|
It's
nearly a year since the Parliament enacted the Right To
Information (RTI) Act. But in this far northeastern state of
Arunachal Pradesh, it is yet to become a full-fledged reality.
Till now, the state government has failed to constitute a State
Information Commission as per the guidelines of the Act.
Despite
bureaucratic subterfuge and resistance from various quarters,
vigilance and advocacy by citizens groups helped ensure that a
strong Right To Information bill was passed by the Indian
Parliament in June 2005. The state government notified the state
Act during September as it was mandatory to be implemented all
over India by October 12, 2005.
The
gazette notification was, however, not without 'confusions' and
the Arunachal Citizen's Rights (ACR), an active civil society
organization, was prompt to point those out. Most of these were
clauses not in conformity with those of the RTI Act. ACR in an
appeal to the Commissioner, Administrative Reforms, pointed out
that the 'competent authority' cannot summarily reject (as was
notified in section 4 of the Rules) the application seeking
information, which does not fall within his or her jurisdiction
but transfer the application to that authority under whose
jurisdiction the information falls without any extra fees. It
was not before May this year that the state government amended
the anomalies through another gazette notification.
However,
According to ACR's Bamang Anthony the amendments do not fully
comply with the statutory RTI Act. He says in sub-sections (1)
and (2) of section 6 of the Rules (Penalties), it is stated that
the penalty would be Rs 50 per day for delay and Rs 1000 for
knowingly supplying false information. However, in section 20
(1) of the RTI Act the penalty prescribed is Rs 250 per day and
a maximum of Rs. 25,000. Anthony further adds that in
sub-section (2) of section 8, a fee of Rs 50 has been prescribed
for filing of appeals. "However, the RTI Act only allows
for the charging of fee for the initial application, and there
is no provision for charging fee for appeals," he argues.
Anthony and many others also feel that the fees fixed at Rs 500
for information relating to tender
documents/bids/quotation/business contracts and Rs 50 for other
applications is on the higher side of the scale.
The
concern for ACR and other civil society organizations, including
political parties, is that the Act is yet to be functional in
toto. In the subsequent months after the Act came into being the
state government has, through different gazette notifications,
published the names of Public Information Officers (PIOs) in all
public departments and offices totaling 212. As all these PIOs
are already holding responsible positions in their respective
departments, observers feel that they wouldn't be fair in
providing information when it is concerned with the department
he/she heads.
"The
most frustrating part is that these PIOs are ignorant of their
new responsibilities," says Kamen Ringu, President of the
regional party, the Arunachal Congress. He and his party
colleagues are moving around in public offices seeking
information through the RTI. Ringu rues that every PIO he has
approached has sought 30 days time to provide information, which
is the maximum. "No one agreed to provide information
within fifteen days as provided in the Act," he says.
Anthony,
on the other hand, is frustrated that a SIC with a Chief State
Information Officer and a Chief Information Commissioner is yet
to be constituted. Without a SIC those seeking information come
to a dead end if they are not satisfied with the information
provided by the PIO and want to appeal further. ACR in a recent
appeal has drawn the government's attention towards this but in
vain. Besides submitting a complaint with the Central
Information Commission, it is contemplating to take the
government to the court on the matter soon. Ringu, on behalf of
his party, is all set to meet the Chief Secretary on this. He
has a strong case with him. Without divulging many details he
confirms that one of the departments has failed to provide him
with the information he sought within the stipulated 30 days and
without a state commission he has nowhere to appeal to.
The
seriousness with which the government is going about in
implementing RTI fully is doubtful. The nodal office of RTI at
the state secretariat is a sorry affair. Nodal Information
Officer Kirba Lomi, the only one with the singular
responsibility of overseeing RTI proceedings, sits alone in his
office that has neither a fax nor a STD connection
|
