1 and 1.2 above.

3.      Sub sec 12(5) may be amended as: The Chief Information Commissioner and

Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration other than government administration. (Please note that ‘and governance’ has been deleted!)

Reason: It is seen that narrow loyalties are preventing the Information Commissioners, especially the Chief Information Commissioners who invariably are former bureaucrats, from imposing penalties mandated under the Act leading to the subversion of the Act by those tasked and empowered to enforce it.

4.      Sub sec 14(3)(f) may be introduced as: has been evaluated average or below in

performance by an Information Commissioners’ Performance Evaluation Committee.

Reason: There has to be quantifiable parameters for evaluating the performance of the Information Commissioners and evaluation based on these parameters has to be done by a duly constituted independent committee/council. There is need for only one such committee/council at the national level that will evaluate the performance of the state information commissioners also.

5.   Sub sec 15(5) may be amended as: The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration other than government administration. (Please note that ‘and governance’ has been deleted!)

Reason: Same as given at para 3 above.

6.      Sub sec 17(3)(f) may be introduced as: has been evaluated average or below in

performance by an Information Commissioners’ Performance Evaluation Committee.

Reason: Same as given at para 4 above.

7.      Sub sec 19(6) may be amended as: An appeal under sub secs (1), (2) or (3) shall be

disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Reason: At present, the disposal of appeals by the Information Commissioners is totally lackadaisical. It almost seems that retired bureaucrats with political clouts are having a picnic at the cost of the exchequer. In one instance, the complete Kerala State Information Commission had come to a district headquarters and conducted a camp sitting to consider just 5 cases, in about one hour, when a good 29 cases from the same district were pending with the Commission!

8.      Sec 27(1) may be amended as: The Central Govt may, by notification in the official

gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Reason: same as given in sub-paras 1.1 and 1.2 above.

9.      Sec 28 may be deleted.

Reason: same as given in sub-paras 1.1 and 1.2 above.

10.  Sec 29(2) may be deleted.

Reason: same as given in sub-paras 1.1 and 1.2 above.

Maj (Retd) P M Ravindran

2/18, ‘Aathira’

Kalpathy-678003

Tel: 0491-2576042