High courts compliance with RTI act

Governance Issues Right to Information

09-Nov-19

Context-A new study by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy has found that there is a “yawning gap" between the judiciary’s pronouncements on the Right to Information (RTI) Act and the manner in which the High Courts are implementing it.

The report Sunshine in the Courts has remarked that the RTI rules of several High Courts provide for a relatively inconvenient procedure when compared to the RTI rules of the Government of India.

Key findings

The lack of good quality proactive disclosures by several High Courts on their websites marks the failure of the High Courts to discharge a specific statutory obligation imposed under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
It added that the lack of administrative transparency, especially financial transparency, within High Courts was a matter of grave concern.
In particular, the lack of transparency in financial matters of the High Courts is very worrying.
Most High Courts do not proactively publish details about their budgets and expenditure. Even fewer High Courts are willing to provide copies of their budgets and audit reports under the RTI Act.

‘Illegal clauses’

The report found that despite the law being crystal clear on the limits of delegated legislation, several High Courts have included patently illegal clauses in their RTI Rules.
Despite Section 8 of the RTI Act restricting the number of grounds for denying information to citizens, the RTI rules of several High Courts have included additional grounds for rejecting requests for information.
High Courts at Bombay, Delhi, Gauhati, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa, Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan, Sikkim and Tripura have created additional grounds for non-disclosure of information.
Several High Courts did recognise convenient modes of payments like postal orders, the High Courts of Allahabad, Chhattisgarh, Gauhati, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Rajasthan and Sikkim, did not recognise it.
It said that the High Courts of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, prescribe only court fee stamps as relevant mode of payment
Gujarat High Court does not mention any mode of payment, which increases uncertainty for RTI applicants.
The fact that the RTI rules of so many High Courts have provisions that run the risk of being declared ultra vires the RTI Act coupled with the fact that nine High Courts and most District Courts have not bothered to make any of the disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, is indicative of serious systemic issues within the administrative side of the judiciary.
As per report not a single High Court was able to match the convenience offered by the Government of India’s RTI Rules

Background

The Supreme Court, in State of U.P v. Raj Narain - a 1974 case, recognized the ‘right to know’ as a right inherent in Fundamental Right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Consequently, The Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 was thus passed to empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government, contain corruption, and make our democracy work for the people in real sense.

Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005

Under the RTI Act, 2005, Public Authorities are required to make suo moto disclosures on various aspects of their structure and functioning. This includes:

The disclosure on their organisation, functions, and structure.
The powers and duties of its officers and employees.
The financial information.
The intent of such disclosures is that the public should need minimum recourse through the Act to obtain such information.
If such information is not made available, citizens have the right to request for it from the Authorities.
This may include information in the form of documents, files, or electronic records under the control of the Public Authority.
The intent behind the enactment of the Act is to promote transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities.

Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019

Key Provisions

The Bill changes the terms and conditions of service of the CIC and Information Commissioners at the centre and in states.

Provision	RTI Act, 2005	RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019
Term	The Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs) (at the central and state level) will hold office for a term of five years.	The Bill removes this provision and states that the central government will notify the term of office for the CIC and the ICs.
Quantum of Salary	The salary of the CIC and ICs (at the central level) will be equivalent to the salary paid to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, respectively. Similarly, the salary of the CIC and ICs (at the state level) will be equivalent to the salary paid to the Election Commissioners and the Chief Secretary to the state government, respectively.	The Bill removes these provisions and states that the salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service of the central and state CIC and ICs will be determined by the central government.
Deductions in Salary	The Act states that at the time of the appointment of the CIC and ICs (at the central and state level), if they are receiving pension or any other retirement benefits for previous government service, their salaries will be reduced by an amount equal to the pension. Previous government service includes service under: (i) the central government, (ii) state government, (iii) corporation established under a central or state law, and (iv) company owned or controlled by the central or state government.	The Bill removes these provisions.