Is, Right to Information > being Amended into > Litigation to Information?
- A view into Backdrop.
Posted By: sunilahya@gmail.com Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:17 pm |Yahoo group rti4ngo
Dear Friends,
> Is Citizens Right to Information > being gradually Amended into > Citizens Litigation to Information ?
> A view into the Backdrop of Arrival of the recent Supreme Court Judgment in Namit Sharma v/s. Union of India on the subject of appointment of Information Commissioners in India.
Very recently and just preceding the said SC judgment, there had been an amendment to the Central Govt. RTI Rules, 2005 in the year 2012 - now, was that a sheer coincidence in the sequence of event leading to the recent SC judgment, or is there a well connected dotted line between these events .. and sign of things to follow ?
From all the amendments that had been notified under Central Govt. RTI Rules, 2012, I would like to highlight the ones that appear to be most relevant to Information Commissions gradually turning into Courts:
1. Rule No. 9. of the Amended Rules:
"Return of Appeal — An appeal may be returned to the appellant, if it is not accompanied by the documents as specified in rule 8, for removing the deficiencies and filing the appeal complete in all respects."
2. Rule No. 10 (1). of the Amended Rules:
"Process of appeal.-- On receipt of an appeal, if the Commission is not satisfied that it is a fit case to proceed with, it may, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and after recording its reasons, dismiss the appeal: Provided that no appeal shall be dismissed only on the ground that it has not been made in the specified format if it is accompanied by documents as specified in rule 8."
Now compare these two provisions with the existing scenario in a Court of Law in our country:
1. Removing Objections:
At the registry level, all the technical formalities of filing a petition have to be complied with and objections if any have to be removed, before a petition can move forward.
2. Next - Clearing Pre-Admission:
A petitioner has to clear the PRE-ADMISSION stage before a petition is ADMITTED to a Court of Law.
If the petition passes the admission test, the respondent (opposite party) comes into picture.
Else, if the petition fails to pass the admission test, it gets dismissed at the pre-admission stage itself ! and the possible respondents are altogether excused / saved from submitting their say / response to the petition.
Therefore, the following equation emerges:
1. Rule No. 9 of Amended CRTI Rules = Technical Objection Removal practiced in a Court of Law.
&
2. Rule No. 10(1) of Amended CRTI Rules = Clearing Pre-Admission stage, whereby a Respondent (PIO) shall be excused from submitting a response as well as appearance.
Possible Practical Implications of these Central Govt. (Amendment) RTI Rules, 2012:
1. Queue:
Before the rules were amended:
The moment a second appeal were filed, it would straight away get into the existing queue and then the technical formalities can be complied with during the course of time, while in parallel, the submitted appeal proceeds its way forward towards coming up for a hearing.
After the rules are amended:
An appellant may have to first clear the objection stage before his appeal can fall into that queue (giving some handle to the registry).
And so what may happen is that, there may be already an existing long queue and an appellant may be further made to wait before he joins that long queue, by subjecting him to the process of removing the objections first !
2. Hurdle of Admission stage:
Before the rules were amended:
If a citizen appellant may lack articulation merits (given that an ordinary citizen RTI applicant is supposed to be naive in legal procedures), his appeal cannot be disposed off at the admission stage itself, thus the respondent (PIO) will be engaged in appeal proceedings and will have to comply with very important RTI sections i.e. 19(5), 5(3) & 6(1) last paragraph.
After the rules are amended:
If a layman citizen appellant lacks articulation merits, his appeal can be disposed off at the admission stage itself, that too by altogether excusing the respondent (PIO) from making an appearance & thereby providing the respondent with an opportunity to skip compliance of important RTI sections i.e. 19(5), 5(3) & 6(1) last paragraph.
So, the questions are:
> Given that citizen RTI applicants across our country and its villages, are supposed to be naive in legal procedures, instead of simplifying the existing procedures, rendering reasonable assistance & encouraging citizens to participate in governance, why these additional procedural hurdles are being created ?
> Is a court like structure being envisaged for Information Commissions, so as to keep layman citizen information seekers at bay ?
> Are we witnessing a gradual attempt to AMEND the Citizens Right to Information into Citizens Litigation to Information, through backdoor Rules & Case Laws ?
Best Regards,
Sunil.
P.S. The inevitable and eventual Clash of two Titans - RTI v/s. RTP !!
No comments:
Post a Comment