National RTI Awards

Uttarakhand Information Commission responds to our Report

Dear Shri Kejriwal:

Uttarakhand Information Commission welcomes the release of the Draft Report on the Functioning of Information Commissions across the Country by the Public Cause Research Foundation (PCRF). While this Commission has no comments to offer on the (i) Overall Public Satisfaction, (ii) Effectiveness and (ii) Deterrent Impact metrics, it would like to submit its comments on the findings as given in the Draft Report under (iv) Pro – disclosure Factor.

2.         In the Pro – disclosure Factor it has been stated that Uttarakhand Information Commission has remanded back a large number of cases without any hearings. The cases which were remanded back to the First Appeal Officers are those in which direct second appeals u/s 19(3)  / complaints u/s 18 were filed with the Commission and where this Commission on examination of the details came to the conclusion that the complainant / appellant should have had exhausted the provisions as contained in section 19(1) of the RTI Act. It is apparent that section 18 and 19(1) have certain areas overlapping and in case the First Appeal Officers, who are departmental officers, are not provided the opportunity as given u/s 19(1), it would result in enfeebling the mechanism of First Appeals, deprive the departmental officials the opportunity and experience of disposal of requests filed under the RTI Act through First Appeals and in the long run destabilize and make ineffective a practical regime which provides a minimum of two opportunities to every Public Authority for suitably disposing off the application filed under the RTI Act.

3.         This Commission strongly believes that the First Appeal mechanism in almost all Public Authorities is extremely weak, if not altogether ineffective, and in case Second Appeals are directly entertained without allowing the Public Authorities exercising the opportunity provided to them u/s 19(1) mechanism; or all kinds of complaints are directly entertained by the Commission; the very fabric of the supply side would collapse.

4.         To reiterate, Uttarakhand Information Commission has remanded back only those cases which were submitted to it u/s 18 or 19(3) without any evidence of having exhausted the provisions contained u/s 19(1). It must be fully realized that Uttarakhand Information Commissions wants to ensure that while applicants are afforded maximum liberty, no injustice is done to the Public Authorities either, by denying them outright the opportunity they have been provided u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act. Only those complaints u/s 18 are directly entertained which do not get covered by section 19(1) or where even after both appeal provisions have been exhausted, admissible information has either not been made available or delay has been caused in compliance of Commission’s orders.

5.         Every stakeholder under the RTI Act has to perform one’s duty and it is equally the responsibility of the Information Commissions that the Public Authorities are also not denied the opportunities which are very much part of the RTI Act. Uttarakhand Information Commission will continue to remand back those appeals u/s 19(3) which have not exhausted the provision u/s 19(1) which they should have had or complaints u/s 18 which are properly covered u/s 19(1) and not u/s 18. Section 18 provisions are to be applied only in those cases which are not covered under either any provisions of the RTI Act or post section 19 as explained. Uttarakhand Information Commission while appreciating the release of the Draft Report would like the PCRF secretariat to review its interpretation under the Pro – disclosure Factor as it is purely a matter of interpretation of the Act and decision of the Information Commission where it feels where the grey area of section 18 read with section 19(1) of the RTI Act needs to be looked at in it entirety and under long practical considerations or improving the “practical regime”.

6.         Uttarakhand Information Commission on the above basis accordingly fails to concur with conclusions drawn by the PCRF secretariat under the Pro – Disclosure Factor. This Commission is also circulating this rejoinder alongwith a copy of the Draft Report to the local press / media, as it does every Saturday.

7.         Finally, if the Pro – Disclosure Factor has any bearing on the rating Overall Public Satisfaction, that rating has also to be accordingly harmonized. As said earlier, on the OPS, otherwise i.e. other than the explanation offered this Commission has no particular comments / opinion.

8.         Incidentally, this Commission has also got conducted a physical External Evaluation of all State Level and major District Level Public Authorities recently and the results have shown that Uttarakhand being a new state, most of the public offices have their infrastructure and logistics which are far from being satisfactory, which is not surprising in view of the state being only 8 years old. For long term effectiveness an Action Plan has also been circulated for improvement in disposal of First Appeals, the “soft – belly” of the RTI Act, which has not been assessed by any institution, so far. A copy each of this External Review Report and Action Plan for improving the First Appeals is also being dispatched separately for the consideration of the PCRF secretariat.

With warm regards.

Yours sincerely,

(R. S. Tolia)