Salient features of RTI Act

Salient Features of RTI Act

Right to information provide for timely response by the government machinery to any query posted by the citizens. It is a powerful tool in the hands of the citizens to delve into the intricacies of government functioning.

The objective of right to information is empower citizens and improve transparency and accountability in the government. This also helps in reducing corruption and promotes a more direct interaction between people thereby facilitating democracy further. Also, a highly vigilant group of citizens can make informed democratic decisions.

Here are things you must know before filing an RTI query.

• A citizen has a right to seek information from a Public Authority which is held by the Public Authority or which is held under its control. 

• The right to seek information from a Public authority is not absolute. Section 8 and 9 enumerate the categories of information which are exempt from disclosure.

• Public authorities to designate Public Information Authorities and Assistant Public Information Officers within 100 days of the enactment. 

• Application for seeking information is to be made to an officer of the Public Authority who is State Public Information Officer. He is responsible to deal with requests of information/assist persons seeking information. 

• The Act makes it obligatory for every Public Authority to make suo-motu disclosure in respect of the particulars of its Organization, functions, duties etc. as provided in section 4 of the Act.

• A Citizen should make an application to the State Public Information Officer in writing in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which application is made.

• No prescribed form of application for seeking information. It can be made on plain paper with Name and complete postal address of the applicant.

• The information seeker is not required to give reasons for seeking information.

• Time limit-30 days/48 Hours/45 Days

• If an application is not supplied information within the prescribed time or not satisfied with the information provided, he may prefer an appeal to the first Appellate Authority who is an officer senior in rank to the Public Information Officer. There are no fees for making this appeal.

• There is a two tier appellate Forum: 1. Appeal to departmental officer senior to the PIO 2. To the Commission.

• If Appellant Authority fails to pass an order on the appeal with in the prescribed period, or if the appellant is not satisfied with the order of the First Appeal Authority, he may prefer a Second Appeal with the State Information Commission within 90 days from the date on which the decision should have been made by the First Appellant Authority or was actually received by the Appellant. 

• There is a provision of Complaint if the Public Information Officer fails to satisfy or it is a case of refusal access to any information requested under the Act or it is a case of overcharging etc. The complaint can be made to the State Information Commission.

• The Commission decides the appeals and conveys its decision to the Appellant/ Complainant and First Appellant Authority. 

History of RTI Act

History of Right to Information

"The Real 'Swaraj' will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition of capacity by all to resist authority when abused."
-Mahatma Gandhi

The Right to Information Act was passed in May 2005 by the Parliament and got the President’s assent on 15th June, 2005. This statement may sound simple, but the journey of passing this law was not easy. Laws on transparency have always been resisted in India. The Lokpal Bill took 45 years to become a law, since its first draft in 1968. The RTI Act too has its share of history.

The stage for the RTI movement was set by two Supreme Court judgments. In 1982 the Supreme Court remarked that 'Disclosure of Information as regards the functioning of Government must be the rule and secrecy an exception'. In the famous case of Mr. Kulwal v/s Jaipur Municipal Corporation in 1986 the Supreme Court gave clear cut directive that Freedom of Speech and Expression provided under article 19 of the Constitution clearly implies Right to Information as without information the freedom of speech and expression cannot be fully used by the citizens.

The first politician to lay emphasis on RTI was then PM VP Singh. He tried to enact legislation in 1989-90. Due to the political instability at the time, the idea did not materialize and VP Singh was removed from office in 1990, as his National Front government lost the confidence vote in Lok Sabha.

In the meanwhile, several civil society groups were formed with the objective of getting legislation on RTI passed. The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), founded in 1996, was one of them. It is the organization that took the matter to its logical end. Due to the growing demand for right to information, the Press Council of India under Justice JB Sawant drafted the Press Council- NIRD Freedom of Information Act, 1997. The Working Group, under HD Shourie, appointed by the United Front government, drafted the Freedom of Information Bill, 1997.
In 1998, when the NDA came to power, Prime Minister Vajpayee assured the nation of a bill to be soon introduced in parliament. This became reality in the year 2000. The bill was introduced in parliament as Freedom of Information and was referred to a Select Committee. After the select committee report in early 2002, the bill was passed in December, 2002. This was a watered down version of the bill proposed by NCPRI and other organizations.

The elections of 2004 brought the UPA to power. The government was headed by Dr Manmohan Singh. The National Advisory Council (NAC) was formed under Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. The main objective of the Council was to monitor implementation of government schemes. It was also known as the shadow government. After meetings with the civil society, the NAC made minor changes in the Freedom of Information Act, 2002. This was sent to the government. There was reluctance among politicians and bureaucrats in adopting these changes. There was an attempt made to re notify the earlier Act. This move faced widespread protests by citizens and civil society.

The government finally relented and a bill was introduced in December 2004. This was applicable only to the Union government. The civil society was not happy with this. Most of the information required by the common man was from state governments. The bill did not serve the purpose of the common man. Some members of the NAC too were unhappy with this. After heavy lobbying by NCPRI and other organizations the Right to Information Act,2005 was passed with 150 amendments.

Progressive States

There were many state governments of various parties which understood the need of the hour and enacted legislations before the Union government.

In 1997, the governments of Tamil Nadu and Goa were the first to enact this law.

The Government of Rajasthan enacted a law in 2000, after a lot of efforts by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan. The organization formed in 1994, strived to get information on the development works in rural areas.

A similar law came into effect in Karnataka in 2002, followed by Maharashtra in the same year. Madhya Pradesh passed the pending bill of 1998 again in 2003.

This is the brief history of the Right to Information in India.

An Introduction to RTI

A great revolutionary of the American independence movement, Patrick Henry, once famously said, "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." Being one of founding fathers of the United States of America, the world's greatest democracy as we know it today, he couldn't have captured more exquisitely the essence of a democratic nation.

India: the world's largest democracy. Once in every five years, when this massive country with a population of 125 crore people comes together to elect its leaders, it carries out an activity so massive in its sheer size, that it is unparalleled anywhere on this planet. And this always will be our biggest strength.


How many of us really think it through, though? Yes, we sure do elect our leaders, and provided the number of our people, it's a massive feat. But how many of us keep a check on our leaders once we give them their offices? How many of us keep ourselves aware of the working of our government? How many of us bother to keep a tab on how our own money is being spent? How many of us inquire about things that are hidden from us but affect our daily lives massively?

Sadly, most of us, including me, are guilty of answering all those questions negatively.

In the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln couldn't have described the meaning of democracy any better when he called it a form of government, "of the people, by the people and for the people." But if it is us, the people, that elect our government to power, it is also our right to know about its functioning. If it is us, the people, that pay for every Rupee of expense that is incurred to make our country better, it is also our right to know where and how that Rupee is being spent. If it is us, the people, that make the nation what it is, it is also our right to know what are the laws that govern us and keep us one.

That most of us are ignorant, knowingly or unknowingly, about our rights as a fact portrays a sad but true picture of India. But what is ironical is that most of us don't even have knowledge of our right to know! We all take to arms when we realize that there are things that are being hidden from us by the people whom we ourselves elect to rule us. But again, our ignorance beats us when we fail to understand that the biggest weapon in our arsenal actually helps us to know all that we need to know! That weapon we hold in our hands is the RTI.

A lot of us have been taught about RTI in schools. But not many of us are completely aware of all of its aspects because it is relatively a new law than compared to the plethora of laws the British left us back with, that pre-date a hundred years.

So, what exactly is RTI?

If I have to define the meaning of Right To Information, in the simplest words possible, then there is nothing more suggestive than the title itself. Right To Information is the right given to every Indian citizen to seek information, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advises, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, papers, samples, models, data material held by the government at all levels (Central, State, and local level), in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force. In simple words, it is a law that allows the citizens of India to find out anything they want to know, related to any form of government office or government department in India.

Enacted on 12th October, 2005, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, like most Indian laws, applies to the whole of India, except the state of Jammu & Kashmir. Some provisions of the Act came into force with immediate effect viz. obligations of public authorities, designation of Public Information Officers and Assistant Public Information Officers and constitution of Central Information Commission, constitution of State Information Commission, non-applicability of the Act to Intelligence and Security Organizations and power to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act.

Why do we really need RTI?

The fact that India is a democracy in which people elect their own leaders, de jure presupposes the need of the people of the country to have access to the right to know all that they must know about the functioning of their government that they themselves put into power.

Right to Information provides for timely response by the government machinery to any query posted by the citizens. The objective of Right to Information is empower citizens and improve transparency and accountability in the government. This also helps in reducing corruption and promotes a more direct interaction between people, thereby facilitating democracy further. Also, a highly vigilant group of citizens can make informed democratic decisions.

To put it all in a nutshell, imagine a massive company. A company is a large of body of people who come together to turn into reality certain interests that they commonly hold and share. A company's owners and members are called its shareholders. These shareholders invest their money into the company and exercise their voting rights to elect a board of directors that is entrusted with the job of making the company earn profits so that the interest of the shareholders are realized. But if this board is entrusted with such an important responsibility, especially when it is the personal wealth of the shareholders that is involved in the business, then the shareholders rightly have every right to know how their precious money is being spent, how their company is functioning and what are the decisions being taken by the board.

If you got the drift of what I am leading to, then do realize that India is a gigantic company of 125 crore shareholders who elect its board of directors in the form of the government. You and me, we have the right to know how our money is being spent, what decisions are being taken by our leaders and how our government is functioning. It is too precious a right we enjoy to be taken lightly and ignored.

Over the next few days, we at The InfoMission Project will strive hard to make all our citizens aware of this invaluable weapon that we Indians hold in our hands. We shall look into the most minute aspects of RTI, for example, how to file one, the fee required to be paid, the government offices exempted from giving out information, etc.

Come, join us. You have the right to know. Know the right.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014

December 16th, 2012. We all remember that date. It’s been burnt into the memory for some people because of the horrific incident that took place whereas for some others the repeated emphasis and spotlight on it has made them accustomed to it. Regardless, what happened on that eventful night shook the entire nation so to say; but to be honest it was what happened after that day that was both immensely gratifying as well as shameful. Scores of people gathered on the streets to fight for justice not just for the infamous “Nirbhaya” but for every woman, girl who has been a survivor or victim of horrific sexual assaults. One of the key issues that came up with this case was the punishment to be given to the Juvenile in the accused. When after initial proceedings of the case, the juvenile was let off with just 3 years in a reform home the anger erupted again as people could not believe that just because he was a couple months short of being 18, he wouldn’t be tried before a criminal court.  The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), 2000 does not permit detention of juveniles beyond three years irrespective of the gravity of the crime, the principle behind this is that juveniles lack the physical and mental maturity  to take responsibility for their crimes and because their character is not fully developed, they still have the possibility of being rehabilitated, and it is exactly this that demanded and brought about a review of the entire act and amendments were made.  The Juvenile Justice Act was enacted in the year 2000 with an aim for incorporating India’s international obligations under international law under its domestic legislations.

The Bill was drafted in June by the Ministry of Women and Child development to change the country’s juvenile justice law. The Juvenile Justice Bill, 2014 seeks to enact a law by consolidating and amending the law relating to children who are in need of care and protection. It seeks to cater to their developmental needs through proper care, protection and treatment by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matter, and for rehabilitation through processes provided and institution established under the proposed new enactment.

  The Juvenile Justice Bill primarily consists of two parts, 1. Child in conflict with law 2. Child in need of care and protection.  The bill also included the presence of a child welfare committee to look after matters pertaining to “Child in need of care and protection” and juvenile justice boards to look after matters pertaining to “Child in conflict with law.  Despite it being true that the proposed amendments came against the backdrop over the lighter punishment of 3 years given to a minor convicted in the December 16th, 2012 Delhi gang-rape case the bill concerned itself with a lot more than just the issue of Juveniles convicted in heinous crimes.

Amendments

When introduced, all debate and focus went to the provision of reduction of the juvenile age from 18 to 16 years, which though being true was not the key and only feature of the Amendments proposed. One key feature introduced is the concept of foster care in the country, for those who don’t want to adopt. Some other salient Amendments proposed are:

1. the bill is to pave the way for 16-18 year olds to be treated as adults when involved in heinous crimes such as rape, acid attacks, etc.

2. It empowers the Juvenile Justice Board to decide whether a minor above 16 years involved in a heinous crime is to be sent in an observation home or tried in a regular court.

3. The bill stays firm on the stand that Juveniles cannot be given death sentence or life imprisonment under any circumstance.

4. It criminalises corporal punishments and ragging, with the punishments for them being.     Corporal Punishment – A jail term of maximum 3 years.    Ragging- A jail term of maximum 3 years or fine of Rs.10, 000 or both

5. Also includes facilitation of faster adoption of children and setting up of foster care homes. The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) has been proposed as the statutory body, which will have powers to regulate inter-country adoptions along with issuing guidelines on adoption and related matter. Though even in the past there had been cases where CARA guidelines had been relaxed to facilitate adoption, a permanent change was required to accommodate changing circumstances.  In the case of Hashmi v. Union of India (2014) the apex court held that the right to adopt and to be adopted is a fundamental right, and also held that every person, irrespective of the religion he or she professes is entitled to adopt.

Questions.

Of course there’s questions. Specifically why questions, so we’re going to tackle two of them and explain the reasons behind them better.  1. Why can’t the juvenile age bar be reduced completely to 16? What is the apprehension behind it?  Ans. The critical reasons as to why there’s a distinction between crimes committed by persons above and below the ages of 18 is:  Maturity and Hope for reformation. It is genuinely believed that children per se do not attain maturity or understanding of their actions and the resulting consequences and hence should not be punished without been given a chance. This age of maturity after much deliberation and debate was set at 18, being a societal as well a scientific age of attaining adult hood per se. So the key issue regarding maturity in juvenile cases becomes that should the law hold someone absolutely accountable for committing an act which he doesn’t completely understand or cannot apprehend the consequences of it? The idea that needs to be kept in mind while trying to answer such a question is that India follows a system or retributive as well as transformative justice, which basically means that the law believes that justice isn’t served just by giving a reasonable enough punishment to the perpetrator but when the perpetrator is also given an environmental and the opportunity to reform himself/herself to be a part of the society. With that in perspective, it’s undeniable that the possibility of a juvenile reforming him/herself and becoming a functioning part of a society again is quite high and that chance cannot be denied to them. Due to these reasons primarily, the juvenile age should not be reduced to 16, also just reducing the age won’t serve as a magic bullet to tackling the problems of increasing juvenile crime. By reducing the age to 16, do we mean to say that a juvenile of the age 15 committing a murder or rape should be let off the hook? It will serve more as a deterrent than bringing any change whatsoever.  As mentioned in the Justice Verma Committee report, “Assuming that a person at the age of 16 is sent to life imprisonment, he would be released sometime in the mid-30s. There is little assurance that the convict would emerge a reformed person, who will not commit the same crime that he was imprisoned for. Our jails do not have reformatory and rehabilitation policies. We do not engage with inmates as human beings. We do not bring about transformation.” To subject a child to such brutality when there is hope for reformation is gamble we shouldn’t be so ready to take.

2. When it is being agreed that juveniles committing heinous crimes will be tried as adults in courts, then why can’t they be given death sentences or life imprisonment?  Ans. The answer to this lies in the landmark judgement in the Roper v. Simmons case in the United States. In this case, the Supreme Court rules that capital punishment may not be imposed for crimes committed as minors. The opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy declared that minors had diminished culpability due to immaturity and therefore their execution was cruel and unusual under evolving standard of decency, and this opinion has stood and been cited in numerous other cases.  However there are also many that question the diminished culpability of juveniles and opinions prevail that setting the age of adulthood at 18 is arbitrary and is a cultural evolution more than a scientific one, dictated more by going to college or being drafted for military service and not just by the psychological assessment of attaining maturity.  The argument to lower the juvenile age limit in select case is exactly what the Roper v. Simmons opinion warned against – the lower age limit is sought only for some crimes as the public is swayed by an emotional response to brutality than by reason alone.

THE QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ASKED:

As a nation with the largest population of children in the world, have we given much thought to the reason behind which children turn to crime? That’s the question that needs to be thought of, discussed, debated and corrected. The reason why children turn to crime, why juvenile crime is increasing at an alarming rate.  So, have we given thought to the reason? No, instead we jump to wanting to reduce the age of a child to 16 years and make amendments to laws the will affect the greater part of society that needs such laws protecting them. The issue of neglect in a country where a third of the population lives below the poverty line is impossible to overlook.