IMPLEMENTING THE

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

*Dr. Jaya S Anand

Introduction
UNDP recognizes the fact that the more readily official information is made
available to the people, the more a governance system can be declared as
democratic and open. Freedom of speech and expression under article 19 of
the Constitution implies Right To Information, as without information freedom
cannot be fully enjoyed by the citizens. Thus the enactment of RTI Act can be
considered as a landmark in the history of governance in India

The Right To Information Act, 2005 ‘provide for setting out the practical regime
of right to information for citizens to secure access to information which is held
by or under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency
and accountability in the working of every public authority’. The latest
Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) headed by Shri. Veerappa Moily in
the report submitted to Prime Minister has recommended the Government to
take immediate steps for effective implementation of the RTI Act, which is the
key to good governance. Ever since the enactment of RTI Act, citizens have
come to know more about the manner in which Government money is spent,
whether there is corruption in financial dealings, manner in which welfare
schemes are implemented and the details of its beneficiaries, and also about
the general functioning of Government machinery. As a whole, the legislation
has the potential to change the way the Government functions thereby leading
to efficiency of operations in administration and socio-economic activities.

Historical Perspective
The earliest reference about the Act is found in Sweden where in 1766 the
Freedom of the Press Act was passed. The last 10 years have seen a number

* Dr. Jaya S Anand, Associate Professor, Institute of Management in Government (IMG),

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

1
of States striving to have free access to official documents. 55 countries all
over the world already have similar legislations.

In India the present Act is the outcome of continuous struggle and efforts taken
by various civil society organizations, NGOs and social activists. The demand
for Government records and documents was initially raised by members of
Mazdoor Kisan Shekti Sangathan (MKSS), Rajasthan wherein a simple
demand for minimum wages became fight for the Right To Information. They
took the initiative to assert the people to ask for copies of bills and vouchers
and also copies of muster rolls. As per records, such projects were recorded as
completed while in reality the people had not received the wages. This brought
to light several incidents of gross misappropriation of funds. The Rajasthan
experience provoked demand for information in other States as well. The Chief
Ministers’ Conference on ‘Effective and Responsive Government” held during
1997 also recognized the need for enacting a law on Right to Information. The
result was the passing of the Freedom of Information Law 2002. However this
could not be brought into force as it was not notified in the Official Gazzette.

The present Right to Information Act (RTI Act) 2005 received the assent of the
President on 15th June 2005. Some of the provisions like appointment of
Public Information Officers/Assistant Public Information Officers by Public
Authorities, constituting of Information Commissions etc came into immediate
effect while the other Sections came into force from 12th October 2005.

Salient Features of the Act

The RTI Act applies to the whole of India and is applicable to all ' Public
Authorities' (PA). PA as defined in the act include any authority or body or
institution constituted by the Constitution, or any law made by the Parliament or
the State Legislature or by notification issued by the Government organization,
and also organizations which are substantially funded by the Government.
Sec 2(f) also enables citizens to access information relating to private bodies

2
through their regulatory bodies. However the Act is not applicable to 18
Intelligence and Security Organisations (now 22) but for requests/issues
involving corruption and violation of human rights, these Public Authorities will
have to consider and process the request as per the provisions of the Act.

Section 2 of Act broadly defines ‘Information’ and ‘Right to Information’.

Besides getting certified copies of circulars, orders, reports, memos etc, etc,
the Act gives citizens the right to inspect record, files, documents and works,
take samples of materials, etc. All information held or under the control of
public authorities can be accessed unless specifically exempted under Section
8 or 9 of the Act.

The Act requires the appointment of Public Information Officers (PIO) and
Assistant Public Information Officers (APIOs) in all administrative units at the
sub district and sub divisional levels. (Sec 5(1) and 5(2) The PIO are
authorized to divulge the requested information within 30 days while the
Assistant Public Information Officers(APIO)have to receive requests / appeal
from citizens and forward/transfer the same to PIO/ Appellate Officer within 5
days. Denial of info / not responding, within 30 days is deemed as refusal on
the part of the PIO and such denial entitles the citizen to get the entire
information requested free of cost.

Under Section 4(1), all Public Authorities (PA) have to publish within 120 days,
18 sets of info relating to their organization, functions, duties and
responsibilities of officers, etc. It also states that Public Authorities need to
take steps in accordance with the requirements of the act to provide as much
information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means
of communication , so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this
Act to obtain information.

Sec 5(4) of the Act enables the PIO to seek the assistance of any officer he
considers necessary for the discharge of his duties under this act. Such officer

3
will ‘step into the shoes’ of PIO and will be treated as PIO for the purpose of
any contravention of the provisions of the Act. The deemed responsibility
clause under Section 5(5), has thus vested responsibility on all the other
officers( non-PIOs).

Sec 6 deals with disposal of requests. A request can be rejected only if it is

specially exempted under section 8 or 9 of the Act. The PIO is also expected to
communicate the reasons for such rejection, period within which an appeal
against such rejection can be preferred and details of Appellate Authority so as
to enable him to file an appeal (Sec 7(8)).

Sec 8 deals with exemptions from disclosure. 10 sets of info (Section 8(1) (a)
to 8(1) (j)are exempted. However the PIO can exercise his discretion and
decide on these if public interest out weights protected interests.

Section 11 depicts the procedure while treating third party information while
Section 19 describes the process of appeal, time limit, etc. Section 20(1)
states that the PIO shall be liable to pay a penalty of Rs 250/per day for each
day of delay subject to a maximum of Rs 25000. The Commission can also
recommend disciplinary action against the officer and also request to
compensate for loss if any incurred by the citizen due to delay/non receipt of
info in time.

The Act has an overriding effect over any other law or rule for the time being in
force (Section 22).

RTI Act In Kerala

This paper examines the present status of the Act in Kerala. Experiences of
PIO/APIOs were collected during training courses conducted in Institute Of
Management(IMG)- in Kerala. A pilot survey was also undertaken to get the
response of the citizens. The following emerged as main areas of concern.

4
Though the Act came into force with effect .from 12 October 2005, it is still not
vibrant as expected. It is true that in a cent percent literate state like Kerala,
the Act can definitely bring about radical changes in governance. It had a very
poor start and even the constitution of the State Information Commission took
place only in December 2005. As on 1st March 2007, 5 officers have been fined
so far and notice has been levied on 25 officials. As on 26 th February 2007, the
maximum requests were received from Trivandrum district – the capital of the
State and the Education Department, Local Self Government Dept and
Revenue Department reported to have received the maximum requests under
this Act.

In Kerala, there is confusion in most of the departments as to the number of

PIOs/ APIOs to be appointed. Though the process of appointing PIOs is
almost over now, there are few Departments like Electricity Board, Kerala
Water Authority etc. which have designated only skeletal staff at their
Headquarters and Regional Offices. The unit offices at the taluk and
Panchayat levels are yet to have PIOs or APIOs to receive applications under
this Act. Similar is the case with Universities which handle numerous
transactions relating to academic matters, conduct of exams, administrative
matters, etc. There is only one PIO for the entire University.

The PIO being a senior officer has increased the workload of these officers. In
few other Departments, there are PIOs only at the Directorate level while
Assistant Public Information Officers (who are only expected to transfer
requests received to the PIOs concerned)are posted at the district and lower
levels, with the result that the PIOs are flooded with requests, which could be
easily disposed off at the lower levels. However these issues are now being
sorted out.

Kerala Government in its circular dated October 30th 2006,has directed the
Public Authorities to display the names, addresses and contact details of PIOs,

5
APIOs and Appellate Authority, infront of all offices. It is yet to be done by
majority of the Public Authorities.

Though as per Section 4(1) (b),PAs need to voluntarily disclose certain

information ,the progress on this front, based on the feedback received is far
from satisfactory. While most of Central Government Departments and
centrally owned PSUs have posted these 18 sets of information in their
websites, very few State Government organizations have done this. Many are
yet to initiate the process.

Issues in the Implementation

• A random survey conducted among citizens with different socio
economic backgrounds showed that 56% of the middle and high-income
urbanities are aware of this Act. 21% reported (all of them are
Government employees) that they have used this for .their personal
purposes while even the RTI activists in the State have not used it for
any productive cause. 72% of the rural people interviewed are not
aware of this Act. Even those who known are ignorant of the potential of
the Act. and the NGOs and RTI activists in the State are yet to use it for
bringing to light issues relating to corruption, bribery etc.

• PIOs reported that almost all the requests are received from urbanites,
politicians, advocates and media personnel. Around 62-65%of the
requests relates to 3rd party or are purely personal information which has
no relation to any public activity. A tendency to give interim reply with
whatever information is available is on the rise on the part of the officials
concerned.

• The PIOs opined that they are vulnerable to excessive public criticism
when decision taken strictly as per rules were not favourable to them.
They viewed that the facility of inspecting note files seems to have
opened the Pandora’s box. Inadequate infrastructures for complying

6
 with the requirements of the Act quite often makes the time bound
disclosure difficult.

• PIOs informed that quite often cases with personal vengeances are
reported .Except in a very few exceptional cases the requests have no
social concern or cause or public interest involved. These requests have
only added to the workload of Government offices : Moreover many
Departments have only meager provision for office expenses and this is
quite inadequate to meet the expenses relating to disposal of RTI cases.
(like payment of postage, stationery, etc.)

• IMG has been organizing a series of training courses for PIOs, APIOs
and Appellate Authorities which itself is a herculean task considering the
huge number involved. Transfer and retirement of trained PIOs have
further necessitated the need for training the entire officers of the
Departments. IMG is now in the process of conducting Training Of
Trainers (TOT) programmes and developing master trainers in all
Departments.

• PIOs need to be sensitise to the information needs of citizens. Civil

servants who were used to the colonial legacy have to cope up with new
environment of ‘disclosure and transparency’. Training on attitudinal
changes should also be an essential component along with training on
RTI provisions
.
• Poor record maintenance and retrieval system existing in the
Government makes it difficult to disclose the loads of info( in some
cases) within the prescribed time limit. Scattered information at different
levels and absence of efforts for consolidation made this task quite
difficult.

• On an average the number of the requests received under the Act is

hardly 25 per month, with some departments not having received any
request so far. Efforts to sensitize citizens are yet to take off
7
 successfully. It is worth mentioning that the earlier attempt in Kerala
under the Panchayati Raj Act to disclosure information has not yielded
any result.(there is a relevant provision where local bodies have to give
records of information/details requested by citizens). Experience in the
past shows that people were not aware of this and have not effectively
used this provision of Panchayat Raj Act. As in other states, in Kerala
too little effort has been taken by the Government to create awareness
about this Act (under section 26). Of late the Kerala State Literacy
Mission has planned a massive sensitization drive at district / panchayat
level which is likely to reach the rural and the poor people at grassroot
level who are the real beneficiaries of this Act.

Concluding Remarks

No doubt the Act is an effective tool, which makes the Government machinery
accountable to the public for their decisions. Rampant corruption prevailing in
public administration can be brought to limelight through public audit. RTI
activists often quote this as the main reason why some bureaucrats strongly
resist the implementation of this Act.

However, the successful implementation of RTI Act depends on the level of

commitment of the political and bureaucratic executives, media and other
stakeholders The role of media is propagating and using this legislation is
significant. Success stories on how this Act has proved itself as a powerful tool
need to be documented and published through visual and other media. As
highlighted in the National Convention (2006) it is now the civil society to build
pressure on PAs to ensure the implementation of the Act in true letter and
spirit.The Act has the scope for misuse and potential for good governance.
Unless the Act is vibrant and all the stakeholders both on the supply and
demand side are well versed and view this effectively, it may remain in papers
thereby defeating the larger goals of participatory governance.

8
REFERENCES
1. Krishna, Dhirendra, ‘Citizen Participation in Strengthening Public
Audit and Anti-Corruption Measures: Right to Information Act 2005,
Indian Journal of Public Audit and Accountability Vol. I, April 2006.
2. Outcome & Recommendation of the National Convention on ‘One
Year of RTI’ organized by Central Information Commission, New
Delhi during 13 – 15 to October 2006