At a glance: 18 Key Points of PWC Report on RTI Implementation
RTI Act has adequate “teeth” to bring in transparency and reduce corruption. But the Act has not yet reached the stage of implementation which was envisioned. Substantial amount of work still needs to be done. Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the nodal Department of Government of India, also recognizes this.
Observations & Recommendations:
1. There is variance in role/ownership of State Information Commissioners (SIC) and State Nodal Department in implementation of the Act, although appropriate Government’s role is clearly defined in Sections 26, 27, and 28 and the Information Commissioner’s role is defined in Section 19.
2. There is inadequate planning at Public Authority level to ensure that citizens are provided the requested information (as per Section 4 and 5)
3. Information Commissions have inadequate processes, infrastructure or resources to measure the extent of implementation of the Act (for e.g. Section 4). Also, there is inadequate infrastructure to measure the number of RTI applications filed/disposed and rejected on a real time basis for various Public Authorities, required as per Section 25 (3).
4. At the State/Central level, there should be an RTI Implementation Cell (headed by a bureaucrat who is able to coordinate among various Departments/Ministries to monitor the reports/status on various issues related to RTI based on inputs from SIC/CICs and the Public Authorities. However, from an operational aspect, the nodal (administrative) Department should be responsible for coordination and administration.
5. It is implicit that at a Public Authority level, the implementation of RTI (especially Sections 4-5) is the responsibility of the administrative head. Given the (i) current low level of implementation of section 4(1)(b) and (ii) low success in providing information within the stipulated time, there is a need for capacity-building within the Public Authority. The administrative head may constitute/appoint Public Authority’s RTI Cell (PARTI Cell), to proactively address the issues pertaining to RTI implementation and develop a roadmap for implementation. Given that there are Public Authorities of various sizes, it is suggested that this PARTI Cell should start from a Ministry. The agencies/offices under its control may either be adequately represented or may have a different PARTI Cell of their own and so on, till all Public Authorities are covered.
6. Capacity-building (through Knowledge Resource Centre (KRC) for RTI) has been recommended at the National level to facilitate the Central and State Governments towards providing guidelines, establishing templates of standard rules, templates of various forms, and suggested payment channels etc. The KRC, should be responsible for knowledge management, disseminating landmark cases, and developing common IT applications for Information Commissions and Public Authorities.
7. This Act implies empowerment of the citizens of India. Hence there is a responsibility of the appropriate Government to create awareness among citizens on their rights under the Act,
8. The Act mentions the responsibility of the “appropriate” Government to develop and organise educational programmes to advance the understanding of the public, and the disadvantaged communities in particular, on how to exercise the rights outlined in this Act (Section 26(1) A). However, during the study it was established that only 13% of the rural population and 33% in urban population were aware of RTI Act. Also, only 12% of the women and 26% of men were aware of RTI Act. In absence of any mass awareness campaign carried out by appropriate Governments, the current public awareness is primarily a result of media, “RTI investigations” done by the journalists and efforts of civil society organisations.
9. The awareness level of the citizens regarding their rights as an appellant under RTI is minimal. During stakeholder consultation, the civil society organisations felt that there were instances when the principles of natural justice were not followed during the hearings. This could have been avoided if the appellants were aware of their rights as appellants during the hearing process.
10. A publicity campaign has been recommended. The timing of this campaign has been suggested post implementation of the other recommendations mentioned in this report, so that the Public Authorities, appropriate Governments, and Information Commission would be able to handle more “volume” that is generated through the awareness campaign.
11. To facilitate filing RTI requests/appeals, the following alternate channels should be considered.
a. Govt of India has a scheme for creating 1,00,000 Common Service Centers (CSCs) -- approximately 1 CSC for every 6 villages. These CSCs are to act as front-end/single window outlets for many Government services. These are being operated by private agencies under the Public Private Partnership model. CSCs should be used to collect applications (to act as APIO, as per Section 5(2)) and facilitate citizens in filing RTI applications.
b. Department of Posts (GoI) is already a designated APIO under the Section 5(2) for Central Government. State Governments should also accord the status of APIO to post offices and designate staff to assist citizens in drafting and forwarding the applications/appeals.
c. RTI Call Centers have already been implemented in some states or are in the process of being implemented (e.g. in Bihar, Haryana). This is a convenient channel wherein the RTI application is taken by the call centre and payment of fee is included in the telephone bill.
d. RTI Portal: In this case the information request can be made through the RTI portal. Various State Governments have already started planning the implementation of this recommendation. The RTI portal should contain links to all Ministry/Department websites of the appropriate Government.
e. The Ministry/Departments should provide a comprehensive list of agencies/offices under its control and a link (or a webpage) which contains all the suo-moto information desired in Section 4(1)(b).
f. These agencies/offices should be categorised as recommended in ARC report, viz. (i) constitutional body (ii) line agency (iii) statutory body (iv) public sector undertaking (v) body created under executive orders (vi) body owned, controlled or substantially financed and (vii) NGO substantially financed by the Government.
g. The RTI application is made online by choosing the relevant Public Authority on the website owned by IC/appropriate Government. The information seeker has the option of making the payment of fee through a payment gateway.
h. Also there are various e-Governance initiatives (such as e-District, e-Municipalities) which are proposed to have an RTI module in the software application being developed for this project. The role of e-District kiosks would be to act as APIOs for the other State Government departments.
12. Further, it is suggested that the appropriate Government amend relevant rules so as to facilitate ease in paying the requisite fees from any part of the country, as per Section 6(1). Some of the recommendations are as follows:
o Define certain minimum channels for payment, some of which are convenient to people residing in other parts of the country. At the least, it should have the following channels: Indian Postal Order, Demand Draft, Cash, Court fee stamps, Non-judicial stamps
o Introduce RTI envelopes, which would have an inbuilt cost of application fee.
o Facilitate payment through Electronic Payment Gateway while submitting RTI application on the web.
13. The study also focused on the Information providers to understand how well-equipped the Government/PA machinery is to respond to the needs of the RTI. This was studied from various aspects – training/knowledge, usage of IT, availability of basic infrastructure (like availability of photocopier at Panchayat level) etc, and whether adequate budgets existed to address the limitation.
14. Key issues/findings
Record Management
o More than 38% of PIOs stated ineffective record management system for delay in processing
o Approximately 43% of the PIOs were not aware of the record management guidelines
Training/Knowledge
o Approximately 45% of PIOs mentioned that they had not been provided training in RTI
o Approximately 43% of PIOs were not aware of the proactive disclosure of their PAs
o Approximately 39% of the PIOs were not aware of key SIC judgments
o Training was limited to the provision of the RTI Act. Key aspects related to public dealing, motivation, technology, service levels, etc were not addressed
Usage of Information technology
o Lack of software application capturing details mentioned in Section 25(3)
o Lack of software application to improve efficiency at the Information Commission
Low motivation of PIOs
o Most of the PIOs have taken up the role unwillingly, leading to low motivation among them. Often, junior officers have been given the role of the PIOs and First Appellate Authority
o There was a perception among PIOs that lack of adequate budget and infrastructure hampers RTI implementation
o Approximately 89% PIOs said that there was no additional allocation of staff for RTI, while their work has increased
15. The gaps highlighted above, are partly due to lack of clear accountability established through appropriate Government rules and lack of controls to measure the level/effectiveness of implementation. This has been addressed in the report through detailing the roles and responsibilities of various entities and establishing a control mechanism through the use of IT and Third Party Audits.
16. Recommendations
• Re-organisation of record management system to promote information management. A separate study is recommended to improve the current record management guidelines and make them “RTI friendly”
• The following interventions in training to be taken:
(i) Knowledge Resource Centre should be the owner of developing and updating the training content
(ii) At the State level, the State Nodal Department Agency should design a training implementation plan with support from the State Administrative Training Institute and National Training Agency.
(iii) Head of the Public Authority should own the responsibility of training the officials in its Department through State Administrative Training Institute or State empanelled agencies.
• Preparation of RTI ready plan: It is suggested that each Public Authority should do a self evaluation and identify areas of improvements and budget requirements. This would help in meeting the infrastructural needs thereby meeting the requirements of the Act.
• In order to ensure good performance of PIOs in implementing the RTI Act:*
(i) Allocation of responsibility of PIOs and AAs to senior level officials in a Public Authority is required
(ii) A mandatory column on the PIO’s performance must be added into the forms of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)even if the posting as PIO is only a part of the overall responsibilities handled by him/her.
(iii) A monetary incentive for the PIOs may be considered at a PA level. Often, the PIOs are liable to pay penalty, for reasons beyond their control. So while a penalty has been mandated by the Act, the PAs should also get rewarded for a good performance. This is important at places where PIOs handle a high volume of RTI applications
(iv) Specific software applications/“information request management” for implementation at Public Authority level and at the Information Commission.
(v) Usage of a RTI compliant standard template (Annexure 6) for quick and rational responses to the applicant.
(vi) The ARC report had suggested that as a one time measure, GoI should earmark 1% of the funds of all Flagship Programmes for a period of five years for updating records, improving infrastructure, creating manuals etc (an amount not exceeding 25% of this should be utilised for awareness generation). This was a good suggestion to address the above mentioned issues. On the same lines, it is suggested that all Central and State Ministries/Departments should earmark 1% of their planned budgets for implementing the recommendations suggested in this report.
17. Improving Efficiencies at Information Commission
The appeal process is a key component of the RTI Act. It is one of the controls established to ensure that the information is provided to common citizens.
Key issues observed:
(i) Any person who does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Public Information Officer may, within thirty days from the receipt of decision, appeal to an officer who is senior in rank in each Public Authority – commonly referred as the First Appellate Authority (Section 19(1)). A second appeal against the decision shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, by the Central/State Information Commission (Section 19(3)). However, there are significant challenges observed at the Information Commission. The findings of the study were as follows:
(ii) Large pendency of cases with a wait time of 4-12 months existed in most of the States. This discouraged people from filing appeals.
(iii) Information seeker survey pointed out that 47% of the citizens did not receive replies to their RTI application with 30 days.
(iv) Appellants had to incur expenses to attend the hearing of second appeals at Information Commission. As per Section 19(8) (b), the Information Commission may require the Public Authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. However whether this clause can be invoked for compensating the travel expenses of the appellants is an area of contention and was not observed during the study.
(v) The adjudicatory role of the appellant authority is critical in making this Act a success. As per the estimates, projected numbers of the secondary appeals would grow to 2.5-3.0 lakhs by the year 2011. This would require developing innovative ways to dispose off cases, without diluting the rights of either party.
Recommendations:
Improving the disposal rate of complaints/appeals by Information Commission through the following recommendations:
(i) Hearings through video conferencing: Since the Information Commissions are situated in State capitals (with exceptions like Maharashtra), it is inconvenient for applicants to be present during the scheduled hearing. This problem assumes significance in cases of matters pertaining to the Central Government, where the appellant has to travel to New Delhi. It is proposed that the Information Commissions use video conferencing (VC) as a mode of communication for such hearings. VC facility is available at each district headquarters which may be used for this purpose.
(ii) The CIC, as per Section 12(7) and SIC, as per Section (15(7), with the approval of the appropriate Government should open offices at other locations, so as to reach out to the masses.
(iii) Passing order on merit of the case without hearing. This would address issues of rescheduling the hearing, in case of absence of the appellant or the PIO.
(iv) Usage of software application for managing the processes at the Information Commission. This application should assist in improving productivity/efficiency in disposal of cases, drafting of orders, day-to-day office administration etc.
(v) Composition of Information Commissions: As per the Section 12(5) and 15(5), the composition should be such that it should have people with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. To implement these sections in spirit, it is recommended that the people who have worked in Government should be restricted to 50% (if not less) as recommended in the ARC report.
(vi) To facilitate the induction of the new Commissioner, where he/she does not have a background of law/quasi judicial role, he/she should go through an induction period before assuming full charge.
(vii) Usage of RTI compliant standard templates (Annexure 6) should ensure quick and reasoned orders to the appellant. It may be noted that the templates have a strong linkage to the Act and leave little room for errors.
18. Institutionalising third party audit
It is strongly felt that in the absence of a strong review mechanism, there is a high probability that the level of RTI implementation would regress to lower levels.
Key issues observed
· Some of the key facts observed during the study:
· Limited infrastructure/processes with SIC to carry out responsibilities under 19(8)(a), 25(1), 25(2), 25(3f) 25(3g) and 25(5), leading to non-compliance by PAs with regard to RTI provisions.
· No/inadequate mechanism for monitoring proactive disclosure, resulting in low compliance to Section 4(1b) of the RTI Act(65% of the PAs have not published their pro-active disclosure on the websites).
· Non-adherence to service levels of 30 days causing delay in providing information to the RTI applicant.
Recommendations
· To ensure better service delivery by authorities and officials, third party audits should be institutionalized to support the Information Commission in carrying out responsibilities under Section 19(8)(a), 25(1), 25(2), 25(3f), 25(3g) and 25(5). Institutionalising regular audits would facilitate the Public Authorities’ compliance with the RTI Act (through the audit findings made available by Information Commission). In this context it is recommended to have a third party audit (at least annually) to support the Information Commissions and RTI Implementation Cell to monitor the performance of Public Authorities and to take appropriate action in case of any deviation.
· Moreover, it is also suggested that the SIC website should have a list of all the Public Authorities within the jurisdiction of the Information Commission. The website should have a feature for citizens to report noncompliance (through tick-mark options) for a Public Authority. The reports generated through this application, would be helpful for a Public Authority and the Information Commission to take appropriate actions.
Compiled by Krishnaraj Rao, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 98215 88114/
Please note that this compilation does not claim to be exhaustive. /
Word file of this compilation can be downloaded from http://www.box.net/shared/zjc4kv92dd /
PDF files of PWC’s report, including the annexures section containing formats for implementation, can also be downloaded from http://www.box.net/shared/996nfrby16 /
