Public Information Officers -PIOs not performing their duty of providing information is a frequent experience of an RTI activist

Early this week, I once again experienced rejection, or rather telling of a brazen lie regarding the controversial water cut in Pune that was stalled recently after the public hue and cry. The decision to cut water supply was taken in a meeting of the Canal Committee despite 100%water levels in three out of four dams (that supply water to Pune). When I went for inspection of files in the water supply department of the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), I was told by a senior engineer who is also an appellate authority that no minutes of meeting exist as it was a verbal discussion.
 

I was shocked to learn that a vital issue like water supply is casually decided over a chat between municipal authorities and ministers Ajit Pawar and Harshavardhan Patil who are part of the Canal Committee meeting. I then decided to inspect the same files in the irrigation department and immediately got a copy of the minutes of the Canal Committee meeting. While the documents reveal PMC’s utter negligence in ensuring that Pune does not have water cuts post-good monsoons, it was shocking that a senior engineer of PMC should lie about the non-existence of these documents.
 

Other activists too have had similar experiences. As per the Commonwealth Human Right Initiative (CHRI)’s latest annual report on status of RTI use in India (based on the annual reports of 10 information commissions), only 10% of RTI queries are rejected. Noted RTI activist, Maj Gen SCN Jatar (retd.) counters, “My experience with applications sent by me and by a number of citizens, who come to us for advice, is that the information, which is denied is generally the critical one. Giving you an example, I asked for 'consent' under the Air and Water Acts for municipal solid waste processing plants, both from the municipal corporation and from the pollution control board. Both gave me 'authorisation' under the MSW (Handling & Management) Rules, 2000 and not 'consent'. This critical informationis essential because the plants are creating havoc in polluting the ground water and the ambient air. This is adversely affecting the health of the citizens.”
 

“Of course, we go in for an appeal. The Appellate Authority directs that the information be given. It is again denied. Hence, we put in a second appeal. Currently, the information commissioner is hearing second appeals of May 2011 vintage. Even after the hearing, it takes almost six months to issue orders. The PIO is generally not fined and if fined, the amount is rarely deducted from the person's salary.  We want information, which may still be far away.  Hence, do we wait for more than three years to get a decision in such critical and straight forward matters? In spite of orders for preference to senior citizens, it is generally not accorded,” he said.
 

RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar too agrees. He said, “I am also of the view that public authorities are filing false compliance reports. Maharashtra State Information Commission (SIC) has also said that 96% RTI applicants get desired information—in fact, it is the other way round.’’
 

Venkatesh Nayak, who has compiled the report for CHRI clarifies that, “We have mentioned in a prominent place that ‘if the figures published in the Annual Reports are to be believed’. I have no way of finding out if the figures are accurate, hence the cautionary phrase. This report sets the ground for undertaking such inquiries. As these reports are to be tabled in the respective legislatures one would presume that the SICs and Central Information Commission (CIC) are submitting true facts as collected from the public authorities. It is absolutely crucial to cross check the claims about disposals and rejections. Our report should be used as a basis to question the reports of ICs as no such attempt has been made till date.’’
 

Excerpts from the CHRI’s latest annual report of RTI use in India:
 

Proportion of Rejections at the RTI Application Stage
 

Anecdotal evidence across the country has made many civil society actors and activists believe that rejection of request is the norm in many public authorities and access to information is an exception, which they believe amounts to reversing the objectives of both RTI laws. However, if the data published in the Annual Reports of Information Commissions covered by this study is to be believed, only a small proportion of the total number of requests is rejected at the application stage.

• In States with smaller populations like Meghalaya and Mizoram less than 1% rejection was reported at the RTI application stage.

•  In Karnataka where public authorities received close to 2.93 lakh (293,000) requests the proportion of rejections was a mere 0.30%.

•  Some of the highest proportions of rejections were observed in the context of public authorities under the Central Government (8.14%) and those under the State Government of Maharashtra (7.2%) both of which received more than 6.5 lakh (650,000).

•  Although the macro picture in all governments covered by this study indicates rejection of not more than 10% of the total number of RTI applications received, some of the public authorities had very high rates ofrejection. For example, the rejection rate at the offices of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Directorate General of Safeguards was 100%. The offices of the Director General, Income Tax (Investigation) based in Ahmedabad (86.8%), Jaipur (71.6%), Kolkata (66.7%) and New Delhi (59.5%) also had a very high rejection rate.
 

•  The Jammu and Kashmir State Information Commission has reported that while RTI applications received by public authorities in that State grew phenomenally, the rejection rate dropped from 9% (2009-10) to 4% (2010-11) and stood at 1.37% for the last reporting year (2011-12).
 

•  Only the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have provided in their Annual Reports, clause-wise break up [Sections 8(1)(a) to (j), 9 and 24] of the number of times the exemptions were invoked by public authorities to reject information requests at the application stage.

•  The largest number of rejections of RTI applications (15,279) in public authorities under Central Government occurred on the grounds of protecting personal privacy [Central RTI Act, Section 8(1)(j)]. In Andhra Pradesh the exemptions pertaining to contempt of court and prohibition on the disclosure of information by courts was invoked most frequently (131 times) to reject RTI applications [Central RTI Act, Section 8(1)(b)]. Public authorities in Karnataka are said to have invoked most frequently (101 times) the exemption relating to police investigation, arrests and criminal trials [Central RTI Act, Section 8(1)(h)].

•  More than 4,000 RTI applications are said to have been rejected because they

pertained to the 25 intelligence and security organisations notified by the Central

Government under Section 24 of the Central RTI Act.

Recommendations:
 

•  Information Commissions must pay special attention to public authorities, where rejection rates are very high to see if the exemptionprovisions and public interest override clauses contained in Section 8 are being invoked by the public information officers or the first appellate authorities with due application of mind. Fewer the number of rejections, lesser will be the number of appeals and complaints.

•  All Information Commissions must collect and publish data about the number of times exemption clauses are invoked by public authorities to reject RTI applications as this is a statutory requirement.

•  Information Commissions must collect and publish data about the rejection of RTI applications by organisations notified under Section 24 of the Central RTI Act and Section 21 of the J&K RTI Act in keeping with the statutory mandate of accounting for all instances of rejection of requests by public authorities.