The year of 2019 turned out to be very significant year for the right to information. Questions of constitutional importance having a bearing on the right to information, privacy, accountability and independence of judiciary got settled. The RTI Act got amended and some important judgments on the functioning of the information commission/information commissioners were pronounced. The highlights of these developments are as under:
(1)The RTI Amendment Act, 2019 dated 1.8.2019:
The RTI Amendment Act, 2019 amended the provisions related to the term, salary and other conditions of service of Central and State Information Commissioners in the RTI Act, 2005. Details can be seen here- The RTI amendment bill and its implications.
(2) The RTI (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other terms and Conditions of Service of Central/State Information Commissioner) Rules-2019 (“RTI Rules-2019”):
The Department of Personnel and Training (“DoPT”) notified the RTI Rules-2019 on 24.10.2019. These Rules specify the term of office, pay, pension/retirement benefits, rate of dearness allowance, leaves, competent authority for sanctioning of leaves, medical facilities, accommodation, LTC etc of Central and State Information Commissioners. Details can be seen here: RTI Rules 2019.
(3) Supreme Court (“SC”) decisions on:
(i)Whether CJI is a public authority? Judicial Independence and the RTI Act:
– The Constitution bench of SC[1] held that the Chief Justice of India and the judges together form and constitute the public authority i.e. the SC. Information relating to declaration of assets of judges of SC and High Court will not impinge upon the personal information and the right to privacy of the judges. Independence of judiciary is a matter of public interest. When public interest demands disclosure of information, judicial independence has to be kept in mind. Details of the judgment are available here: Judicial Independence, CJI and the RTI Act.
(ii)Appointment of Information Commissioners:
– SC directed[2] that in the case of appointment of information commissioners, all necessary information including issuance of advertisement is to be placed on the website. Their terms and conditions of appointment is to be specifically stipulated. Search committee to make the criteria for shortlisting of the candidates public. Appointment of information commissioners is not to be limited to government/ex-government employees and vacancies are to be filled up without delay. Details of the judgment are available here:The timely directions in Anjali Bhardwaj Vs. UOI.
(iii) Substantially financed NGOs fall under RTI Act:
SC held[3] that MCM DAV College Chandigarh, DAV College Chandigarh, DAV Senior Secondary School Chandigarh are all substantially financed, since, in the period of 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, they received grants from the State Government which constituted about 44%, 40% and 44% of their expenditure respectively, which in recent years increased substantially and because 95% of the salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the college is borne by the State Government. Details of the judgment are available here: Substantially financed NGOs fall under RTI.
(iv) Answer scripts under the RTI Act:
The issue before the division bench of SC was that when the answer scripts are sought by the examinees from the Institute of Companies Secretaries of India (“ICSI”), then whether, the fee would be payable under the Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 or under the guidelines of ICSI’s statutory council. SC held[4] that existence of these two avenues is not mutually exclusive and it is up to the candidate to choose either routes. If a candidate seeks information under the right to information, then payment has to be sought under the RTI Rules, however, if the information is sought under the Guidelines of ICSI, then ICSI is at liberty to charge the candidate as per its Guidelines. Details of the judgment are available here: Answer sheets/reverification under RTI.
(4) High Court (“HC”) decisions on:
(i) Government cannot dictate RTI officers:
When the additional Chief Secretary, Kerala State Government issued the following directive:
“all documents/information related to Inter State matters and documents/information which Government feels privy and the disclosure of the same may hamper the interest of the State shall be exempted from revealing to the public even on request under RTI Act”
Kerala High Court held[5] that “the Public Information Officers, Appellate Authorities and the State Information Commission shall only act implicitly in terms of the RTI Act, de hors this order, adverting to the exceptions statutorily provided and nothing more, nothing less”. Details of the judgment are available here:Government cannot dictate the RTI officers.
(ii) EVM is not an information under RTI Act:
The Delhi High Court held[6] that “The RTI application seeking an EVM is actually an application for supply of a product and not any information. It is beyond the scope of the RTI Act. Details of the judgment are available here: EVM is not an information under RTI.
(5) RTI in news!
(1) During a hearing Supreme Court observed:
“There is a pervasive fear of RTI. Officials have become afraid of putting anything on files. We are informed that Mantralaya in Mumbai is getting paralysed because of incessant RTI applications”[7]
(2) The use of RTI is on the rise as 13.70 lakh RTI applications filed in 2019-2019, over 64k rejected[8].
More news is available here:RTI in News.
[1] Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Civil Appeals Nos.10044 of 2010 and 10045 of 2010, Civil Appeal no.2683 of 2010 dated 13.11.2019.
[2] Anjali Bhardwaj and Others Vs. UOI, WP (C) No. 436 of 2018 dated 15.2.2019.
[3] DAV College Trust and Management Society and Ors Vs. Director of Public Instructions and Ors, Civil Appeal No.9828 of 2013 along with Civil Appeal Nos.9844-9845 of 2013, Civil Appeal Nos.9846-9857 of 2013, Civil Appeal No.9860 of 2013 dated 17.9.2019.
[4] Institute of Companies Secretaries of India Vs. Paras Jain, Civil Appeal No. 5665/2014 dated 11.4.2019.
[5] Adv DB Binu Vs. SPIO and others, WP (C) No.1102 of 2019 dated 25.6.2019.
[6] Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr, W.P.(C) 2679/2019 and CM Appl. No. 12383/2019 dated 17.12.2019.
[7]Source:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/72786062.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
[8]https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rti-use-on-the-rise-as-13-70-lakh-rti-applications-filed-in-2018-19-over-64k-applications-rejected/articleshow/72193021.cms
37 Comments
Comments are closed.