The Act remains in force in perpetuity, or of course, until withdrawn by the legislature. But there is a snag. Once the Freedom of Information Act of the Government of India comes in force, the centre, may repeal all state acts or call for drastic modifications to bring these in line with the central legislation.

Right to Information (RTI) does not explicitly figure in any of the lists under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The central government therefore has taken the convenient stance that it falls under its residuary powers. RTI activists all over the country on the other hand point out that the right to information has been declared as the fundamental right of citizens under Article 19 by various pronouncements of the Supreme Court. The commission on the review of the Constitution has even recommended that this fundamental right be explicitly incorporated in the Constitution.

A legislation on RTI does not grant any additional rights on citizens. It merely codifies the process for exercising of this fundamental right by citizens. It, therefore, is more logical to presume that both the central and state governments are empowered to simultaneously bring in legislations on the subject.

The matter will be taken up if and when the central government asks the state legislations to be repealed after enforcing its own Act.

The central act will cover the ministries and departments of the Government of India while the state act will cover those of the state government. In Maharashtra, the state act will cover, in addition, cooperatives and public trusts registered with the state government.

One can ask for a copy of the Act at the Government Book Depot. Do not forget also to ask for a copy of the notification issued by the General Administration Department of the state government on September 25, 2002, spelling out rules. These rules, notified under the Ordinance of 2002, continue to be applicable to the Act as per its Section 21 (2).

Do not use it to seek information is routinely available. Every government department and semi-government organisation is expected to have a public relations officer. His job is to provide routine and useful information to citizens across the counter. If there is no such PRO, it is the duty of the chief of the unit. Use your right under the Act to demand information, which is not available in the normal course. It is significant to note that even the Act calls it `disclosure’ of information. If one merely wants to know what is the fee to be remitted along with a specific application, what is the need to harness the Information Act?

From the Public Information Officer (PIO) designated as such from among the existing officers of the office. Understand the basic difference. A Public Relations Officer (PRO) is there to give the information, which his establishment wants to disseminate, or at best the information, which it does not mind giving without any hiccup. A Public Information Officer (PIO), on the other hand, is bound by the Information Act to disclose information which otherwise would not have been coming forth.

All PIOs designated under the Ordinance should be deemed to have continued functioning in that position even today, since all actions under the Ordinance have been saved. The competent authorities were duty bound to designate PIOs without any loss of time when the Ordinance came in force as early as in September 2002. They were directed at least twice by the state government through circulars to abide by the provisions of the Ordinance.

Remember that assignment as a PIO is an additional charge held by an officer who is already holding a certain position. Send your queries under the Act to the person who is holding that position now. It is a different matter if the competent authority has explicitly designated someone else with some other designation as the PIO, otherwise successor to the earlier PIO in that chair is the PIO today.

Yes, you can demand any information except that prohibited by the limitation clause of the Act. The clause generally covers areas where no responsible officer would have sought any information, anyway.

It is not necessary that every citizen every time has to harness the provisions of the Act to ``expose corruption’’. Activists in Delhi have successfully harnessed provisions of the right to information act there to ensure better administration. It is common knowledge that citizens’ routine complaints about some faulty in service is rarely attended to. Activists in Delhi merely demanded the name of the employee who was supposed to have looked into their complaint and the nature of action being contemplated against him by his higher officials. The result was that the faults in the services were promptly rectified.

They have been able to get copies of contracts on civic works like road constructions and repairs and keep erring contractors as well as supervising officers under strict citizen vigil.

Remember that one has to pay the cost of information. This is to cover the cost of photocopying and the stationery.

More on this, bear in mind that you cannot, by citing this Act, confront any officer any time, thump his desk, and demand `disclosure' of information right there and then. You have to abide by the provisions of the Act and the procedural rules published alongwith.

* The application form under the erstwhile Ordinance demanded to know the purpose for which the information is required. Why is that necessary under the Act?

The Act does not empower the Public Information Officer (PIO) to evaluate your question by the purpose you declare and then decide whether to provide information or not. This clause inserted by the administration in the procedure for demanding information. No rules can go against the provisions of the Act. Go ahead and write in response to such query: `` Because it is my fundamental right to know. The information sought cannot be denied under any exclusion clauses of the Act.’’ If information is still denied, without citing any exclusion clause, hold the PIO responsible in your appeal for ``having failed to supply the information sought without any reasonable cause’’ and demand action against him as prescribed in the Act for this.

A government department or a semi-government organisation acts on behalf of the people. Any query to know what it does inherently is in ``public interest''. The PIO, therefore, cannot deny information on this spacious excuse. What the Act prohibits is provision of personal information, the disclosure of which has ``no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual’’.

If you demand to know details of a contract or want have a copy of a building plan as sanctioned by the planning authority on behalf of the citizens, how can this be considered ``not in public interest’’ or to be causing ``unwarranted invasion of the privacy’’ of the contractor or the developer? Besides, even in cases where the information could be considered personal, the PIO has been asked to provide it, if he is satisfied that ``the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.’’

You cannot file a civil suit. The Act provides for a in-built appellate mechanism. In Maharashtra, one can file an appeal against the decision of the PIO to the Competent Authority.There is also a provision for second appeal to the Lokayukta, if you are not satisfied with the decision of the Competent Authority. If you feel aggrieved even by the Lokayukta's decision, you can file a writ petition in the high court.

Presently, the right to information law is applicable to government and semi-government establishments. In Maharashtra, it has extended jurisdiction over cooperative societies, public trusts and trade unions registered with the government.

The next step has to be to include private organizations as well, especially when even basic services are being handed over to private enterprise. Justice P.B. Sawant, former Supreme Court Judge, who as PCI chairman oversaw the PCI draft, has said: "Private bodies, especially where their activities affect the fundamental rights of the public, must be required to disclose information. ‘’

Activists also want a statutory obligation to be imposed on private bodies to publish information in the general public interest especially when these bodies undertake activities posing a risk of harm to public health or safety or the environment or where this is necessary to enable consumers to make informed choices.

------------------------------

The Express Initiatives

The Indian Express

3/11, Aurora towers, Moledina Road,

Pune 411 001

Or by sending an email to

[email protected]

-----------