EMERGING ISSUES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RTI

Transcript:EMERGING ISSUES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RTI:
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 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. 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