Right to Information and Good Governance

Professor. Doctor. Sairam Bhat

Department of Law
National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
Lecture No. 32
Public Information Officers -IV

(Refer Slide Time: 00:14)

Friends, we will try and discuss the appeal process under the right to information act. As we
have previously discussed, there are three processes put in place in the Right to Information
Act to adjudicate any grievances that may arise from the application of the right and the
disposal of the same vital Public Information Officer. And hence, when you look at the
adjudicated process, it is quite a hierarchical process in which probably at the top is the
Supreme Court of India followed below are the High Courts.

As I told you that when the central information commission is seated in Delhi, any challenge
to the central information Commission's order is to the Delhi High Court whereas, any
challenge from the orders of the state information commission will go to the State High
Court, respectively. However, the second appeal, under the Right to Information Act,
squarely lies at the information commission. And the first step lies at the first appellate
authority who happens to be heading the public authority or somebody who is in a senior
position to determine the affairs of the public authority.
And hence, the role of the first appellate authority who is over and above the Public
Information Officer becomes very critical or crucial to actually manage cases before the
information commission. As we are quite aware of, the information commissions are quite
overwhelmed with the number of cases, either they are complaint cases or appeal cases and
hence there is a process that has delayed the facilitation of the Right to Information through
the information commissions. And hence if the cases should not reach the information
Commissions, the role of the first appellate authority becomes very critical and crucial.

However kindly note, the first appellate authority is an executive officer of the organization,
like the Public Information Officer is not independently appointed neither does he have
autonomous powers as a judicial officer. The Right to Information Act is quite silent about
the powers and functions of the first appellate authority vis-a-vis say the power to issue
summons, examine witnesses, record evidence. However, when any role is casted on an
executive officer to decide or adjudicate on any right, he has to perform the same in a quasi
judicial manner.

It is his role to also apply the principles of natural justice while hearing any such appeal that
comes before him, and hence the executive officer who is designated as the first appellate
authority is covered under the quasi judicial functions that are necessarily to be performed
under the Right to Information Act. You will notice that the first appellate authority is
discussed under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act and from the order of the public
information officer any citizen who is aggrieved by such order or any third party, who is
aggrieved by such order can prefer an appeal to the first appellate authority.

Now the first appellate authority is somebody who has to be approached, kindly note, within
60 days of the order of the public information officer reaching the citizen. This is the
limitation time that is fixed under the Right to Information Act for any citizen to prefer the
first appeal. So, if the citizen does not reach the first appellate authority within 60 days, his
right to appeal is exhausted. Interestingly, while a Public Information Officer has to provide
information within 30 days, the first appellate authority is also duty bound under the Right to
Information Act to dispose of the appeal within 30 days.

This very clearly stipulates that the timeframe has been clearly a preference and an essence of
the Right to Information Act. It is something that is expected of the first appellate authority
that he does not consume his own time in deciding the appeal and he disposes the appeal
within the 30 days from the time it has reached him. As we ordinarily understand and know,
whenever the limitation law is prescribed, either under the Limitation Act or under any other
special law, there is always the possibility of condonation of delay, if reasonable grounds and
reasonable excuses like say a medical reason is provided for, then the appeal may be admitted
even beyond the 60 days time.

Now, you will also notice that if the first appellate authority takes more than 30 days to
decide the appeal, he has to record the reasons for the same. There are certain possibilities in
which the first appellate authority may not be able to decide the appeal within the 30 days
time. This could be cases like the cases where the first appellate authority is in charge of the
district and he is probably involved in certain emergency or urgency action that the state
wants him to undertake and he has not found the time to actually organize the appeal as the
case may be.

So, if he is given the task of hearing this appeal, sometimes he can also extend the 30 days for
hearing the appeal provided the reasons are recorded in writing. You will also notice that the
first appellate authority interestingly, this is always a question that is asked how does the first
appellate authority go about his business under the Right to Information Act? First and
foremost you will notice that the first appellate authority has no power to impose penalty on a
public information officer. So there is like a limitation to the powers of the first appellate
authority.

So, the power to impose penalty on the PIO under Section 20 is only with the information
commissions, it is not with the first appellate authority at all. So, the reading of the law is to
be done in this case that the first appellate authority is there only to do two things. First,
during the deal he decides or he tries to evaluate, why did the PIO not supply the
information? What are the reasons? Are the reasons valid? Are they permitted under law or
not?

And hence, if he disagrees with the order of the public information officer, then the first
appellate authority will order for the information to be disclosed. So, he has to record why he
disagrees with the public information officer. And once he disagrees, he passes an order to
provide the said information to the citizen. So, please note the order to supply the information
to the Public Information Officer can be such, he may say that the PIO must supply the
information within the next 15 days or he may order the PIO to supply the information then
and there, which I think is the most preferred method of hearing the appeal.

So, the first appellate authority has very, very limited intervention though it is limited, it is
significant, and he can actually dose the fire and provide the right and provide the
information and he need not see that the matter reaches the information commission.
However, you will notice that because the first appellate authority is an internal person, is
somebody who works within the organization, somebody who probably heads the
organization and is a bureaucrat and things like a bureaucrat.

There are very few cases where the first appellate authority have actually disagreed with the
Public Information Officers, and hence the citizens generally do not find a purpose in taking
first appeal. And hence, most of the time you will notice that citizens prefer the complaint
mechanism rather than the appeal mechanism. So, this is one kind of criticism or evaluation,
but how cases reach the information commission.

As I told you in the past, an appeal process is completely different from a complaint process.
So, an appeal process is something that you go through in stages. So, from the order of the
PIO you go to the first appeal, from the order of the first appeal, then you go to the
information commission. However in the complaint process, you circumvent the first
appellate authority that means you directly reach the information commission without
reaching the first appellate authority.

So, citizens do not find much purpose with the first appellate authority for this reason that the
first appellate authority is a bureaucrat, he is a government officer, he is within the
organization, he is somebody just higher than the PIO and hence there is very less chances
that he will disagree with the public information officer. So, that is where the complaint
process is a preferred process for the citizen rather than the appeal process, because again, as
I told you the appeal process is quite time consuming.

For example, it is 60 days for an appeal, 30 days to decide so nearly 90 days is what can be
consumed in adjudicating the matter just before the first appellate authority. However, if you
go to the information commission, probably at the same time, you will get the process
adjudicated much faster and order of the information commission is enforceable as a law. So,
that is what is generally a preferred mechanism.

However, the law does provide for the first appellate authority to intervene and provide the
information as the case may be, however again, a limitation the first appellate authority
cannot recommend disciplinary action against the public information officer. He can
recommend disciplinary action as a general routine process under his organization, but not
under RTI Act which is again an exclusive power vested only with information Commissions.

So, information Commissions can impose penalty, can determine disciplinary action.
However, the first appellate authority cannot do these two. Now kindly note that, an appeal
before the first appellate authority can be either filed personally or individually or physically
as the case may be, or it can be filed by sending the appeal through a registered post as well.
So, the citizen does not have to necessarily physically travel to find the first appeal.

So, this is something that is very clearly provided by law and it is the duty of the first
appellate authority to entertain appeals without the physical presence of the citizen or without
the necessity of the citizen to come in person to file that appeal. Interestingly, we have seen
that the first appellate authority is also encouraged by certain decisions of the information
commission to hold the appeal in a video conferencing mode, so that there is less harassment
for the citizen to travel to the actual proceeding of the appeal.

So, the technology must be used, citizen must be least affected, least harassed, least troubled,
especially when the appeal process is to be done. You will also notice that during the appeal,
a notice has to be sent to the public information officer and the public information officer
may be asked to appear and justify his actions and that is what is the general process of what
we call as the principle of natural justice.

(Refer Slide Time: 11:32)

Now, if you perceive the time frame, under the Right to Information Act, you will notice that
the timeframe of the right to Information Act is quite interesting. And it is interesting, and we
will probably list it in 5 points, so that we understand what is the time framework and how it
appears in the first appellate authority stage. So, let is assume that applicant did not receive
information within 30 days of the request and is aggrieved by the decision of the public
information officer.

Then in those circumstances, after the expiry of 30 days, you have to wait for 30 days to wait
for the PIO to give you the information and then probably you wait for additional few days
for communication then within 60 days, you have to find the first appeal, so this is normal
process. Let us imagine that the RTI application was submitted to an assistant Public
Information Officer. During this time, you will notice that the PIO gets 35 days.

So, please note after waiting for 35 days, you can prefer the first appeal so that is the
timeframe. So 30 days for the PIO to respond. If he does not respond, then wait for an
additional few days for postal transit, after which you can file the first appeal. If not, you can
go to the first appellate authority in those cases. When the RTI application is transferred from
one public authority to another public authority, this is under Section 6(3), then from the time
the second public authority has received that application, you can wait for 30 days.

Again, from that time you get 60 days to go to the first appeal. So, the transfer process is that
you have to wait for the application to reach the second public authority. In those cases where
notice is issued to a third party, so within the first 5 days of receipt of the application, the PIO
has to send notice to the third party. So, when he uses the first 5 days, he may take another 6
days for the notice to reach the third party, after the third party receives the notice, then he
has to respond to it.

So, in all of these you will notice that time is different, from the time you are aggrieved, from
the time you think you have received the notice under the right to information act, you get 60
days time to refer and appeal. So, in each case that time has to be calculated as per the person
who seems to be aggrieved by the actions or the order of the public information officer. So,
that is how you have to look at the process of calculation of time, under the Right to
Information Act.

So, for a third party, the time is going to be different, for an RTI applicant who has submitted
it to an API the time is going to be different. And for a person who has submitted the
application to a PIO the time process is going to start completely different. So, that is what
this slide probably depicts and shares the same with you.
(Refer Slide Time: 14:54)

Let us go further in trying to understand how the role of the first appellate authority is. Now,
as per an order that was issued in 2009, this office memorandum did suggest that the
responsibilities and the duties of the first appellate authority in deciding RTI appeal is that of
a quasi judicial officer. It is necessary that the appellate authority should see this as a process
of rendering justice and equity. And in case he finds that justice and equity has not been done
by the public information officer, then it is his duty to pass a speaking order.

So, you will notice that the first appellate authority is like a judge in a court of law and he is
not there hearing this matter in an administrative capacity. He is hearing this matter in a quasi
judicial capacity. And hence, the order that he finally makes should be a judicial order, it
should be a speaking order and it should provide justifications for the decision to arrive at.
And it is expected that the first appellate authority uses the provisions of the law to provide
the justification, provisions of both administrative law if possible, constitutional law if
necessary, and most importantly, the Right to Information Act as the case may be.

Now, the next important issue or query that most of us may have, under the Right to
Information Act, is that will there be a fee for the first appeal? Because there is a fee for
information that Rupees 10 is the application fee, Rupees 2 is the information fee per page.
So, what is the appeal fee? Now, interestingly under Central Government rules that the RTI
rules of 2012 there is no fee for first appeal at all, so the appeal is free. However, certain
states can prescribe those kinds of rules for a fee for the first appeal.
So, I think every State rules has to be perused to know whether there is a fee for everything.
Most States do not have it anyway, but that is something that I have to clarify at this point of
time and probably one will have to check each State to know whether there is a fee for the
first appeal. So, that is left to the discretion of the state governments.

(Refer Slide Time: 17:18)

Kindly note that the law does not prescribe any qualification for the first appellate authority
like we have seen the qualification for the information Commissions, there is no prescribed
qualification. So, it is up to the public authority to determine who shall be the first appellate
authority.

Second, interestingly, the law does not require any training or prior training to be a first
appellate authority. Very often than not, in the first few years of the Right to Information Act,
we found that the first appellate authority were clueless about the role and function under the
Right to Information Act because there was no qualification necessary, there was no training
that was given to them and naturally the citizens had the only hope in the information
commissions.

So, I think any such law that is made must always look into the matter of qualification and
training, so that the officers who will then act as quasi judicial officers, and who are expected
to render justice and equity must actually do so to the best of their abilities and to the best of
their knowledge. There are challenges to the first appellate authority because interestingly,
very often than not the first appellate authority is the boss to the PIO. And we have seen cases
where as a boss, he has misused his office and he has not rendered it in an impartial, unbiased
manner.

So, there are many citizens who have complained about the attitude of the first appellate
authority which is nothing but an extension of what is the hierarchy in a government
organization. So, the next very interesting issue is, can a PIO prefer first appeal? So, citizen
can go on a first appeal. Can a PIO go on first appeal against his own order? So, I think when
you look at the term ‘aggrieved person’, an aggrieved person can be any individual, it can be
a third party, it can be a citizen but when we talk about a PIO, generally PIO has passed an
order, against his own order he cannot go in first appeal. Though he can be an aggrieved
individual, kindly note, as against going to the information commission, how is an aggrieved
individual before an information commission? Suppose the first appellate authority reverses
the order of the PIO, then the PIO can go and appeal to the information commission, because
the PIO and the first appellate authority differ in their opinion.

However, to the first appellate authority I do not think the PIO can go because against his
own order, there is no appeal that is provided to the public information officer. So that was
decided in this Eliza CPIO versus Board of excise and customs. It is a case decided by the
central information commission in 2008. It very clearly said that under Section 19 of the
Right to Information Act under the term aggrieved individual, the aggrieved individual can
also be a public information officer.

However, that aggrieved individual as a PIO is only towards the second appeal and not on the
first appeal.
(Refer Slide Time: 20:36)

Now the process of the second appeal is interesting. The RTI rules of 2012 passed by the
Central government does establish this process and you will notice that under rule 10 it says
that on receipt of an appeal, the commission if it is not satisfied that it is a fit case to be
proceeded with, it may after giving an opportunity of being heard to that appellant and after
recording its reason, dismiss the appeal.

So, it is not necessary that all appeals must be adequately and appropriately heard. Prima
facie-ly the appeal does not have any substance and prima facie-ly the if information
commission thinks that the appeal does not have a substantial grievance, the information
commission can reject the appeal and dismiss the appeal as the case may be. However, please
note, it is the duty of the information commission to give grounds when it actually dismisses
such appeal, so that is very important.

So, the RTI Act does not mandate that the information commission must accept all appeals
and give it a proper hearing. So, summarily, if it feels that the appeal does not have any
substantial quotient for their intervention or is probably frivolous, vexatious or is not based
on adequate appropriate grounds, in those cases the appeal can be dismissed. Now, this rule
10 under the RTI rules 2012 also applies to the first appeal.

So, at the stage of the first appeal, the first appellate authority thinks that the PIO has done his
job very well and the citizen’s grievance is just frivolous or it is meager and does not require
his intervention then kindly note, he can also dismiss that appeal. So, this is summary
disposal of the matter without adequate proper substantial adjudicatory process being
followed, so that is how appeals can be decided, so it all depends upon the merits of the case.

So, in the first appeal and the second appeal if there are no merits that are found prima facie-
ly, the Commission and the first appellate authority are having the prerogative to dismiss the
appeal as the case may be. Kindly note, the commission shall not consider any appeal unless
it is satisfied that the appellant has availed all other remedies available to him under the Act.

So, exhaustion of all other remedies for example, communicating with the PIO and telling
him that what information has been provided is not sufficient. Just you know, you cannot
keep preferring appeals on small and trivial matters. So, I think it is the duty of the citizen to
also inform the PIO whether he has been satisfied or not, whether there are inadequacies
which the PIO can remedy. So, you cannot just on trivial or on matters that can be normally
resolved between the citizen and the PIO prefer appeal, appeal has to be on a substantial
matter, appeal has to be on a grievance that the PIO has not taken into account or has
dismissed to address, so if that is what the PIO has done, an appeal can be done nonetheless.

(Refer Slide Time: 23:58)

What are the documents to file an appeal? Very interesting, is it not? So kindly note, I think
this is a procedural issue that we all should know before we appear before the information
Commissions. Kindly note, these are the following documents that would be required in case
you decide to file an appeal under Section 19 to the information commission. The list has
around 6 documents that have to be attached. So procedurally, this looks to be cumbersome,
but I think these are basic documents that are necessary for any quasi judicial body to
undertake an appeal.

The first one is that when you file an appeal, you should have a copy of the application itself.
So, whatever you have submitted to the public information officer, you should have a copy of
the same, so I think it is the duty of the citizen to at least have 2 or 3 copies of the application
made so that when appeal is decided he can say, this is my original application. Second, I
think whatever the PIO has communicated or whatever reply the PIO was given, it could be
an interim reply, it could be the final reply of the PIO in which the PIO has finally
adjudicated on the matter or provided the information or not provided the information or has
transferred it.

So, anything of a communication that the PIO has done, a copy of the same has to be attached
in appeal. Third, if the citizen has preferred the first appeal then a copy of the appeal to the
first appellate court must also be provided. Obviously, when you have given the first appeal
or gone to the first appellate authority, the first appellate authority will also give you order so
that also has to be attached.

Then fifth, if there are any documents that you think will be important for the commission to
rely upon, if there are any previous judgments on this markup, and the PIO has not adhered to
those judgments, and the PIO has denied you that information however, in some other cases,
the Information Commission has already said you must provide. So, if there are any other
documents, then you should also attach those documents so that the information commission
may take an informed evaluation of the case and may decide in your favor.

So, this is something that has to be done. And finally, the normal judicial process is to have
an indexing of the document so that there is a very clear admin process. I think these are
documents to file the appeal? No, you have to frame the appeal yourself. What are the
grounds? How do you expect the information commission to help you out? I think the
petition for appeal must be drafted following the documents of appeal. So, documents of
appeal are only attachments, however the petition of appeal has to be drafted by the citizen
himself.
(Refer Slide Time: 26:49)

Again, if you look at the procedure for deciding appeal, normally the procedure for different
citing appeals can be decided by the information commission however the RTI rule
additionally say what should be the process, this is some kind of a rule that the information
Commissions are bound to follow. The Commission while deciding an appeal may receive
oral or written evidence on oath or an affidavit from the concerned or interested persons. Oral
evidence can be done orally through video conferencing or physically, or the commission
may say oral evidence is not required, we will take the written evidence through the form of
an affidavit.

So, the Commission has a prerogative to decide whether they want oral evidence or written
evidence. So, when it is done orally, I think whatever is said will be recorded by the
Commission or its officers, when it is taken in an affidavit it becomes very easy because it is
a document of evidence that is acceptable. So, the Commission has the discretion to do either
of it.

Second, the commission may peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof,
so the PIO may be asked to get these records and documents. Though the PIO has not shared
with the citizen, he may have to share it with the information Commission for the
commission to evaluate whether it should be provided or not. So, they can peruse or inspect
any documents for the case may be.

Third, very interesting. Can during the appeal an inquiry be done? The answer is yes, it can
be done. So, we have already discussed under the powers of the information commission,
how an inquiry can be done, in what cases the inquiry can be done. However, the only
precaution over here is if the commission decides to hold an inquiry, it cannot delegate this
power to any other officer, it has to be done by the commissioners themselves. So, the power
of inquiry cannot be sub delegated is what the courts have very clearly observed. So, the
information commissioners must exercise the power of inquiry themselves and not through
any other office.

They can hear the PIOs, that is definitely possible as the case may be, they can hear third
parties as well. They can receive evidence from any other person whose assistance has been
sought under the right to Information Act. So, this is under Section 5(4) and 5(5). I told you
that there can be the position of a deemed PIO as well. So, any other officers' evidence may
also be required to adjudicate the matter or co educated that process as well.

(Refer Slide Time: 29:29)

The presence of further appeal before the commission is something that is a discretion. Now,
rule 12 of the Right to Information Act rules of 2012 states that the appellant shall be
informed of the date of hearing at least 7 days in advance. This is the minimum notice time
for the appeal to be heard, and he may come in person or through videoconferencing, that is a
choice that has to be made available to the appellant, and the commission cannot force the
applicant to come in person, that is something that you will have to notice.

Also if the appellant wants to appeal in person and cannot come on the date that the
Commission has fixed, he can ask for a new date as well. So, that kind of process has to be
put in place and the commission may afford the appellant another opportunity to before them.

So, the date that is fixed is not only final, I think it can be negotiated and the appellant may
say that it is inconvenient for me to come on that day, can you please fix another date. So,
another date and another opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken is
something that the Commission is bound to do.

(Refer Slide Time: 30:51)

Other aspects of the appeal, these are the concluding aspects that we will just take note and
the consideration of. I am discussing this because the RTI of 2012 states the same. The public
authority may authorize any representative to appear on behalf of them. So, this is an
opportunity that the public authorities have. See, generally the public authorities are
represented by the PIO, but the PIO and the public authority will differ.
So, in those cases if the public authority feels that its interest is going to be adversely
decided, and the PIO is not capable as capable of advancing the interests of the public
authority, then in those circumstances, public authority may authorize any representative
office organization to be present in the case, because please note, a public authority is also or
can be an aggrieved person in an appeal, because finally the information that is going to be
shared is that of the public authority, is not it?
So, the PIO is not in tune with the policies of the public authority, then in those
circumstances, the aggrieved agency will be the public authority. Rule 14 also says that the
Commission may issue a notice by name, which shall be served like this, it can be served to
the party itself, it can be hand delivered, it can be through the server, it can be by post or it
can be electronically as well. So, kindly note, any notice that is served to individuals or to the
parties before the case can be served notice by all these means, so I think the electronic
means of communication of serving notice is the easiest thing, it is less time consuming, it is
less cumbersome and I am sure it is cost effective as well.
So, citizens should be aware that a notice to appear before the commission or to hold the
appeal or to conduct the appeal date can be served electronically as well. So, the rules give
this power to the information commission, as the case be.
(Refer Slide Time: 32:57)

Finally kindly note, you will see that the penalty on the PIO under section 20 can be imposed
by the information commission. However, in this Manohar Anchule versus State of
Maharashtra, it is a case of 2012. The Supreme Court warned that information Commissions
should not impose penalty merely because the PIO has sought an adjournment of the appeal.
So what happens is, the information Commissions think that the date fixed for appeal is the
final and that cannot be negotiated or refused or adjourned on the request of the POI.

So in this case, unfortunately the master information commission said that the PIO is seeking
an adjournment of the appeal and is not serious and they felt that this case deserves penalty to
be imposed on the PIO. But the Supreme Court very clearly said, I think this is provided
under the RTI rules that there can be an adjournment that can be sought, a new date can be
fixed. If the PIO can justify that it is inconvenient for him to appear before the commission or
substantiate the case as the case may be, because the PIO may want to prepare for the appeal
as well.
So, the time given may not be adequate enough for the PIO to make his defense, in those
cases by giving adequate justification seeks an adjournment, the PIO shall not be acted upon
is what the Supreme Court has very clearly warned the information commissions as well. So,
an opportunity of hearing the PIO is definitely an opportunity that the PIO can insist upon,
can plead with reasonable causes and this shall not attract any adverse action on the Public
Information Officer by the information commission.

So what we have discussed today friends in the short presentation is the process of appeal,
especially the process that is applicable to the first appeal, to the second appeal as well. We
have discussed what are the documents that are required in the appeal process, we have
looked at whether an appeal can be summarily dismissed if it does not have any merit. We
have also discussed the limitation of the powers of the first appellate authority. They are not
the same as the second appellate authority so the first appellate authority can only limit in
terms of disclosure of the same said information.

We also discussed who can come in an appeal, whether there should be an exhaustion of local
remedies or not. And finally, all this discussion are important in tune with the RTI rules of
20125 which the central government has passed in which the process of a bill has been very
clearly laid down. And I think the penalty under section 20 is towards the delay in giving
information and not towards any kind of error, omission or a gentleman that can be sought by
the period during the appeal process. So, this is what the short presentation has looked into.
 Right to Information and Good Governance
Professor. Doctor. Sairam Bhat
Department of Law
National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
Lecture No. 31
Public Information Officers - III

(Refer Slide Time: 00:14)

Friends, we will continue with the discussion on the role of Public Information Officers in
processing the RTI applications. We have covered section 5 and section 6 of the Right to
Information Act. Section 6 talks about what actions should be taken on the right information
application. And as I said in the past that the PIO may consider providing information, may
consider rejecting the same or may consider transferring the same. So, these are the actions
that the public information officer ought to take under the law.

Now, following the provisions of Section 6 is Section 7, which I think is a very critical
section that integrates the duties of the public information officer with the rights of the citizen
to seek information under the Right to Information Act. Section 7 stipulates in brief, if I can
give an overview, the timeframe for providing information. It is the duty of the public
information officer to provide information on an RTI application in a time bound manner. If
the application is received by the public information officer, then he must provide the
information within 30 days.
If the application is received by the assistant Public Information Officer, he should provide
the information within 35 days. In case the information that is sought is pertaining to life and
liberty, then said information the law says should be provided within 48 hours. Interestingly,
if the said information sought by the applicant is regarding a third party, then it should be
provided within 45 days. So, this is broadly the timeframe that is fixed under the Right to
Information Act. And the public information officer is expected to adhere to this time frame
and provide the information within the stipulated time frame.

What you see in the slide is about the number of days that can be taken or hours as the case
may be for the public information officer to process the application and provide the said
information. Now, there are two pertinent challenges that arise from the slide that is presented
before you. First and foremost, the law says 30 days, 35 days and 45 days, nowhere the law
has provided this as working days or calendar days.

Hence, the interpretation should be working days or should it be calendar days. Now the
importance here lies with the fact that if it is working days, then probably Saturdays and
Sundays when the public authority is not functioning will be excluded in the calculation of
the number of days. And suppose there are some vacations that are announced in between,
they will not be included in these 45 or 35 days.

And hence for the first time when it came for the central information Commission on how the
days should be inferred or interpreted, and should it be interpreted or inferred as working
days or calendar days, the central information commission declared it as calendar days, which
means that if the application is received on the first of April, then the information should be
provided before the thirtieth of April whether in between there are holidays, vacations or any
other factor, all of these will have to be then clubbed and provided within the thirtieth of
April.

Now, this creates some kind of difficulty at times when information that is sought is quite
bulky in nature and it takes some while for the PIO to collate and provide the same
information. However, that is how the law would probably take the days as just calendar
days.
Second, when you look at the timeframe for providing the said information, when we say 30
days or 35 days, the second important challenge is whether these 30 days includes the postal
time for the information to reach the citizen. Which means is this 30 or 35 days for a PIO to
consume for responding or is it that the information should reach the application within the
30 days? Which means probably the information if it has to be posted should be posted by the
twenty fifth day on the receipt of the application.

Now all of these are something that the information Commission has laid down from time to
time so that there is clarity in the functioning of the public information officer. So, the central
information Commission has said that 30 days means that the information must reach the
citizen within the thirtieth day and should not be posted by the public information officer on
the thirtieth day.

So, I think this is how the functioning of the right to information is being laid out and it is
quite interesting to know how the timeframe for providing said information is stipulated
under the Act.

(Refer Slide Time: 05:18)

However, if one perceives and looks at the Right to Information Act, I think Section 7 is the
most unique part of the law, it is unique because I do not think before this law that is before
the Right to Information Act there was any statutory law that clearly stipulated a time bound
delivery of service. There are many legislations that provided rights to citizens, there are
many legislations that provided various services to citizens.

However, I think what the right information act through Section 7 did was it revolutionized
the delivery of service in a time bound manner. Fixation of time is an important and integral
part of delivery of service. It brings in a greater degree of accountability for the service and
the right that is provided in the Right to Information Act. And hence, what I believe is, the
time that is proposed to be fixed under Section 7 and enacted under that is probably bringing
the law to its most successful part.

Because I think it is unique in terms of the design, it is unique in terms of the time that is
fixed and it is unique in the fact that once the time is fixed, there is a penalty. So, time is the
essence of the delivery of service, non fulfillment of the time will involve a penalty of 250
rupees per day for the delay. So, if a PIO takes more than 30 days in providing the said
service, for every day of delay, he shall personally pay a penalty of 250 rupees per day under
Section 20 of the Right to Information Act.

And hence, the conclusion is that probably this is a law that proposes to deliver service and
the service is information as the case may be in a time bound manner, and time is the essence
of the Right to Information is what we conclude on drawing section 7. If one reads Section 7,
one clearly understands that it says something like this, “Subject to the proviso of subsection
2 of Section 5 or the proviso to subsection 3 of Section 6, The PIO in either the state of the
center as the case may be on receipt of requests under Section 6 shall as expeditiously as
possible and in any case within 30 days”.

So please note, the maximum time to give the information is 30 days “of the receipt of the
request, either provide the information of payment of such fees as may be prescribed, or
reject the request of any information as specified under Section 8 or Section 9.” Very clearly,
all actions on an application are supposed to be taken by the public information officer within
the stipulated time of 30 days. Either he accepts or rejects, provided that where the
information sought for the concern of life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided
within 48 hours of the receipt of the request.

Now, what is or what is the said information that pertain to life and liberty, we will talk about
that slightly later. I will discuss a couple of cases and give you some instances on when an
application is covered under this part and when it covers life and liberty. But to briefly
answer over here, you will notice that information shall be provided within 48 hours from the
receipt of the application in case the information concerns the life and liberty of a person.

So, this could be details of arrest, detention, medical details required in terms of diagnosis or
ailment, you know, probably some of this information, the public information officer cannot
take his sweet time of 30 days, he should provide the said information within 48 hours. Now,
my belief is that sometimes practically the information may not be provided within 48 hours,
it is probably impossible to do the same.

However, I think these are cases where there is what is known as emergency information
request, means it is the duty of the PIO to evaluate the purpose for which the information is
sought by a citizen if provided, if stated, and if the citizen has justified that this information is
required on the concerns of life and liberty, then the Public Information Officers should
provide the said information as early as possible. So, this should be an emergency or urgency
application and hence, the law prescribes a time limit of 48 hours.

(Refer Slide Time: 9:53)

Now, at this point of time, it is important for us to discuss the rules that are applicable to the
Right to Information Act. Now, as I told you, the Right to Information Act 2005 is a
substantive law and it prescribes what the right is, who can seek this information and what
are the obligations of different organizations, including penalties and sanctions. So, this is the
sum and substance of what is there in the act. Every act will have rules and as I told you
earlier, there are two agencies under the RTI Act that can enact rules.

First is the appropriate government and second is the competent authority you can train rules
regarding the implementation of the Right to Information Act. Now, for central government
institutions and public authorities, under the RTI act has drafted the RTI rules. Please note,
the initial rules came about in the year 2006, however those rules were replaced by the RTI
Rules of 2012.

Under these rules to facilitate the functioning of the Right to Information Act and especially
under Section 6, Section 7, the rules say something like this. First and foremost, they
prescribe the application fee and the application fee is Rs 10, we must know this and hence
you will notice that the rules will be applied when the application is either accepted or
processed or rejected. But what is more pertinent and important and this has not been covered
before is that every application shall not exceed 500 words.

So, your application should be within the 500 words, you can seek information in an
application within that 500 words only. Interestingly, when you compare the central rules to
some of the state rules like Karnataka, the Karnataka RTI rules says that the application shall
not be more than 150 words. So, if you are seeking information from the Karnataka
government or from Karnataka public authorities, your application should be within 150
words. However if you are seeking from central government institutions, your application
shall not exceed 500, so this is rule 2 of the rules of 2012.

Now to be honest and frank, suppose it exceeds 500 words, can the public information officer
reject that application? Or suppose if the application fee is more than 10 rupees that is
deposited by the citizens, can the PIO reject the application? These are two questions that we
will come to and I will address those same with the help of a few case laws.

Second, the fee for providing information is the following. So please note, under the Right to
Information Act, the fees are of two categories. One is the application fee, the second is the
information fee. Information fee is the number of pages that you actually seek through the
application, and hence, if you see the Right to Information law, it says that it is Rupees 2 per
page for A 3 and smaller size. So, the fee for providing information under the RTI rules is
first Rupees 2 per page, I would say for A3 and smaller size, it could be Rupees 50, in case
you are seeking this information in a floppy in soft copy, so so Rupees 50 is what is a
prescribed fee.

Interestingly, if you are seeking a sample there is no actual fee, it is not prescribed. So, what
the rules say is the actual cost or price of the sample. So, whatever is the cost of the sample
you will have to bear it. So, it will be assessed when the sample is ready to be given and if
there is a cost that can be determined from the sample, the same has to be provided. So, it is
subjective in nature in that sense. So, the PIO can determine what is the actual cost of the
sample.

Now, it is pertinent to note over here, when you look at the RTI rules of 2012, Rupees 2 per
page, Rupees 50 per floppy and actual cost of the same. These are the only fees that can be
charged by the public information officer.

There have been instances when Public Information Officers have calculated what is known
as the collection cost. Sometimes they have calculated travel cost, sometimes they have
calculated the cost of petrol, diesel, container and so on and so forth. The information
Commissions have very clearly said, the PIO cannot be creative in charging the citizen the
cost of sample or the cost of information. What is provided by the rules is only what can be
charged by the public information officer, no greater no bigger than what is there.

The RTI rules under Section 4(4) of the rule 4(4) also says that there is an inspection fee.
However, you will appreciate that inspection fee for the first 1 hour is free. So, 1 hour in any
public authority you can inspect without any cost. For every subsequent hour there is a
Rupees 5 fee. So that is what is the inspection fee as well. Finally, you will notice that there
can the postal charge up to Rupees 50 and not more than that. So, in case the PIO is giving
this information or posting the information and it is quite bulky in that sense, up to a
maximum of Rupees 50 is what he can charge as postal charges, not more than that.

Next, rules also say that if the applicant is below poverty line, in the bracket we say usually
(BPL) that is what we refer to, then no fee shall be charged. So, rule 5 very clearly says that a
person who is below the poverty line shall not be charged any fee. However, the proof of
BPL may be something that the appropriate government may fix from time to time. So, who
is BPL? It is not the one who claims in his application, he has to support his application with
the proof of being BPL. And if that is the case, then in those circumstances the Public
Information Officer cannot charge any fee from the applicant.

The rules also stipulate the mode of payment of these fees, right. So, they say and if you refer
to rule 6, it says that this fee, the application fee, the information fee can be paid either in
cash or electronically or through demand drafts, so that is the prescription the rules have.
(Refer Slide Time: 16:35)

Now, coming to this very interesting case of Praveen Sharma versus National Human Rights
Commission. This was a case pertaining to BPL applicant and the BPL applicant in this case,
wanted certified copies of file notings that were passed by the members of the National
Human Rights Commission. So, when a case is admitted, generally the National Human
Rights Commission members do write a note sheet on the merits of the case and whether the
case has to be perceived or not. And she wanted this information and that is why Praveen
Sharma, a lady, applied to the National Human Rights Commission.

Then interestingly, the public information officer who was there in the National Human
Rights Commission intimated that the said information shall be given, however she has to
deposit nearly Rupees 4444 for seeking that said information. Now what she did was she
objected to this high cost and she appealed. Now please note, the cost of information is also
something that can be disputed and that can be appealed for. And then she appealed and in
her appeal she said that she is from the BPL category, and she cannot pay that kind of a high
fee. The matter came before the commission as well and the Commission had to determine
whether the appeal can be sustained or not.

In this case, the Commission held that the applicant, if she proves herself to be a BPL
candidate must pay the application fee of Rupees 10. There is no discrimination regarding
that, everybody has to pay the application fee, however the information fee is something that
she should be exempted from. So, you will notice that in this case, the commission said that
she should be provided the information free of cost. So, the cost of Rupees 4444 could not be
fined because the applicant was a BPL candidate.

Now this is something that Public Information Officers must take note of, they are supposed
to know that they cannot charge information fee from BPL candidates and they must verify
whether the applicant is entitled to that waiver of fee or not, and after which they should take
the appropriate decision as well. Now interestingly, you will notice that the state RTI rules
for example, in Karnataka, there are various states that have passed RTI rules.

I am just giving you the example of the state of Karnataka, says that a BPL candidate can get
only 100 pages free, that is a limit so that there is no misuse or abuse of the BPL provision.
Which is what may happen is that if I who is not a BPL candidate may put the application in
the name of BPL candidate so that I can get information free of cost. So, to avoid that kind of
misuse, I think the Karnataka RTI rules very clearly stipulated and said that a BPL candidate
gets first 100 pages free, after which if he wants more information, he should come for
inspection.

He can come, see the documents and then he can probably verify the information as the case
may be but more than that BPL candidate is not entitled to, 100 pages free and not more than
that. The last point in case of BPL is the fact that please note, when it comes to below poverty
line what is the test of the below poverty line and what is the proof that is required for below
poverty line. Various government agencies issues various certificates on BPL, for example,
health department has a different categorization and criteria for earmarking people as BPL to
claim health benefits.

The revenue department will have a different categorization for creating a BPL candidate.
However, the commission from time to time as given the direction that the income proof is
the only proof to ascertain whether an applicant is a BPL candidate or not. Generally, the
income proof is issued by the revenue department and that should be the sole proof to
determine whether an applicant is a BPL candidate or not and whether he is supposed to be
entertained for waiver of information fee as the case may be.

So, these are very important provisions under the Right to Information Act which PIOs must
know, I believe even the citizens opt to know because they must not unnecessarily without
knowing the provisions of law without knowing the application and the scope and ambit
challenging and increase the number of litigations before the information commission.
(Refer Slide Time: 21:14)

The Delhi High Court, in JP Agarwal versus Union of India, decided in 2009 has held that the
PIO is expected to apply his or her mind duly analyze the material before him or her, and
then decide to disclose the information or give the grounds for non disclosure. So, I think the
public information officer is supposed to know the law, supposed to analyze the law,
supposed to interpret the law and in each application, he must apply his or her mind.

And it is important for the public information officer to know every aspect and angle of the
law that is in the statute and as the law is interpreted by the information conditions. That is
where we say the PIO must not only know the law, he must know the working of them, how
the law applies, how is it interpreted. So, the BPL case is a very classic case about how the
PIO must act. In the National Human Rights Commission, would you expect a PIO not to
know that a BPL candidate should not be charged.

So, I think these are some issues that one should raise from time to time and it is not the
business of the commission to every time tell a PIO what he must do and what he must not.
You know, if you ask me the BPL part is very clear. Now, what happens if the PIO does not
apply the BPL part properly and effectively? Look at the time that is wasted in taking the first
step. Look at the time taken by the information commission to decide this matter.

Now, when time is taken in the appeal process and adjudicating process, it creates that much
harassment of the citizen as well. So, I think it is a lost situation for both parties and I do not
think this is an excuse that the PIOs can take and say that they did not know the law, and
hence they misapplied it in the given situation.

(Refer Slide Time: 23:13)

Now coming to another part of the role of the PIO, and that part is that, you know, accept
application and give the information is one or reject application. Now, these are two very
opposite directions that the PIO normally takes. These are extreme actions that he takes,
either he accepts the application and gives the information or he rejects it and informs the
citizen about the grounds of rejection. Can there be a middle path?

Now, this situation is very, very critical and important because here is where you will notice
that under the Right to Information Act, the public information officer is expected to apply
what I call as the doctrine of severability, what do I mean by the doctrine of severability? It
clearly means that, if a partial information can be given and partially need not be, then the
public information officer is expected to apply his mind.

So, when the applicant seeks certain documents, some of which are exempted or cannot be
given, and some of which should be given or entertained to be given, then in those cases, it is
the duty of the public information officer to apply his mind, evaluate in the said application,
what can be partially rejected and what can be partially provided for.

Now, it is the duty of the PIO to inform the citizen that this is the action that he is supposed to
take, he will apply the doctrine of severability on certain parts and certain categories of
information, and in certain other categories of information, probably, he will give or disclose
the information. So, this is what we call as partially rejected applications. So, certain
documents can be disclosed, certain portions of certain records can be disclosed.

However, please note, for every decision that the PIO makes on this partial disclosure he has
to provide reasons, he has to provide reasons especially when he decides not to disclose a
document and that is something that he has to justify as well. So, the burden of proof when a
PIO takes any action on any application is on the PIO himself or herself, they have to justify
why the said information was completely rejected or why it was partially rejected.

Kindly note, in his reply, the public information officer must give his name and designation,
he must provide the fees that has to be paid for those information that he has decided to
disclose partially and he must also communicate that his decision is not final. Now when a
PIO makes a decision not to disclose an information partially, that partial decision to partially
not disclosed can also be challenged and appealed for so that is something that one will have
to take due note and consideration.

(Refer Slide Time: 26:18)

The PIO's duty to reject the application, as I told you has to be on certain grounds. Now, in
one case, and I can tell you the case here. This is Satish Kumar versus regional passport
office Ghaziabad. It is a decision decided by the central information commission in 2007.
Now, what happened in this case was, the applicant, he wanted certain information and he
sent it to the regional passport office Ghaziabad and what he did was he put cash in the
application itself.

Now, this was a currency note that was sent by post and the PIO rejected it. He said, look, we
do not accept cash. If you come physically and deliver the application, and you deposit cash
in the accounts department, you can get an acknowledgement and the receipt of the same.
However, it is not right for a government officer to accept cash by envelopes or by postal
order. So in this case, I think the public information officer rightly decided to reject this
application.

And you will notice that there are instances when the Public Information Officer rejects an
application on such grounds for example, in one of the cases it was handwritten, it was not
timed. So, the PIO said I cannot understand your handwriting, so you please type it and send
it so hence I reject your application. I think some of these are very fruitless grounds, they are
grounds which do not call for rejection.

See, if we go by the title which is given to the public information officer, Public Information
Officer, a person who is obligated to the public as a public servant, I think it is his duty
sometimes to coordinate with the citizen and remedy the fault that is committed in the
application process. So, he could write to the citizen and say, look, your application is
pending till you pay the fee in an appropriate manner. He need not have to reject that
application completely. See, these are procedural lapses if you ask me.

Please note, hand written applications can also be introduced, but it should be legible and
readable. If it is not legible and readable, how does the PIO process it? How does he know
what the citizen is asking for? But I think these are procedural requirements which can be
remedied by the PIO by the simple application of his mind, in terms of facilitating the right
information, rather than acting as a bureaucrat, who normally rejects application for
privileges from citizens.

So, the attitudinal change is something that has to be emphasized here from time to time so
that the Public Information Officers do not reject application, rather facilitate their right to
information as you can see. Please note, it is important for the Public Information Officers to
continue their communication with the applicant. They have to provide reasons for rejection,
they have to also state in their reply what is the period within which the appeal has to be
taken if somebody is interested, within what frame the appeal has to be done, and who is the
appellate authority also has to be provided in the letter.

So, there is a lot of responsibility casted on the Public Information Officer under the right to
Information Act. Kindly note, the PIO can reject an application under Section 7 (9) as well.
Section 7(9) is quite interesting. It empowers the public information officer to reject an
application. So, it is not about only section 8 which is exempted from section 9. One of the
grounds on which a PIO can reject an application is on what we call a disproportionate
diversion of resources of public authority. So, a public information officer may clearly
stipulate that the information sought disproportionately diverts the resources of the public
authority. How does information disproportionately divert the resources of the public
authority?

To give an example, let us assume that a citizen and this was a case that did combine,
probably ask information from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, and he says very
randomly, please give me all the details of all policyholders who have taken your Jeevan
Anand policy or some vague application without any purpose. For example, I applied to the
local police station and say, give me the details of all crimes that happened in the last 5 years
that have been reported in your police station.

Now, what happens is this information may be there however, it may be highly voluminous,
it may be highly bulky, it may be scattered. And this information that is sought is so random
without any purpose, without any direction, that providing the same would disproportionately
diverts the resources of the public authority. Under such causes, the PIO under Section 7(9) is
empowered to reject the application.

For example, sometimes the Public Information Officer receives applications on those
information that are beyond the retention time or the retention schedule that is generally
prescribed. So, suppose a record has to be kept for 10 years, as per the Public Records Act.
This is the minimum time to retain that record. Now, citizens have the tendency of asking
very old information not from the National Archives, they can ask the National Archives.

The basic duty of the National Archives is to keep only information and provide the same,
but other public authorities do not have that duty. Their minimum duty is to keep the file for
the time of the record maintenance that is provided by law. Now, if I am asking such old
information, probably, again the PIO may justify and say it may disproportionately divert the
resources of the public authority. Within the 10 years that is stipulated by law, minimum time
to keep the file to retain the file to maintain the file, there the citizen has a right to
information, the citizen can say look within 10 years it is your duty to maintain the records.

You know, whether it disproportionally diverts or not, you have to provide the said
information because that is a basic duty and obligation that the public authority through the
PIO has. But beyond that time, if it is of such public interest, then it should be provided. If it
pertains to corruption or human rights violation, then it should be provided otherwise I think
it may disproportionately divert the resources. Now what is the disproportionate diversion of
resources? This is not about any other but it is about the human resources that may be
invested in facilitating the Right to Information.

So, unless a larger public interest is made out, voluminous bulk, vague information that is
sought by citizens under the Right to Information Act may be subject to rejection under
Section 7(9) of the Right to Information Act. Kindly note, section 7(9) says,
“disproportionately diverts the resources of the public authority OR” very important, “would
be detrimental to the safety and preservation of the records in question.”

Because these are old records you know, they may be very fragile, they may crumble, it may
be about some maps and designs so if you start photocopying it or providing the same, it may
be detrimental to the record or to the safety and preservation of the record. So, these are
justifications that can be provided to old records. And under Section 7(9) the PIO may duly
reject these applications as well.

(Refer Slide Time: 34:12)

Now coming to another obligation, that obligation is definitely on the PIO. And this
obligation is with information pertaining to a third party. Now, kindly note, I told you that
third party information, the public information officer can take, how much time? Can he take
30 days? Can he take 35 days or can he take 45 days? 45 days. So, you will notice that there
is an additional 15 days times when that applicant is seeking information regarding a third
party, this is the first distinction between a normal application seeking information about the
government and an application that is seeking information about third parties with the
government.

First of all, kindly note, there is no definition under the Right to Information Act about who is
a third party. However, the obligations that the PIO must undertake when dealing with third
party information is provided under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act. Now, I
believe that the third party is somebody who is not the government.Third party are those
parties which are private in nature and whose information is with the government. So,
whenever the government holds information about private bodies, that private body may be
considered as a third party.

Whenever information that is held by the government is about their employees' personal
information, then in those circumstances that information that the government holds is that of
a third party, so a third party is apart from the government. And third party information
means information pertaining to natural persons or information pertaining to legal persons. It
could be a hospital, it could be about an industry, it could be about a restaurant, it could be
about a university as the case may be or any other institution as well. Now, what is the duty
of the PIO when dealing with third parties?

Kindly note, section 11 says that whenever third party information is sought by any applicant,
it is the duty of the PIO to send a notice to the third party that such information is sought for.
Kindly note, that notice to the third party must be sent within 5 days from receipt of that
application so that the third party has some time to respond. And hence you will notice,
within 5 days. So let us assume that there is 45 days to provide the same information. So, first
5 days you have to send the notice to the third party, the third party probably has 10 days to
respond.

After which the PIO within the next 30 days must provide the said information and that is
why you will notice there is a logic behind providing 45 days for a third party information to
be provided to the citizens. So, that communication time is what that 15 days extra is
otherwise normal information, the public information officer must provide the said within 30
days. Now, let us ask ourselves the first question, and that is what was probably decided in
the Sangam` transport versus State information commission, this was decided by the
Allahabad High Court in the year 2014.

The first question that was asked in this case was, “look if third party information is asked,
should notice be sent to the third party, is it mandatory or is it some kind of an option that the
public information officer can exercise? Can you decide that this notice is not necessary? Or
is it something that is mandatory to be followed?” I think the Allahabad High Court has made
it very clear that once third party information is asked, it is not the PIO’s role to decide
whether to serve notice or not. It is mandatory the duty of the public information officer to
notify the third party that such information regarding you has been sought, so the notice is
mandatory.

Now the notice being mandatory, the reply from the third party is optional. The third party
may choose to reply or may not choose to reply, kindly note. The third party reply in this
case, though discretion, is something that the third party must exercise within a time bound
manner. Because if the third party replies after 2 months, the PIO cannot wait for it because
his duty is to provide the said information within 45 days. So, it is the duty of the third party
to get the notice, this is something that the PIO has to mandatorily do and it is the duty of the
third party to reply to the notice within the time bound manner.
If the third party fails, then probably the third party may lose its right to object in sharing the
said information. Kindly note, in this notice that is served to the third party it is not the
consent of the third party that is sought. So you should understand within consent and
objection. Because what is consent? Consent means that if the third party does not give
consent, the PIO cannot share the information that is not the case. Here the opportunity is
provided to the third party through the notice, stating that if the third party has any objections
regarding the sharing of the said information, those objections can be put across to the PIO
who then can take an informed decision.

And hence, we say the role of the public information officer in such cases is that of an
adjudicating officer. Being an adjudicating officer, he has to follow the principles of natural
justice, he should notify the third party, hear the third party and then properly decide whether
to share the information or not to share the said information. Kindly note, third parties
generally would raise objections on sharing of this information on certain grounds. For
example, the third parties may say that it may breach confidentiality.

Many of the information that is generally shared with the government are in a confidential
nature. For example, my income tax return which is filed with the income tax department is
confidential in nature. Now, if the income tax department is keen to share this information,
they must probably ask me and probably I have the right to raise those objections and I may
say there is no public interest in disclosing the same. So, this is confidential information, this
is shared in a fiduciary capacity with trust and confidence that it will not be given in the
public domain unless there is a violation of law unless the court demands it or unless the
investigating agencies want the said information.

So, in the normal course of things, this should not be shared. The same piece is about
government hospitals. If somebody seeks patient related information that will not be shared
because it is going to invade privacy of the patients' so government hospitals are not duty
bound to share patient related information at all. However, they can again treat patients at
third parties if they are commercial entities and seek their objections and decide whether to
give the information or not.

And hence, in deciding third party objections, the public information officer will apply the
public interest test for disclosure as against the private interest test of protecting the said
information. So, the third party rule is a very important rule, it must be complied by the PIO
and if he fails to comply with it properly, the PIO may be found violating the provisions of
the Right to Information Act and will be held answerable either in the first appeal or in the
second appeal.

Now, you must fairly note this, that once notice is served to the third party, the third party can
appeal, the third party can raise objections before the information commission as well. So,
when you look at the term ‘aggrieved person’ in an appeal, it includes third parties as well.
So, it is not that in the information commission, it is always a challenge between the citizen
and the public authority, it is not necessarily the case.

The challenge can be purely between the public authority through the PIO with a third party,
the third party may think that the PIO is not applying his mind adequately enough in terms of
what is to be disclosed and what is not to be disclosed, and that it would be the interest of the
third party to preempt any such disclosure before the PIO makes a decision. So, they may
approach the commission and say please stop the PIO from disclosing our said information.

Now, you must notice that in this Arvind Kejriwal case before the Delhi High Court in 2010,
the Delhi High Court made an observation, they said that prima facie when third party
information is sought, generally it is the duty of the PIO to treat it as confidential because
remember, the government is holding the third party information in trust. It is not government
information, see government information, the government can decide, the PIO can decide.
But this ‘is government held information, and government held information of private bodies
and hence the government has a responsibility to see whether the disclosure is necessary or
not necessary.

And they must, when they hold the trust not to breach the trust, and they must evaluate
whether this information can be disclosed or cannot be disclosed. However kindly note, the
PIO has to decide and when he decides he has to notify or give the same to the third party.
So, notice before disclosure, once he decides to disclose he must also notify the third party
about his decision. Whether the objections are sustained, if they are sustained, he will decide
not to disclose, but if the objections are not sustained and they are overruled, the PIO will
decide to disclose.
The third party must know what the PIO has done on the objections, it is his duty to know
what he has done on those objections. So, apart from giving his reasons for rejection to the
citizen, the PIO must also give reasons to the third party so that the third party is informed
about the actions of the public information officer as the case may be.
 Right to Information and Good Governance
Professor Sairam Bhat
Department of National Law School of India University
Indian Institute of Technology, Bengaluru
Lecture 30
Public Information Officers -II
(Refer Slide Time: 00:14)

The next responsibility of the public information officer, keeping the spirits of the Right to
Information Act is to decide whether the information sought can be provided or not and this
is a very important and a crucial decision that a public information officer must have with
him. Now, he must read the application, he must scrutinize the application and he must check
whether what is sought can be provided or not.

Because under the Right to Information Act the prima facie decision of providing the
information squarely lies in the public information officer because he is the starting point of
the implementation, enforcement, interpretation and application of the Right to Information
Act. So, unless the PIO knows whether the said information that is asked can be given or
cannot be given.

If he cannot make that decision I think the whole RTI regime gets into a difficult situation
and it collapses and it would just end up in litigation and so on and so forth and it will
probably escalate the whole matter and hence look at the role of the PIO, it is so crucial and
important if you are seeking redressal of grievances, if you are saying that the RTI should end
and stop the PIO than in that sense the ability to PIO to make this decision become so very
critical and crucial as well.

And it is his attitude that will determine whether a complaint will be filed before the
information commission or not. So, the PIO will decide whether the information sought can
be provided. He has to make this if it can be provided then he should start collecting the
information from whom, where, how much. If not, he immediately takes the decision and
probably has to communicate to this citizen that this information cannot be provided.

And please note this if he comes to this decision that the information cannot be provided, he
has to find out under which provision of law he is going to exercise that decision of not
providing the information. For example, the exempted information is defined under section 8.
So, he makes the decision, he codes the section and then he sends the communication as the
case maybe as required to the citizen.

So, this decision of to give or not to give is completely on the public information officer.
Thus, the next responsibility, the sixth responsibility that a PIO has is to look at accessing the
office or the department or office is concerned where the information is. So, this is like he has
to scout for the information because remember the public information officer is not the
custodian of all the information.

He is not a storekeeper, he is not a record keeper, he is not an archive officer. So, the
information that is sought may be available in his organization, but in which department it is,
in which office it is, in which desk it is or with which officer it is. I think he has that kind of
hands on information and experience to know that who may have this information so that he
can call for the same and assess what should be the reply that has to be given to the citizen.

So, this is where he gets into a role of coordination, monitoring, supervision and also
collecting the said information that is necessary and required to be provided in the citizen
under the Right to Information Act. Following the responsibility of point number 6 comes
point number 7 where he says that look I need the assistance of offices in the organization. It
could be a person who is doing the photocopying, he could be a person who is taking
printouts.
It could be people who are managing computers and systems so that the information can be
known where it is allowed, he must seek the assistance of the procurement division to have
contracts immediately required the assistance of his own boss or a senior with whom the
information is available. So, I think despite seniority or juniority everybody in the
organization is duty bound to assist the public information officer in his function under the
Right to Information Act.

That is something that he can definitely seek and please note, seeking assistance of any
officer in the organization is a statutory right to the PIO and I will explain this when we
discuss section 5(4). So, the law provides, I must say, empowers the public information
officer to seek the assistance and please note that cannot be denied. So, the PIO has been
empowered adequately enough to fulfill his functions under the Right to Information Act.

Point number 8 it is the responsibility of the public information officer to provide the
information within the specified time under section 7. So, the PIO cannot take his sweet time
in providing the said information, the law stipulates a timeframe. We will discuss this right
from 30 days to 45 days within which he has to process the application and provide the
information.

And please note the information should reach the citizen within those number of days is what
the law prescribes. So, that is what the law clearly states so he must provide the information
within the specified time if not he is liable for penalty. The function or the responsibility,
number 9, of the public information authority is that if the information is sought that belongs
to another public officer now what happens in applications are citizens have the tendency of
seeking information from more than one public authority.

So, the first information may be concerning the current public authority, the second
information may be collected to some other public authority. The citizens very often than not
they have more clue or idea where this information is. So they may misdirect the application
and hence this misdirection of application by citizens, it is a duty of the public information
officer to check to which public authority the information sought belongs to.

And if it belongs to some other public authority it is a duty, kindly note, of the PIO under
section 6(3) to transfer the application to the concerned public authority. So, we will also deal
with this transfer provision in some detail, but just to tell you what a PIO must do. So, what is
concerning him he has to process, what is not concerning him probably the public
information officer has a duty to transfer.
(Refer Slide Time: 06:55)

The responsibility, number 10, on a public information officer is that he may allow partial
access to the information and this is also critical in terms of the judgment that the PIO has to
make because if he comes to this conclusion that the information largely pertains to exempted
information he may deny that information. However please note the PIO has to apply his
mind, he has to take a reasoned decision, he has to look at equity and justice.

He has to look at ensuring the right protecting the right and when he does that it would be
very relevant to understand that sometimes there could be some information that can be
allowed. This is what is known as a partial access to information that the PIO is supposed to
do or take and when partial access is allowed and the PIO makes his decision, he has to give
notice to the application or the applicant as the case maybe.

Informing that look the record or the information that you have sought is unfortunately
exempted. However, a part of the same is permissible and can be provided for and hence the
doctrine of severability is going to be applied to those records and documents and what is
accessible I am going to share with you what is not accessible sorry is being derived under
the provisions of the law.

This kind of decision-making capacity must be there in the PIO and he must know that partial
access is something that is provided under the Right to Information Act and he is supposed to
facilitate even a partial access if the case is so and can be done under the Right to Information
Act. Kindly note, partial access of information can be vis-à -vis even one page of a document
where the public information officer decides to block a paragraph.

And probably give the rest of the page and the information in that page through a certain
point. He can block a file noting if the case is so sensitive or the noting is so sensitive that he
thinks is to be exempted under section 8. So, all of these are brought under the issue of partial
access and so he has to apply his mind and he has to make a delicate balance between the
right of information of the citizen to seek the information, access the information, know the
information as well as balance the interest of the public authority and the concerned officer in
terms of confidentiality trade secret, threat to life and property and so on and so forth. So, that
kind of delicate balance is what the PIO is supposed to do under the Right to Information Act.
Responsibility number 11 is that the PIO must reply finally to the application in whichever
sense either in the positive sense or in negative sense.

The reply of the PIO is very, very important and hence there are certain guidelines on what
the reply must contain. First and foremost the PIO reply must contain the reasons for the
decision, either a positive or a negative, he has to give reasons. Secondly, if he has any
finding on the material then he must disclose those findings as well the finding to be ‘Did I
take the transfer, did I transfer it and this is what I have done in terms of the transfer?’.

So, he will have to probably take those material findings and probably communicate the
same. Very important he must give the name and designation of the person giving the
information. He must give his name and designation and he must give the name and
designation of the concerned individual caseworker who has provided this information.
Because finally please note there are multiple allegations that the information is inaccurate,
inadequate, false and deliberately misleading.

Now, you will notice that the public information officer is not always the person who is
expert in the information that is sought and if he has sought the assistance of another officer
to providing the said information, if that officer deliberately gives misleading, false,
inaccurate information then the penalty is going to be on PIO and hence it should be very
clear on the part of the PIO.

He must say ‘look this is the officer who had the information and he has provided the same’.
So, that is very clear about who is or was that for so that tomorrow the penalty is not on the
public information officer. Very important that he should communicate the details of the fee
that the applicant has to pay. Please note we have two kinds of fee structures under the Right
to Information Act.

First is the application fee which I have already mentioned is 10 rupees per page and the
second fee is also very important it is called the information fee. So, finally after processing
the application the PIO comes to know that say the information sought is amounting to 100
pages and hence 100 pages and the rules very clearly say 2 rupees per page that is 200 rupees
is something that the public information officer has to communicate to the citizen as the
information fee has to be paid and deposited.

Once the information fee is paid and deposited then the information is generally supplied to
the citizen under the Right to Information Act that is the communication that the public
information officer ought to do. The last responsibility, responsibility number 12, please note,
these are not exhausted, but these are just indicative responsibilities that the PIO has.
However, the last responsibility that the PIO may have is to the third parties.

Generally, the information sought belongs to a third party and please note that is something
that is covered under section 11 of the Right to information Act. Who is the third party? It
could be a contractor, it could be any other individual whose information exists in the
government organization. It could be a private institution or a private authority as well whose
information is available or is there in the government of organization and hence he is a
designated third party.

In those circumstances, it is the duty of the public information officer to seek objections from
the third party and so he has to write to the third party and he has to state that ‘look somebody
is seeking information that is in relation to you. You may want to treat it as confidential,
please let us know if you have any objections’. So, taking the third party into confidence is
one of the primary responsibilities of the public information officer.

And kindly note the third party should be given an opportunity of representation if the PIO
considers it necessary and do not forget the fact that if third party information is disclosed
without giving him a notice or receiving objections from him., the third party may go in
appeal, he may go to the information commission, he can go to the first appellate authority.
So, a third party is an aggrieved party per se.

And hence the process and the procedure when the information of third party sought is
something that a PIO has to necessarily comply with and so he has to determine whether the
information sought is relating to a third party and the process under section 11 has to be
completely followed by the public information officer. So, I think these are some of the
responsibilities and the duties I would want to say that are encapsulated briefly in terms of the
points. So that we know what exactly the PIO must do under the Right to Information Act.

(Refer Slide Time: 14:40)

Now, let us take some of the sections under the RTI Act to discuss briefly what is the role and
the responsibility of the PIO. Now, before we go forward and look at the provisions of
section 5(4) and section 5(5), kindly note, that these 12 duties that I had just mentioned and if
there is a breach of those duties by the PIO. So, the public information officer is supposed to
commit, perform these duties like you know we discuss the duties of the public authorities.

Now, we are discussing the duties of the public information officer. So, when the law
imposes a duty and if there is a breach of the same, the law generally prescribes a sanction
and the sanction under the Right to Information Act is prescribed under section 20 and hence
in the case by R.K. Jain versus Union of India, a case decided by Delhi High Court in 2018,
the court very clearly said that the law expects the PIO to perform his duties responsibly.

And it is his responsibility to ensure that the information sought is provided for within the
stipulated time and he should be assisted by other officers. That is inevitable. However you
would notice that if the PIO fails in his duties obviously there could be an attraction of the
penalty provision. So, very often than not PIO suffers sanctions and liability for the failure of
his duty.

And hence you will notice that the PIO plays a very, very important role vis-a -vis ensuring
or performance of his duties to that of the effect of the liability of penalty that will be
imposed upon. And kindly note the courts have consistently held that if the public
information officer has committed a breach of his duty then imposing penalty unfortunately
becomes mandatory. So, the public information officer may not probably escape from the
penalty provision as well.
So, the duty is a strict one, there are probably very less exceptions to escape from the same
and it is probably inevitable for the PIO to go about performing his obligations under the
Right to Information Act.

(Refer Slide Time: 17:03)

Now, coming to section 5(4). I think it is a very important section according to what I feel in
terms of the internal office management. That has to be taken care of the public within the
public authority. Now, what does section 5(4) say? 5(4) says that PIOs may seek the
assistance of any other officer he is senior or junior if he considers it is necessary for the
proper discharge of his or her duties.
Now, there have been so many instances where the public information officers have not
received cooperation from their colleagues in the implementation of the RTI. Please note,
one, to receive cooperation is so very important, but that cooperation also has to be in a time
bound manner because the information has to be given within 30 days. So, it is not
cooperation at the sweet will and discretion of the officer concerned.

So, while the PIO is a designed officer he is not the sole and the whole responsible person to
discharge the functions, to fulfill the mandate under the Right to Information Act and hence if
any other officer fails to give assistance I think the public information officer will be an
aggrieved individual under section 5 a that is what the statute’s main purpose is. Now,
generally speaking any PIO would want to have assistance because the number of
applications may increase, the number of information pages may increase.

The communication may increase this can become a full-time job at one point of time for the
PIO and hence every other person who is around him. Either, when I say around him I mean
either vertically or horizontally, either in a hierarchy structure or in the structure otherwise
that you talk about it, the PIO needs assistance and we all know one that government officers
are very complicated in nature.

They are complex in terms of the structure and the process that are in place. The worst of all
is the record management systems. They are very poorly kept and the records are also poorly
maintained and hence all of these cannot be done by the PIO without getting the assistance of
people around him. So, the PIO can invoke the statutory law and seek the assistance of any
other officer and it is the duty of those officers who provide the said assistance to the PIO
under section 5.

This is where most dynamic and interesting provisions comes section 5(5). Now, generally
you know in government organizations if you seek the assistance of any other officer you
expect that it will complete.

(Refer Slide Time: 19:52)

So first is to request the assistance, cajole the same and seek cooperation. However, you
know in most organizations this may not come by so there are those difficulties where
cooperation is not received at all. So, then what happens and what should be done in those
circumstances? I think comes the mixed important section in the internal office management
structure is section 5(5).

Now, let me read section 5(5) it says any officer whose assistance has been sought under
section 5(4) kindly note. So, in 5(4) I have sought the assistance and that officer is supposed
to give. We think he will give, but there are chances that they may not give. Now section 5(5)
says shall render all assistance. So, if your assistance is sought you have no option you have
to render as the case maybe.

However, in case there is any contravention by such officer that means if such an officer does
not give assistance as sought by the PIO then in those circumstances that officer who has
failed to render assistance shall be treated as a PIO. This is exactly the process of what is
known as the deemed PIO. So, I am the actual PIO. I have sought your assistance for the
implementation of the RTI you refuse to give it to me, you refuse to cooperate.

You refuse to assist then in those circumstances you shall be considered as the deemed public
information officer. One will assume , what does this do? What is this deemed PIO actually
mean? The deemed PIO actually means that in case tomorrow for the contravention of the
duties of the public information officer. I told you there are 12 duties that I have listed. If
there is any contravention or breach of duties of PIO, say the most classic example of not
providing the information within a time frame then generally the penalty will be imposed on
the PIO.

However, in this case because the other officer has not provided assistance in a time bound
manner and that is the cause of the delay in providing information that other officer will be
treated as a PIO and deemed PIO will be summoned by the information officer. The deemed
PIO will have to justify why there is a delay and finally if he is not able to adequately justify,
the penalty under section 20 will not be imposed on the designated PIO.

The penalty will be imposed on the deemed PIO. So, this is where the designated public
information officer can simply wash his hands off and say look it is not my whole and sole
responsibility in implementing RTI. I think the responsibility is to be shared by all other
officers whose assistance has been sought and if one delinquent officer has not given that
kind of assistance he shall be held responsible.

He shall be designated as a deemed PIO and the penalty should be imposed on him and not
me. So, the public information officer can clearly be of the sanction and the liability for the
breach of the duties under RTI act and the breach of duties shall be squarely fixed on this
person or the deemed PIO. So, I think section 5(4) and 5(5) are very critical, very important.

Now, what do these two sections do? They very clearly say that the PIO cannot give an
excuse saying that he did not get the cooperation of other PIO that is point number 1. When
general PIO tend to shift the accountability saying that ‘look I asked his assistance he is not
giving’. So, very clearly whoever has been asked the assistance must be provided otherwise
the penalty squarely going to be imposed upon him.

So, that is how probably the provisions of law have been clearly designed and they empower
the PIO, please note that it is interesting. So, one has been designated the PIO gets a right to
seek the assistance and it the duty of those officers who actually do the same. So, I think it is
an all empowering section, it is an all facilitating section and the obligations are very clearly
fixed and hence you must note the section 5
(4) and section 5(5).

Then the penalty under 20 on the RTI act shall not be only imposed on the public information
officer it can be imposed on any officer whose assistance was sought and not delivered and
due to those sort there has been a denial of the right to information that is the most important
part that gets reflected by reading section 5(4).
Now, before we just go forward I just have a word of caution. The word of caution is that
section 5(4) and section 5(5) do not necessarily abdicate the role of the PIO, and do not
reduce the role of the PIO.

I think the court has made it abundantly clear that the primary role is always on the PIO. So,
you cannot shift this making people as deemed PIO. This is not possible. So, you are
primarily responsible for providing the information. However, if there is fault that can be
fixed on somebody else. So, the designated PIO cannot abdicate his responsibility, cannot
shift his responsibility, cannot run away from the responsibility.

The provisions of the law are delivered in a goodwill manner to empower the PIO. It is a
manner to actually strengthen the role of the PIO and to strengthen the RTI regime
completely and absolutely and hence I do not think by the use of section 5(40 and 5(50 the
PIO should run away or shrink his position and responsibility and just act like somebody who
is kind of the forwarding authority.
I think there is a caution that the courts have said very clearly that they do not expect the
provisions of section 5(4) and 5(5) to be used as somebody with some forwarding authority
example. So, you just cannot do that and rather the misuse of 5(5) is something which the
court wanted to stop and hence they have cautioned the PIO for misusing of sections 5(5).

(Refer Slide Time: 26:32)

Again let us come to the role of an APIO to reiterates the assistant public information officer
plays also a very important role. There is again no qualification prescribed of who can be
APIO, but the role of APIO is to assist the PIO. Now, one of the fundamental questions that
has often been asked is can an APIO independently process an RTI application? Can you give
information directly? The answer to that is a negative and APIO is there only to assist a PIO.

So, you can receive the application, give the acknowledgement, you can help the PIO in
providing the said information, preparing the replies so on and so forth, but an APIO cannot
act independently. He cannot provide the information without any delegation of authority
from the PIO. If there is specific delegation of authority from the PIO you can go on doing
the same otherwise an APIO is purely there only to assist a PIO and nothing more than.

No prescribed qualification for an APIO however the liability of the APIO is like any other
officer. So, if the assistance of APIO is sought under 5(4) and he does not give it then under
5(5) as a deemed public information officer is not deemed, he is an assistant designed APIO
then in those circumstances penalty can be imposed on APIO elsewhere. So, this case of
Muthaiah versus P.M.O. It is the case decided by the central information commission in
2007.

The question was can the government designate postmasters Post office is a very small unit
like you know small place where people go and take a lot of services. So, those places very
small maybe it has some 10 or 15 people maximum or less than that. Sometimes in rural areas
the post master maybe the single person who is dealing. So, can the postmaster be designated
as a APIO under the Right to Information Act?

The commission said why not there is no qualification that is no prescription of who should
be a PIO, who should be an APIO. I think it is up to the government of designated any person
be it a postmaster, be it a postman as an APIO. So, that is the freedom that the law provides
for.

(Refer Slide Time: 29:03)

Let us move to the application process. So far we have discussed responsibilities of public
information officer and the assistant public information officer. We have looked at section
5(40 and section 5(5). However, let us look at how the application is processed within a
public authority. Now, the PIO may take the following actions on an application.
(Refer Slide Time: 29:27)

Among them are possible three things, just to get you a clarity on how an application is
processed within an hour. The first thing is that the application can be accepted and the
information is provided. Second action that he takes is that the application is accepted and the
decision is taken and communicated to the citizen saying that ‘sorry we cannot provide the
information because it is an exempted information.’

And hence the application for information is rejected. That is a second action. The third
action is obvious action as I told you earlier that PIO comes to know that the information
sought does not pertain to his organization it pertains to another organization and hence what
he does is he cannot reject kindly note that is the most important. He will have to transfer that
application to the concerned designated public. So, these are the three actions that a public
information officer ought to take when an application is received in his organization.
(Refer Slide Time: 30:33)

Let us move to section 6. Section 6 of the Right to Information Act provides in section 6 1
that a person who desires to obtain information under this act shall make an interest in writing
or through electronic means. In English or in Hindi or in the official language of that area in
which the application is being made, accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed by the
law.

Now, the PIO as the case maybe, has to be approached and he is a person who is designated
to receive this application when it is made by the citizen. So, how can I make the application?
I can make it in writing or I can send it electronically. What is the language? It can be in
English, Hindi or in the local language. So, these are three ways in which the application can
actually be made to the public information officer.

What should the application contain? The application should contain certain details who the
applicant is, what is the information sought and what is the address to which the
communication has to be made. These are certain basic information that should exist in the
application. If the applicant requires any assistance obviously, he can seek the same from the
PIO.

And it should be the duty of the PIO to provide the assistance in making the application or in
writing. You may notice that certain public authorities have designed a format for filing the
RTI application and during some early stages they insisted that the application should be in
that format only and they justified why they require the format because there can be some
kind of uniformity in the application so that record management is easier.

But the CIC has consistently held that yes you can have a format but you cannot insist on the
application being only in that part. The format is good, but you cannot insist so just because
the application is not in that format you cannot reject the application is what the CIC has very
clearly stipulated. Have a format. If people know that there is a format and they file it in that
format, excellent. If people do not know the plainly written application should also be
accepted and processed is what has been communicated by the central information
commission.

Now, you will also notice that you know the official language of a given area is depending
upon which state are you finding the RTI application. Now, please note if it is in relation to
central government organization even in the state of Karnataka, the applications are usually
made in English and Hindi, but can they be made in Kannada? yes they should be and the
central government organization should have a translator.

They may cover the information only in English and Hindi they are not going to translate the
information into Kannada and Hindi. The application can be made in kannada is what is
something that we can infer from reading section 69(1).
(Refer Slide Time: 33:25)

So, three questions you can answer immediately from the discussion that I have first is that
format for RTI application quickly I think you can just answer this on your own. What should
be the language for an RTI application? that is the second question that you would want to
just answer on your own and third can an RTI be filed electronically? What do you think?.
So, fine after you answered these three questions let us go forward.

(Refer Slide Time: 33:57)

Now very important is this case of Rajinder Prasad versus Directorate of Health Services
NCT Delhi, a case decided by in CIC in 2008. Now, this case very clearly states that look
when an application is made by citizen you cannot amend that application at a later part. So,
what he is seeking as information you should stick on till every process is completed. So, you
cannot change that I actually wanted this information.

So, I want to amend that RTI application. So, one application whatever is stated as in the
application continuous to be the subject matter of adjudication till it is decided by even the
high court also. If you require some additional information you have to file a fresh
application. So, please note citizens do not have a right to amend their application and the
PIO is not supposed to go beyond what is there in the application.

Generally, what happens is citizen orally make some request, they orally want to make some
addition changes. This is something that citizens often just ought to, but I think the
information commission has very clearly said that except what is there in writing the PIO is
not supposed to go beyond what is there in the application. I think PIO generally get into
some kind of conversation with the citizen, want to get clarification especially when the
application is made.
There is no certainty I think they go about seeking clarification so that they facilitate the right
to information. People are not very expressive at clear when they ask sometimes. So, there is
nothing wrong with what the PIO communicates and finds out what exactly he is required by
the citizen. So, he is sure of what is exactly required by the citizen then he can provide the
said information. So, I think that role and responsibility the PIO can definitely make while
looking at the right to information.

(Refer Slide Time: 35:52)

Let us move to section 6(2) when we move to section 6(2) of the right to information act you
will notice that an applicant making a request for information shall not be required to give
any reason for requesting the information or any other personal detail except those that may
be necessary for contacting. Now, I think section 6(2) is the most interesting section here.
Why is it so very interesting?

Because it very clearly says that a citizen need not justify why he is making the information.
Section 692) very clearly empowers applicants and citizens to say that I need this
information. Why I need it I need not explain, what will I do with it I need not say. It is as
section 6(2) very clearly says an applicant making a request for information need not give
any reason.

So, are you an aggrieved individual are you a victim, how is this information concerning you
no you do not have to comment for him. So, I think it very clearly states that information can
be asked as a matter of right rather than as a matter of grievance or anything. So, very clearly
citizens will say I would need information A, B and C. Now very often than not public
information officers are always very curious.

They are curious about two facts: first who is the applicant? Second, why is he seeking this
information? Three what will he do with this information? Now, for all these three questions
you will clearly notice that section 6 (2) says this is something that will never be made
available. Why I am seeking this information is because I am a public-spirited individual. I
want to keep a watch on the organization.

I want to gain more knowledge, I want to report it in the press, I want to probably use it in my
research. There could be several purposes nobody needs to say or state this purposes. Now
section 6(2) is so important because remember if section 6(2) was not there at RTI let me tell
you very clearly if it was not there and that is why we feel it is a heart and soul of this
legislation if it was not there and just imagine that the public information officer can ask for
reasons. ‘Why are you seeking this information?’

If that power is given to the PIO then every PIO would ask why are you seeking this
information and if the citizen gives a justification the PIO will think that justification is not
right to provide the said information. So, he will seek in judgment of the reason for seeking
the information and unless he is convinced that the reason is adequate, appropriate, justified
he will not provide the information at all.

And hence that kind of a role on the PIO is completely taken off and I think the burden of the
citizen is also taken off in giving justifications. So, it is not only victims, it is not only an
aggrieved person, it is not only an injured individual who has the right to information I think
every person irrespective of whether you are a victim whether you are affected, whether you
are aggrieved you have the right to information.

You may ask the information just for fun. That is also okay, but please note you should also
be cautious that you do not misuse the rights, you do not abuse the rights that has been
provided. So, you must use it in a very cautious, responsible manner and I think section 6(2)
is very important. It means also the fact, if you recollect, in the previous module I told you
that principle rule of locus standi ‘why are you before us’. You that is what is something the
courts will ask.

So, suppose you find a writ petition in the high court or the supreme court you have to justify
why you are before the court of law. The exception to the locus standi and principle is the
public interest litigation concept. Now, here again you should notice that the locus standi
principle is not there. Why are you seeking this information is definitely not there. So, you
are seeking the information in public interest for public cause.

What he will do with it I think is not the business of the public information officer. However,
kindly note section 6 2 is the rule and you do not have to have reasons, but the exception is
that sometimes a citizen may seek information that is exempted under section 8. You know
you are seeking exempted information so you are a well informed RTI applicant. So, you
know information that you sought is definitely not going to be provided because it is going to
be exempted.
However, under section 8 which will come to a little while later see exempted information are
not always exempted. The right to information act is so beautifully designed that some of the
exempted information may be provided if there is a larger public interest that can be proved
or justified. Take the example of information that is confidential or private, these are
exempted information.

But the section very clearly states that the said information can be provided if there is a larger
public interest than protected interest. So, that is a test, there is a kind of justification that can
be made. Now, the citizen in his applications can give reasons for seeking an exempted
information. The citizen can justify by seeking that exempted information. He may explain
why he is seeking that exempted information.

And through his justification and explanation if one comes to know that yes there is a larger
public interest then it will help the PIO to make a decision in disclosing the said information
that is the only basis on which the PIO can decide. So, if he thinks a reason on the
justification are strong enough he will favor disclosure. If the reasons and justifications are
not strong he will favor rejecting that application.

So, by section 6(2) says reasons need not be provided that is the rule. However, reasons have
to be provided if the citizen is seeking an exempted information. It is the duty of the citizen to
make the justification, it is the duty of the citizen to justify larger public interest and if he
does not then the PIO has the every right to reject it. So, PIO is not going to sit in make his
own judgment about disclosing exempted information.

Rather he has no business or no role to play whether it is a larger public interest or not. This
is the citizen who has to justify the same and if those explanation justifications are good
enough for the PIO to make a decision he will definitely go for and make that decision. So
that is where I think very clearly section 6(2) becomes the most integral part of the right to
information.
(Refer Slide Time: 43:07)

Section 6(3) as I told you earlier is the transfer power. So, section 6(3) says if an applicant or
an application is misguided. This can very well happen because so much less information
with citizens. We are not sure which public authority has what information so what they do is
sometimes they combine the required information into one application. So these are the
possibilities. So, there is a foreseeability of the chances of misguided, misinformed citizens
filing RTI applications.

In those circumstances, please note, the PIO cannot reject it and section 6(3) says in the
subject matter in the application, please note, one pertains to the concerned public authority
and the other that pertains is also closely connected. So it should not be randomly two
different questions that are asked or information that are asked on RTI, but they are closely
connected and the PIO thinks that one belongs to me, the other, yes it belongs to one of our
sister organization, but not mine closely connected with the functions of another public
authority then the application shall be transferred to that concerned public authority. By
whom? Not by the citizen with a public information officer himself. So, this is where the
transfer power under section 6(3) has to be exercised by the public information officer.

So, once he does this under section 6(3) he has to notify it to the citizen. So, he should tell
the citizen what action has been taken under the application because the citizen has the right
to be informed saying that look point number one I am going to be. Point number two I have
transferred it to my sister organization. I can give you an example regarding the same. See
suppose I apply for information from say Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.

Now, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation runs intercity buses. Whereas the
intracity within the city is run by BMTC that is Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation. Now if in my said application I seek information about KSRTC as well as
BMTC. Now, the public information officer to whom the application first is being made the
PIO who gave the information will process the information that he or his organization can
provide.

Whereas from the second information of BMTC he will have to exercise section 6 3 is BMTC
has a separate functional officer public authority. So, he will transfer it under section 6 3 and
he will tell the citizen look regarding BMTC I have transferred it to the concerned PIO you
will receive BMTC information from that PIO whereas KSRTC information is something that
happens.

Any such decision to transfer an application under section 6(3) has to be made within the first
5 days of receiving that application. He cannot take his own sweet time to transfer this
information. So, the PIO must read the application very, very carefully. It is his duty to
provide his concerned information within 30 days. It is his duty to see, evaluate whether the
information sought is closely connected with another public authority.

And if it is such within the first 5 days he must transfer that application to the second public
authority under section 6(3). Now, the second public authority will get another 30 days from
the time it has received that request to provide the said information, but the timeframe for
transfer of application is just merely 5 days. In the first five days the transfer has to be made
by the public information officer.
(Refer Slide Time: 46:59)

Now, the responsibility after transfer is also very important. Most public information officer
think that after they have exercised the responsibility to transfer their responsibility is over
and they do not have to do anything regarding what has been given access to a citizen. So,
they sometimes fail to communicate to the citizen, fail to keep the citizen updated with what
is happening with that transfer application.

Hence an Arvind Kejriwal versus DOPT government of India the central information
commission very clearly said that if an RTI application is transferred to the actual custodian
of the request if it is done so and the power of section 6(3) is used by the PIO it does not
mean that the PIO role has ended. It is still the responsibility of the PIO to see that the citizen
finally gets the information or it is the responsibility of the PIO to see that finally the
communication reaches the citizen.

So, the citizen must be well informed, the citizen must be kept updated with and the PIO
continuous to hold the responsibility for section 6(3) transfer applications as well. So that is
again a very important judgment that comes from PIO in terms of the role and responsibility
of the public information officer.
(Refer Slide Time: 48:21)

Now, section 6(3) like any other power has also been misused and if you look at this case
called Girish Mittal versus Ministry of Railways decided by the Delhi High Court in 2014,
this was a classic case where there was misuse of the transfer. What happened with this case
was there were 15-point requests for information that was sought from the railway board by
an applicant and all this information was regarding the train called Garib Rath in all zones of
the Indian railways.

This Garib Rath was just introduced and it was running in many places. Now the PIO and
ministry of railways thought that the best thing to do is to section 6(3) and transfer it to all the
divisions and zones. So, he thought he was just a forwarding authority and the best thing is to
do is to use 6(3), forward it to all the divisions and they will provide the said information.
Now, in this case the court came down heavily on the PIO.

And they said he had misused the power under section 6(3) and there was a malafide intent
because what happens in this case was that the PIO did not even apply his mind. He did not
even consider whether this information was already there in the ministry before transferring
to the zonal or the division level and he randomly kept on using section 6(3). So the court
said please note PIO is not a forwarding authority.

He is not to use section 6(3) and abdicate his role under the Right to Information Act and he
should have arranged for the information. He should have been far more helpful in giving the
said information and in this case misuse is quite clear and what has been used is not in
consonance with the spirit of the Right to Information Act is what was decided in this case.
So, there is a caution against the use of section 6(3). When should it be used?
How often it should have been used? What is the intention for the use of the same is
something” That has to be often looked into before the PIO can exercise the powers under
section 6 (3).
 Right to Information Act Good Governance
Professor Sairam Bhat
National Law School of India University, Bangalore
Lecture-29
Public Information Officer, Appeal and Internal Office
Management for effective RTI Management System-I
Hi friends. Today, we will be taking a module on the functions of the public information officer.
In short, we would continue to use this PIO status from the public information officer and we
will be dealing with appeal from the public information officer to establish the authority. In
addition to all this, we will also be dealing with the internal office management within a public
order that should ensure an effective RTI management system. So, if you go to the previous
module, which discusses the salient features of the Right Information Act, we had covered till
around section 4.

And in this morning, we continue to discuss the salient features of the Right Information Act by
discussing Section 5, Section 6, Section 7 and also the appeal part, which is important in terms of
Section 19 and finally Section 20. Now, the role of the public information officer is very crucial
in the RTI Act 2005. The identification of such a role in the Act is important because the
government or a public authority does not have a face. It does not have a front person to talk to
the citizen, to liaison to the citizen or to deal with the citizen or to communicate with the citizen.

So, the state or the government, or the public authority, is a juristic personality and every juristic
personality requires a natural person to make a representation on its behalf. And the government
has a face and the face is through various offices in the government, including what is there as
the executive organ of the government headed by the president of India, as the case in the central
government, governor of the state, Or such other offices that you would be calling as chief
ministers, ministers, executive officers, secretaries, joint secretaries, additional secretaries, so on
and so forth, and hence all the RTI and it has been designed that every public authority would go
about designating individuals or a group of individuals as the public information officer.

This is important so that the administrative units have a person who will address them, who will
probably provide the information and who will also probably be held accountable or the denial of
the right to information. And hence I think the role of the public information officer is critical,
though he is not the only person to fulfil this role. I think his role is something that has to be
emphasized under the Right to Information Act and hence we will try and see. The role of the
PIO, the role of other officers, the role of a public authority should manage its own internal
administration so that RTI is effectuated to the citizens.

(Refer Slide Time: 03:47)

Now, if one goes by the provisions of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, Section 5 once
sees every public authority within 100 days. Now, this was something that was stated in 2005.
So, the Act came into force only in October 2005. So, from there on, it was expected that within
100 days of the enactment of the Act, every public authority must designate as many offices as it
requires as central public information officers and state public information officers. As you
know, central public information officers apply to central government institutions and state
public information officers apply to state government institutions.
Now, under the state, do not forget that state public information officers are to be appointed vis-
a-vis the 73rd and the 74th Amendment to the Constitution in terms of the municipalities, the
panchayats so on and so forth. And what will the role of these PIOs be? It would be in terms of
providing the requested information under the Right to Information Act. And hence I think the
public information officers are not specially employed. They are not specially recruited. They are
existing officers in a government organization who would act as the public information officers.

In addition to their basic role they would be designated as public information officers to facilitate
the right to information under this legislation. Now, one would assume that this section deals
with some of the key functions that are required and necessary to be played by the PIOs. You
would notice that when we are talking about the role of the public information officers, they are
very, very important.

And hence, I think the public information officer should be a persons who can command the
respect of the organization, who can command the respect of other officers who are probably in a
managerial and a senior position so that they can call for records, they can provide for them.
They can probably seek photocopying, printout, they can summon, you know, information from
other divisions. And hence it cannot be a person who is probably doing a basic clerical role, but
somebody who is in a managerial position and that makes the functioning of the PIO very, very
important.

And you will also notice that the reason why I am talking about the seniority of the public
information officer is for the simple reason is that. If a public authority fails in providing
information, it is the PIO who will be punished, will be penalized and hence this position or this
designation comes with huge responsibility, coupled with the huge liability. What is also core
and important is that the responsibility of providing information is not a mere responsibility of
providing that information at any given point of time. There is a timeframe within which the
same information has to be provided for.

So, if the PIO designated does not have the resources at his summons or does not have the
capacity to you know get things done within an organization due to the position that he normally
holds, then he will be crippled in his functioning and he probably will fail in providing the
requisite right to information. Interestingly, the time bound manner of appointment within 100
days applies to those kinds of public authorities, which are to you know already government
organisations.

However, there are many public authorities which were declared by the Central Information
Commission or by the courts as public authorities and hence from those decision dates, within
100 days, they would be mandated to appoint a public information officer. So, these are probably
some of the preliminary points that I would want to start off with in trying to introduce you to the
role and probably who the public information officer normally would be.
(Refer Slide Time: 07:57)

Now, first and foremost, you should know that there has been a lot of grievances among
government officers about who should be the public information officer. The reason obviously is
because the law prescribes a liability and that liability is pretty huge. It is about 250 rupees per
day to a maximum of 25000 rupees for denial on the right to information. And this is the
personal penalty to be paid by the PIOs. And this is in every case where they commit a default is
in terms of the Right to information. And hence people in the initial days were not very
acceptable to be designated as the public information officer. And they protested this
designation.

And hence the simple question to be answered here right now is under the Right to Information
Act, is that a qualification prescribed about who should be the PIO. That we know the some kind
of qualification prescribed for who should be appointed as information commissions
commissioners. So, however there is no qualification prescription for either the first appellate
authority or the public information officer there's no qualification.

So, the existing government officers can be designated. They do not have to be from group A,
they do not have to be group B. I would never say who should be the PIO. So, I think it is up to
the organization about who they wish to designate as a PIO. So, there is no qualification, there is
no experience required in this circumstance. For example, in the income tax department, every
income tax officer has been designated as a public information officer. That is how that
organization wants to designate PIOs. So, every organization have designation to go about
meaning these designations and probably they would do that considering the pyramiid structure
about where the organization is to helds that organization who should be held responsible to
provide that information within that organization.

So, I think PIOs could be at the divisional level, they could be at the sub divisional level, they
could be people, you know, at even a regional level. If you can ask me where, probably there is a
requirement for a person to liaison with the citizens in terms of receiving those applications and
providing the information. So, I think organizations must decide where they should designate the
officer as a public information officer, who should be designated as a public information officer.

And what are the functions that they should discharge under the Right to Information Act.
Second, you know, an organization does not have a limit to the officers who can be designated as
public information officers. So, I think to be honest and fair enough to the way in which the RTI
regime has to be administered, I think every officer in a public authority is a public information
officer because every officer has certain information, every officer is the custodian of certain
information.

And in that sense, for that information which is in the custody of an individual officer, I think he
is a public information officer. And I think if a citizen wishes to file an RTI application, he can
probably request any public information officer, any government officer to accept the same. So,
it is just about whether you are officially designated or not.

But I think as a public servant, every public servant is a public information officer, is what I want
to state here. However the law does not prescribe as to how many PIOs should be designated in a
public authority and hence the public authority is free to decide the number of PIOs they can
probably designate PIOs as per subject matter.

For example, for finance they can have a PIO, for audit they can have one more PIO, for
employee related matters or service related matters they can have another PIO, for procurement
they can have another PIO. They can have PIO as per you know divisional or regional basis. So,
I think it depends on organizations about how they wish to designate public information officers.
Probably, you know, this list is something that they should rework based on the kind of requests
that are coming in, the kind of, you know, office procedure that would involve providing the said
information.

Second, I think the basic purpose of the public information officer is to lies in between citizen of
the government. So, he is the communication channel. So, he his attitude becomes very
important in terms of the Right to Information Act. So, I think somebody who is proactive,
somebody who believes in sharing information, believes in openness, will serve the public
authority pretty well. I think PIOs must not only be designated, but they should also be trained. I
believe that they should be trained not only in the nuances of the Right to Information Act.

But also in terms of the attitudinal shift and change that is required after the enactment of this
legislation, which clearly depicts that the public information officers must rethink from their
attitude of being a government servant to that of a public servant, which means they must serve
the people and their attitude should be such to facilitate the right to information, they must rather
do their best to disclose and only in exceptional circumstances without the information as the
case may be.

And hence, I think being the liaison officer, picking the right people with the right attitude to be
the PIOs will be probably the first important step for public authorities to ensure the success of
the RTI in their organizations. What is important and relevant in this context is that the Act also
has a provision for appointment of an APIO, that is assistant public information officer.

So, PIOs could be people with managerial, senior positions. However, you could have other staff
in your organization being designated as assistant public information officers. Now, what
happens is that APIOs are very, very relevant and important because they could be at the
panchayat level. At the municipal level, they can be people who can actually spread the
operation of the RTI wide and far. And I think this is important because when you talk about
district level public information officers, their reach is very minimal.
And I think the task also gets quite cumbersome in that sense, especially to those public
authorities that have a lot of citizen interface, or which have consumer interface or probably that
deal with you know citizens on a Day-To-Day basis by providing numerous services. For
example, I can think of organizations like the municipal corporation that provides numerous
services to citizens in a municipal area. I think they are flooded with a lot of RTI applications
because, one there is a lot of literacy in municipal areas.

People are aware of their rights and people want to be, you know, exercising and holding the
government accountable for those services. In those places it makes a lot of sense to have a
number of officers designated as APIOs. I think I can give the example of the electricity
department. You know you want a lot of APIO to be appointed, even at the billing sections, so
that wherever there is a dispute regarding the bills and information is sought randomly to clarify
or to seek you know the services of the electricity department, I think the person who is at the
desk, the person who is at the reception, the person who is at the lobby and the person who
actually facilitates the citizen to come in and go out should be designated as an assistant public
information officer. I think the responsibility of the assistant public information officer is critical
because he then, you know, facilitates the role of the PIO. He is that to access the PIO, is that
access the public authority. And please note, he is also there to assist the citizen as the case may
be.

So, I think the role of the APIO is very, very important. And I think the Right to Information Act
recognizes that role as well. So, we will further look at the timeframe under the Right to
Information Act. Now, you will notice that if the application is put to the public information
officer that is one time within which the information should be provide. But if the application is
put to the APIO, there is one time frame.

So, that is how the law has taken care of the role of the APIO. So, the APIO gets the statutory
recognition and there is an additional time frame work that has been established so that his duties
are performed effectively and he can actually coordinate with the PIO for providing the said
information.
(Refer Slide Time: 17:21)

Now, you know, what is very interesting for us to look at is Section 5(3). Section five three says
that every central public information officer as the state public information officer as the case
may be shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and render reasonable
assistance to the persons seeking such information.

Now, I think Section 5(3) very clearly depicts the kind of attitudinal shift that is required in a
public authority through the PIO. The PIO is supposed to render reasonable assistance to the
person seeking such information, so is there to assist facilitate who operate the right on behalf of
this organization? So, the functions of the PIO have been very clearly stated and he shall deal
with the requests that are coming from citizens on seeking information.

So, he is the contact person. So, he deals with it. And while dealing with it, please note he has
the following responsibilities as we may want to put it across. The first and the foremost
responsibility of the PIO is to receive RTI applications. Now, please note receiving RTI
application PIO is probably the most important person, and he should accept these applications
and give an acknowledgement.

Now, very often than not, we find that the public information officer may not be physically
present on the desk to receive such an application, and hence the application may be received by
APIO. So, this is the coordination that is to be organized in a public authority. Now, receiving
applications and giving acknowledgement is a primary function. That means there is evidence
that the application is received.

The same has to be given to the citizen. Now, the PIO almost organizes office in such a manner
that the citizen is not put to any discomfort and no time is lost in giving the acknowledgement
and receiving the application. The reason why I have been insisting upon this is that, look, you
are dealing with a right, you are dealing with a fundamental right, as the Supreme Court wanted
to say it from time to time and today you are dealing with a statutory right.

And hence when there is a right any delay in accepting an application may amount to has it may
amount to denial, it may amount to you know delaying exercise of the right to information. And
hence if a public authority is concerned about ensuring and protecting the right which is their
duty under law both constitutions as well as statutory they will have the process where the
citizens can automatically come give the application without waiting and an acknowledgement is
done. And hence what PIOs can do, is that they can have at the reception itself in any building of
a public authority, a place it could be the tapal section, it could be the reception or the lobby
section where citizens can file RTI applications and they need not probably go in search of the
public information officers individually or in particular matters. So, I think an application can be
received by the PIO or by the APIO or any other person designated to receive that application on
behalf of the PIO.

So, this process has to be ensured, though it is the responsibility of the PIO to receive. I do not
think an organization can make the PIO the sole person responsible for implementation of RTI. I
think the implementation of the RTI is a collective responsibility. It is every individual’s
responsibility. PIO may be the designated person. However, I do not think he can fulfil the
responsibilities under the RTI without the cooperation of every individual, including the boss,
including the head of that kind of an organization.

So, that collective spirit and collective responsibility, if it has to be ensured, then in that instance,
the PIO must provide for a system where applications can be received, either in his absence if he
wishes to do that personally, and individually. But despite his absence, I think that must be a
system procedure for receiving that application as well. The second responsibility the PIO is to
process the application by accepting the application fee. Now, we all know that under the Right
to Information Act unfortunately the right is not a free right, it is something for which a nominal
fee is charged.

And we know that the Right to Information Act is a substantive law. And the fees are prescribed
in the rules and the Right to Information Act rules does provide for an application fee of rupees
10. This is as applicable to central government organizations. Now, the application fee has to be
deposited, and this is where the processing does take place. Sometimes you know the application
fee is not in the right procedure. That is acceptable by law. For example, we have seen
application fees being paid by check. Now, that is not acceptable under the rules.

So, in those circumstances, the PIO may want to return the check back or may want to encash it
and facilitate you know it is left to completely the discretion of the PIO. And from there all, he
will have to process the application as well. So, the application with an application fee,
processing the fee and giving the acknowledgement is something that the PIO is primarily
responsible to do. Third, I think he deposits the application fee, in the concerned account, as the
case may be, either in the account to the public authority into the RTI fund as the case or as he
has been directed to do the same.

So, that is an important function that the PIO is responsible for. Now, the fourth point is
something I want to emphasise. I think this is very, very important. See, you will notice that the
public information officer has a very critical role. The critical role is that they have to assist
citizens in drafting the RTI application, which means the citizen may be illiterate, so he may
draft the application and come and deposited the.

What, if illiterate wants to file an RTI? And what he comes out if he comes to a public authority
and makes an oral request? Please note under the Right to Information Act. There is a very clear
mandate. And the mandate is it is the duty of the PIO and APIO to put that oral request to
writing, accept the application fee and process it. This is probably one of the most important
sentences, I would say, or the important sections or the mandate under the RTI, which clearly
depicts the changing circumstances in the legal system.

So, the PIO is there to facilitate, to assist and protect the right to information of the citizen. So, it
is the duty of the PIO to assist the citizen in making that application. So if the application is not
in the proper form. And probably then he has to request the citizen to put it in the proper format
and it is his duty to actually.

So, this is what so the PIO is not only representing his organization is also there to access the
citizen and the exercise of his right to information. So, people who can write, file or make the
application themselves, people who cannot, can simply walk up to PIO and make a request in
oral that is also something that can be done under the Right to Information Act vis-a-vis the PIO.