COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-011

To:
The Government of India, by
Shri R.K.Girdhar
Under-Secretary/RTI
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block
New Delhi 110011

1) CONFIDENTIAL,
2) SECRET,
3) My Intellectual property,
4) Not to be disclosed to any unauthorised person,
5) Not to be disclosed to any private person whatsoever,
6) Not to be disclosed to Prime Minister or his office,
7) Not to be disclosed to National Advisory Council,
8) Not to be disclosed under Right to Information except to myself,

BY EMAIL:

Date:  21-December-2010
Your Ref: OM dated 10.12.2010 in File No.1/35/2008-IR (draft RTI Rules)
Our Ref:  PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-011
Subject Objections and/or Suggestions to the amendments proposed

Sir,

I refer to the above citations and your subject OM. I am caused to submit the following objection(s) and/or suggestion(s) to the same.
This is separate, distinct and without prejudice to other objections I may submit from time to time within the period allowed..

http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf

I generally OBJECT to the following rule proposed.

"4. Request for Information: A person who desires to obtain any information from a public authority under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, shall pay an application fee of Rs. 10/- to the public authority alongwith the application;
Provided that the request for information shall relate only to one subject matter and shall be limited to two hundred and fifty words, excluding the address of the Central Public Information Officer and the address of the applicant."

I say this for the following REASONS

1) The Act does not mandate that a fee must accompany the RTI request. It is optional.

2) The Act does mandate that all fees to be charged must be "reasonable". It is not clear to me how an application fee of a mere Rs.10 only can be considered  as reasonable considering the costs involved to process or deal with a RTI request by a pubic authority. Independent estimates put the cost of servicing a RTI request at upwards of Rs 5,000 per request. Such subsidy places a tremendous burden on the exchequer, causes inflation and unduly burdens the honest tax payer.  Such tokenism and subsidies help nobody. It is an open secret that even the cost of issuing a receipt / GR-6 / challan and accounting for it are upwards of Rs 500 as has been computed ad notified by the Allahabad High Court for its own fee rules.

I therefore SUGGEST that the application fee of Rs.10 be scrapped entirely, or in the alternative it must be an amount which bears a direct and reasonable relationship with the desired object and the scheme of the Act. I say it is pertinent that Central public authorities like the Reserve Bank of India have now stopped demanding the prescribed application fees in view of the substantial losses being caused which are not budgeted for .

I specifically OBJECT that the Act specifies that the fee must "accompany" the RTI request. This is not the same as "along with" or "alongwith". It is akin to the difference between a "wife" and a "mistress".

Accordingly I SUGGEST that the term :"alongwith" be suitably replaced with "accompany" as in the parent Act.

I specifically OBJECT to the proposed limitation of 1 subject matter per RTI request. I say that here is no such PROVISION in the RTI Act, or at least none that has been conveyed  to the objectors. I say that the RTI act merely specifies that requesters must "specify" the information they are requesting and that they must apply to the concerned public authority.
This is conditional upon complete / full section 4 compliance by the public authority. Furthermore the term "subject" is itself subjective and open to interpretation. The "Allocation of business rules" etc. are often vague with Ministries and Departments being frequently changed and subjects re-allocated or amended. There is no clarity on who holds the information or who is the custodian.  In the circumstances including this proviso is like putting the cart before the horse, and abdicating the State of its primary obligations under the RTI Act. / Constitution of India.

I therefore SUGGEST that the 1 subject per RTI request rule be postponed till the systemic record management and allocation of business/subject issues are resolved.

I SUPPORT the proposed rule to limit RTI request to 250 words. I would go further to say that it be limited to EXACTLY what a Member of Parliament is allowed to ask during Question Hour, which I am given to understand is 150 words. The same has been implemented already in Karnataka. I say that this is buttressed by section 8 of the RTI Act which already provides that no information which can be denied to Parliament can be denied to a citizen. It would be absurd if MPs who cannot fit their questions within 150 words resort to using RTI Act which permits for 250. The question of supplementary queries / request has also not be properly considered in this proposed Rule and should be incorporated. I also note that MPs on the average are paid about Rs 1,900 per question they ask. I am therefore in equity constrained to SUGGEST / REQUIRE that pubic spirited citizens be likewise reimbursed / paid Rs. 2,000 per RTI request (of maximum 150 words) submitted.

NB:  As the legal questions involved for these Rules are complex, I am formally requesting an opportunity of personal hearing for this before the competent authority.

Submitted in my individual capacity by

Er. Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
email ID: "sroy.mb@gmail.com"

Chief Patron: "HumJanenge RTI group" mailing list of over 2,500 RTI stakeholders
Website: http://humjanenge.org.in
Mailing List : http://groups.google.com/group/humjanenge/
News Network : http://humjanenge.org.in/news/

CC: to: (for suitable action and direction)
presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
mos-pp@nic.in
secy_mop@nic.in
sarkardk@nic.in
jsata@nic.in
dirrti-dopt@nic.in
diradmn@nic.in
osdrti-dopt@nic.in
usrti-dopt@nic.in
sroy1947@gmail.com