The State of RTI in Punjab: Road Ahead

The State of RTI in Punjab: Road Ahead[1]

Yogesh Snehi

Introduction

From enactment to operationalisation, the movement for right to information (RTI) in India has sought to rescue RTI from a mere ‘piece of legislation’ to a ‘social document’ with immense possibilities for social and political transformation. Government of India published The Right to Information Act, 2005 on 15 July but its implementation in various states has been a slow and gradual process, at times lethargic. When the Government of Punjab issued a notification regarding Punjab Right to Information Rules, 2005, it was thought that the Act would never be able to reach out to the people of Punjab. But there has been an eventual strengthening of the debate on RTI in Punjab.

After more than two years of its enactment this Act has experienced its operationalisation through various civil society groups. But the role of government has been on the whole lax and inadequate. The government has attempted structural adjustments in the wake of public pressure, but its attitude has largely been to avoid the enlargement of public debate on RTI. The present discussion attempts to explore certain significant changes in the nature of RTI in Punjab. I shall primarily focus on laudable changes in the Punjab RTI Rules, 2005, the constitution and enlargement of the activities of the Punjab Information Commission (PIC). Besides this, the paper shall try to unsettle the dust over government’s reluctance over suo moto disclosures and failure to reach out to the people of Punjab.

Revision of ‘The Punjab Right to Information Rules’

On 12 October 2005, the government of Punjab issued a notification regarding the Rules prescribed in Right to Information Act, 2005. Punjab was one of the few states in India to publish these Rules before the Act came into force. These Rules were, however, criticised by various civil society groups.

The government prescribed Rs.50 as fee with Form A, for seeking information under RTI Act. This fee had to be deposited either in the form of a draft, cheque or treasury challan. Besides this, the government fixed Rs.10 as the price of each page created or copied for the applicant, Rs.50 for floppy and Rs.100 for the CD. This was in stark contradiction with the spirit of the Act[2] and rules prescribed by the Central Information Commission (CIC).[3] The fee prescribed by the government of Punjab was thus ‘500% to 800% higher than that fixed by the Central Government’.[4]

In the month of June 2006, Initiatives for Democratic Rights (IFDR), Chandigarh organised a consistent campaign for the revision of Punjab Right to Information Rules. Besides the revision of the fee, IFDR also raised its voice for inclusion of Indian Postal Order (IPO) as a mode of payment since these are available at the post offices in the remote areas of India. The government decided to revise the Rules and the notification to this effect was, however, issued in the year 2007. The new Punjab Right to Information Rules, 2007 incorporated IPO as the mode of payment, besides bringing the application fee and additional charges at par with the central government Rules.

Constitution of the Information Commission

Punjab State Information Commission (PSIC) was constituted vide government notification dated 11 October 2005 and Mr. Rajan Kashyap was appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner of the same. On 17 May 2006 four State Information Commissioners, Rupan Deol Bajaj (IAS retired), P.K. Verma (IAS Retired), R.K. Gupta (IPS Retd), and Surinder Singh (Chief Engineer, Retd) were appointed and the strength of the Commission rose to five. Later on 25 January 2007, four more State Information Commissioners, Lt. Gen P.K. Grover, Ravi Singh, Kulbir Singh and P.P.S. Gill were appointed to the Commission, raising the effective strength to nine.

Punjab government has again been ahead of other states, firstly in constituting the PSIC and secondly in consistently expanding the strength of the Commission. But a close look at the nature of Information Commissioners reveals that the Commission is completely bureaucratised and has been reduced to a mere tool for providing post-retirement benefits to civil servants. This is in violation to the spirit of RTI Act. Section 15 (5) of the Act stipulates that ‘the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance’.

The government seems to have taken care of the ‘public life’ and ‘administration and governance’ and ignored the provision regarding the open-ended representation of the Information Commission. This attitude has serious implications for the future of RTI in Punjab. Before the enactment of RTI Act in 2005, bureaucracy and red-tapism was responsible for the denial of information. Now by reducing the PSIC to bureaucratic control, the government has posed a serious challenge to the future of RTI in Punjab. One wonders if there is dearth of persons of ‘public eminence’ in Punjab. Strangely, even the leader of opposition has not raised any voice against the appointment of Information Commissioners.[5] Thankfully under Section 15(6), Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly are barred from the appointment to Commission.

Suo moto Disclosures

Section 3 of RTI Act states that subject to the provisions of this Act, ‘all citizens shall have right to information’. The most significant aspect of this Act, in Section 4 (2), is the obligation of ‘every public authority to take steps … to provide as much information suo moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information’. Section 4 (3) says that ‘for every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public’. Further Section 3 (4) states that ‘all materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible’.[6]

The attitude of the government with regard to suo moto disclosures is extremely lax and disheartening. The government has done little to take the provisions of the Act to the public domain. The policy is to digitalise the information and reduce the dissemination of information to the user of the internet. Till today there has been no initiative on the part of the government to come out with a simplified translation of the Act in Punjabi.[7] Further, though Public Information Officers (PIOs) and Assistant Public Information Officers (APIOs) have been appointed in most departments, search for ‘information’ on their names and designation is a difficult task. Digitalisation of information is ineffective since majority of people are not computer-literates. And what would be the position of neo-literates and illiterates? Don’t they have right to have access to information?

Role of the Public Authorities

In the year 2005, IFDR made an effort to make an enquiry into the utilisation of two funds (Mess/Canteen Servants Welfare Fund and Medical Aid of Mess/Canteen Servants) maintained for the welfare of workers by the Dean Students Welfare (DSW), Panjab University, Chandigarh, through ‘Right to Information’.[8] DSW office provided IFDR with a hastily prepared statement on Income and Expenditure for these funds. On closer scrutiny the statement revealed incorrect quantum of income and false head of expenditure, indicating misutilisation of funds meant for the welfare of workers. IFDR questioned these details but repeated applications to the DSW and the appellate authority have fallen to deaf ears.

In another instance, due to inability to find the names of PIOs which pertained to information from Punjab Wakf Board (PWB) regarding the lease status of Panj Pir dargah at Abohar, an application was sent to Central Wakf Council (CWC), New Delhi. The CWC wrote to me that the information sought pertained to PWB, which is under the administrative control of the Punjab Government, and forwarded my application to the latter and returned Rs.10 IPO attached with it. I wrote a fresh application to PWB and it returned me the application and the IPO asking me to apply afresh to the Estate Officer, APIO, Ferozepur with a new IPO in the favour of ‘Punjab Aukaf’. Another fresh application was sent to this officer and he finally provided me with the information with a note that ‘Rs.10 as postal order… is not sufficient for reply of Registered post expenses of the postage stamps’.

These two experiences reveal two set of problems. In the first case the office of the DSW dispensed with its responsibility under RTI by providing false statement on income and expenditure to the applicant. This issue raises a serious question on the nature of information provided by the public offices. Further, in cases where the disclosure is false what will be the responsibility of the information officer? Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act seeks to impose punitive fine up to the tune of Rs.25,000 for delay or knowingly providing false information to the applicant. In this case, repeated applications to the appellate authority, the Dean University Instructions, were never acknowledged.

In the second case, the process of acquiring information became very tedious in absence of knowledge about the PIO. The official website does not provide the names of the PIOs of PWB. The APIO, Estate Officer, was unaware of the Form ‘D’ to inform the applicant of the quantum of fee assessed he was liable to pay. Further, the application fee of Rs.10 is not supposed to suffice for the payment of cost of the ‘registered post’.

RTI and Panchayati Raj

The Department of Rural Development and Pachayati Raj has designated government officials and office bearers as PIOs and APIOs at the three tiers. At the Gram Panchayat level, Panchayat Secretary has been designated as PIO and Sarpanch as APIO. The Sarpanch has been given the responsibility for maintaining all records of the Gram Panchayat in coordination with the Deputy Commissioner.[9] The Panchayat Secretary supports the Sarpanch in this work. At the Panchayat Samiti level, Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO) has been appointed as PIO and Social Education and Panchayat Officer (SEPO) as APIO. At the Zila Parishad level, Deputy Chief Executive Officer as PIO and Superintendent, Zila Parishad as APIO.

Besides this, Panchayat bodies have been entrusted with the task of voluntarily publishing information regarding PRIs officers and employees; the names, designations of PIOs and APIOs, panchayat’s functions and duties; rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records used by panchayat employees; monthly remuneration of every officer and employee; budget allocated to each panchayat; detailed plan of subsidy programmes implemented by the panchayat, including amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; details regarding particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by the panchayat; and particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of any public library or reading room available with the panchayat.

The experience in the villages reveals that a village applicant looses most of the time in search for the name and address of the PIO.[10] Access to information in the Panchayati Raj Institution (PRIs) is extremely lax, given the caste-ridden nature of the society. National Institute for Rural Development (NIRD) states that a PIO has to be designated at each level, for instance BDPO at Panchayat Samiti level, and the designation, postal address, phone/fax numbers and email address should be widely publicized and made known. Given the caste hierarchies in the rural areas, access to information becomes all the more difficult for dalits in the absence of suo moto disclosures by the public offices.

An Act or a Public Document

The debate on RTI has been a prerogative of the civil society institutions. Right from the first seminars and workshops to the translation of the Act in Punjabi, it has been the role of civil society institutions which has been laudable. It is high time for the government to realise its responsibility. Legal and structural changes are merely an aid for strengthening the debate on RTI in Punjab. Barring this effort, the government has taken little effort to implement the provisions of the Act. More emphasis should be laid on the training of PIOs and APIOs to make them aware of the procedures to handle applications under RTI Act. It should realise its suo moto responsibility to operationalise the principles underlined in the Right to Information Act. The government has established SUWIDHA (Single User-friendly Window Disposal and Help-line for Applicants) centres in all districts of Punjab to provide district administration services to the citizens. Further the information commission has set up a website of its own (www.infocommpunjab.com).

RTI Act, in its essence is a powerful tool towards democratisation of public space and evolving a culture of accountability in the sarkari domain. It is important for the civil society to pressurise the respective governments to popularise the provisions of the Act through various means of communication. The experiences of the village campaigns and the very constitution of the Punjab Information Commission shows that the demolition of socio-political and bureaucratic constraints will not be an easy task, but efforts should be made to transform RTI into a social document. People are largely unaware of their Right to Information. The recent textbook on political science published by NCERT has included RTI in the curriculum of students. Debate on RTI should try to expand its reach in the public domain. RTI should not be left to be reduced as a mere document in black and white, like other legislations in India, which are usually a prerogative of the elites; lawyers and judiciary.

---

[1] Paper presented at a Seminar on ‘Right to Information Act, 2005: Problems and Challenges’ organised by Indian Council of Social Science Research, North-Western Regional Centre, Panjab University, Chandigarh on September 13-14, 2007.

[2] Section 7 (sub-section 5) of the RTI Act specifies that the fee prescribed ‘shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below the poverty line’. See Right to Information Act, 2005 posted online at www.righttoinformation.gov.in, p.6.

[3] The central government fixed Rs.10 as the application fee and Rs.2 for each page created or copied and Rs.50 for diskette or floppy. See Government of India notification dated 16 September 2005 on ‘Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005’ on fee and cost rules and another notification dated 17 May 2006 on ‘Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Amendment Rules, 2006’ regarding inclusion of IPOs as the mode of payment of application fee posted online at www. www.righttoinformation.gov.in.

[4] Cited from Resurgence India’s report ‘One Year after the Enactment of RTI Act- The Punjab Story’ on 10 June 2006, posted online at www.parivartan.com.

[5] Interestingly, Section 15 (3) of the Act states that the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Chief Minister, the leader of the Opposition and a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister. RTI Act, 2005, p.11.

[6] Ibid., pp.3-4. For the purposes of the sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means including inspection of offices of any public authority. Ibid., p.4.

[7] Recently Pulangh, an NGO based in Jalandhar has come out with a Punjabi translation of the Act.

[8] The Information pertained to the utilisation of two funds (a) Rs.10 p.m. towards Mess Canteen Servants Welfare Fund, and (b) Rs.40 p.a. towards Medical Aid of Mess/Canteen servants from 2002-2003 to 2004-05.

[9] List of Panchayat Records includes a proceedings book, inspection book, attendance register, register of civil suits, register of criminal suits, register of revenue suits, register of immovable property, etc. For the complete list of see Annexure-I, Paul, Sohini, 2006, The Right to Information and Panchayati Raj Institutions: Punjab as a Case Study, New Delhi: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, www.humanrightsinitiative.org, p.33.

[10] In December 2005 and 2006, IFDR organised two workshops village Churiwala Dhanna, Fazilka and village Haripura, Abohar (Punjab).