invites] P.I.L. for sustained pressure on Government for implementing RTI Act

Friends,
Sustained pressure on public authorities is essential for for implementation of RTI Act in letter and spirit. Few young Advocates have met me and shown interest in filing a P.I.L. on Non-Implementation of RTI Act, to the Supreme Court.
An "Approach Paper" has been prepared for facilitating further action by them. I am placing it on yahoo groups to solicit your views.
Dhirendra Krishna IA&AS (Retired)Yahoo group rti4empowermentEmail: dhirendra.krishna@...
……………………………………………………………………………………………
APPROACH PAPER FOR P.I.L. ON NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF RTI ACT
1. OBJECTIVES
• Direction of Supreme Court to Central and State Governments and Union Territories, regarding time bound implementation of RTI Act
• Directions of Supreme Court regarding enlarged suo-moto disclosure of information needed by citizens on the web sites of public authorities.
• Media publicity, leading to generating awareness of RTI Act.
• Initiate political debate in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, by sending copy of P.I.L. to leading Political Parties, MPs and MLAs.
• Generate awareness regarding non-implementation of RTI Act by posting reference to PIL in internet groups.
• Directions to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for special audit of the implementation of RTI Act for reports to Parliament and State Legislatures.
2. REASONS FOR INITIATING P.I.L.
1. Public authorities have not taken adequate action to implement Section 4(1) (a) of the RTI Act which requires them to (i) Maintain the records duly indexed and catalogued to facilitate public access. (ii) Computerization of records, within reasonable time and subject to availability of resources and (iii)Connection of computerized records through a network all over the country on different systems, so that access to records is facilitated. Aforesaid action has not been completed, as there is no time bound plan and adequate resources been not been earmarked for this purpose indicated on the web sites.
2. Information required to be published under section 4 (1) (b) (i) to (xvii) is not being reviewed and updated by Public Authorities. There is no declared policy on frequently would it be up-dated, available on the web site.
3. Public Authorities are required to publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies according to section 4(c) of RTI Act. Important policies continue to be formulated without public debates. Web site does not contain such information.
4. Public Authorities are required to provide reasons for quasi-judicial decision to the effected persons, according to section 4(d) of the RTI Act? There is no guideline in this respect as per the web sites of public authorities.
5. Public Authorities are required to determine the information required by the public, which should be suo-moto published at regular interval, so that public has minimum resort to the use of RTI Act, according to sections 4(2) to 4(4). Information required by the citizens should be disseminated, so that citizens do not resort to RTI Act. No such disclosure on web sites. Frequent controversy about denial of information before Central / State Information Commissioners show that information required by citizens is not being disclosed and disseminated suo-moto.
6. Comprehensive instructions regarding implementation of section 4 of the RTI Act, by concerned officers are not available on the web site. Departmental instructions (if any) to enable the Public Information Officer to get relevant records as per section 5, 6 and 7 are not available on the web sites.
7. Web sites do not show whether any efforts have been made to develop and organize educational programs to advance the understanding of the public and disadvantaged communities as to how to exercise the rights vested in them under the RTI Act, under section 26 of RTI Act.
8. Annual Progress Report under Section 26 of RTI Act has not been disclosed on the web site. It is not known whether there is adequate progress in implementation of RTI Act. If there is any time-bound action plan for implementing all provisions of RTI Act and budget provision to enable administrative actions, it is not evident from the website.
9. There are any formal instructions to enable implementation of RTI Act throughout the organization and well-documented public policy regarding information disclosure. RTI Act can not be implemented without such detailed instructions and these should be disclosed on the web sites
10. There should be a system for providing information to illiterate persons and such procedure should be given wide publicity. It should also be disclosed on the web sites.
11. If there are changes in information system or institutional reforms as a result of RTI Act, it should be disclosed in the web site.
12. There is no disclosure regarding (i) What type of information is being requested by public and (ii) whether the feedback through the information requests has resulted in corrective actions. Thereby administrative reforms, if any, arising from greater transparency are not disclosed.
13. If any steps have been taken to inculcate attitudinal and cultural change in the organization towards citizen's right to information, the measures are not disclosed in the web sites.
14. RTI Act was conceived to promote effective preventive vigilance, with transparency and disclosure of information. If there have been changes in disclosure as an anti-corruption measure, it should be highlighted in the web sites.
15. Audit findings of Comptroller and Auditor General of India focus on financial aspects and do not give adequate importance to non-implementation of RTI by public authority. Special Audit of this aspect is needed to bring the administrative failures to the notice of Parliament and Legislature and to supplement the report by Central Information Commissioner / State Information Commissioners under RTI Act.
3. RESEARCH NEEDED TO SUBSTANTIATE P.I.L.
• Aforesaid allegations can not be made in P.I.L. to Supreme Court, without adequate data to support the allegations.
• Number of public authorities under Central Government, State Government, U.Ts, and Public Sector Undertakings etc. is very large. Thorough research would require substantial time and resources. This is a perpetual task and can be carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, as an integral part of audit of public authorities. P.I.L would have to depend upon few practical examples to substantiate the allegations.
• Review of web site of public authorities would enable an overview of steps taken by public authorities to implement RTI Act. PIL can be based on review of information available on representative sample of web site of public authorities.
• Government may justify their position with the help of best legal brains, as the have adequate financial power. The Advocates arguing the P.I.L. on behalf of citizens may face major practical hurdle in the Court.
• Major counter argument against the P.I.L. are:
(a) Implementation of RTI Act is a matter of executive action and there is no need for judicial intervention,
(b) Adequate research has not been done before initiating P.I.L. Mere review of web sites is not adequate for making comments on non-implementation of RTI Act.
(c) C&AG is a constitutional authority and no directions from Supreme Court regarding audit of RTI implementation are called for
(d) It may be argued that pace of implementing RTI Act is a matter of Government policy and therefore not a subject matter of judicial review.
(e) Supreme Court should be approached after exhausting administrative channels. P.I.L. is immature, unless the applicant has written to the appropriate authorities and there is no satisfactory response.
• Advocates pleading in favor of PIL would have to be prepared with counter-arguments, such as:
(a) Right To Information is a human right
(b) Access to information is being denied by Government to cover up their inefficiency and corruption.
(c) Transparency and open governance is in public interest.
(d) Parliament has passed RTI Act and the Governments/public authorities/ public sector undertakings do not have the option of letting it remain unimplemented.
(e) Transparency in Governance and informed citizenry are essential for working of democracy.
• Advocates who draft the P.I.L. and plead the case would have to be prepared with argument for and against the P.I.L.
4. SUGGESTED CONCRETE ACTION PLAN
• Small group should be formed of dedicated persons willing to devote their time and effort for drafting the P.I.L. Task of review of web sites may be allocated to each Member and time allocated for their review.
• Support and advise would be provided to the Members of the group to enable review of web site with focus on implementation of RTI Act.
• Initially, letter may be sent to Head of Department concerned pointing out the non-implementation of RTI Act evident from the web site. After no reply from the H.O.D. or unsatisfactory reply, there is a case for mentioning that Department in the P.I.L. on non-implementation of RTI Act.
• P.I.L. should be drafted on the basis of "evidence" regarding non-implementation of RTI Act, quoting specific instances.
• P.I.L. would cover Central Government, all State Government and UTs and few. Number of public authorities is very large and therefore one would have to focus on few public authorities. I suggest minimum 5 web sites pertaining to each.
• It is a debatable issue whether several P.I.L. should be initiated or a consolidated one may be attempted.
April 10, 2008
Nonprofit Action