Is the CIC killing Right to Information Act?

Regulations that have been framed under the RTI Act apparently violate the provisions of the parent Act itself and would work as road blocks

By Pramod Kumar Rai

The Central Information Commission (CIC), which was constituted under Chapter III of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to ensure proper implementation of RTI Act, is working towards killing the sprit behind the legislation. The CIC, which has been made the last Appellate Authority under the RTI Act and the last ray of hope for an information seeker, has framed the CIC (Management) Regulation, 2007, that not only violates settled principles of law, but even makes the job of information seekers a whole lot difficult.

Lets go point by point to see how the CIC’s decisions are going to prevent information sharing.

Appeal to CIC under RTI Act 2005
Under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, a second appeal can be filed before the CIC against an order of the First Appellate Authority. Section 19(3) is reproduced below.

A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:

Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time

No fee has been prescribed for filing appeals under the RTI Act. Originally, no form for either seeking information or for filing an appeal was prescribed. These provisions were made so that the common man could reach the concerned authorities easily.

Under the powers vested under clause (e) and (f) of Section 27(2) of RTI Act, 2005, the central government framed the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005. The said clauses empowered the central government to frame rules regarding the procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission in deciding appeals under sub-section (10) of section 19 among others.
Under the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005, no forms of appeal have been prescribed. However, as per Rule 4, it is stated that the following documents should be enclosed with the appeal.

Self-attested copies of the orders or documents against which the appeal is being preferred;
Copies of documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in the appeal; and
An index of the documents referred to in the appeal.

These rules are in line with requirement of any appeal made in the country. In 2007, the CIC under its so-called powers conferred under Section 12(4) of the Act framed the CIC (Management) Regulation, 2007 which is apparently in violation of the RTI Act and the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005. As per the regulation, the filing of an appeal before the CIC has become definitely more difficult than filing an appeal before the Supreme Court. A look at the regulations will show that these requirements have been made with the sole intention of stopping the common man from approaching the commission.

CIC (Management) Regulation, 2007
Section 12(4) of RTI Act gives powers of general superintendence, direction and management of the internal affairs of the CIC to its Chief Information Commissioner. It does not give him any power to affect the rights of information seekers. Further he has no right to overrule the provisions of the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 which are framed by the central government under Section 27(2)(e) of the Act under which specific rule-making powers for appeal procedures are vested with the central government. Under Section 12(4), the CIC has not been given rule-making powers for appeal procedures. Section 12(4) of the Act is briefly reproduced below.

The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission shall vest in the Chief Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by the Information Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the Central Information Commission autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act.

Regulation 9 appears to be in complete violation of Rule 4 of the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005, stipulates mandatory submission of self-attested copies of following documents with the appeal papers.

The RTI application submitted before the CPIO along with documentary proof as regards payment of fee under the RTI Act.

W hen we go to a High Court or to the Supreme Court, we need to submit just the last order against which an appeal is being preferred. Other documents can be annexed at the option of the appellant. Nobody insists on proof of payment of fee before the first authority. If the prescribed fee is not paid, the application will be either not processed or it would be rejected. The very fact that application has not been returned/refused on the ground of non-payment of fee and the order has been passed by lower authority connotes that appropriate fee has been paid.

If some applicant has misplaced the receipt of having paid Rs 10 before CPIO, then on that ground alone, the CIC is taking his substantive right of appeal given under Section 19(3) of the Act. Further this is in complete violation of Rule 4 of CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005.

The order, or decision or response, if any, from the CPIO to whom the application under the RTI Act was submitted.

Various High Courts or the Supreme Court never insist on such documents. Orders other than the last order against which an appeal is being preferred are annexed at the option of the appellant.

This clause makes the appeal procedure before the CIC complex and helps prevent the common man from approaching the CIC.

The First appeal submitted before the First Appellate Authority with documentary proof of filing the First Appeal.

Comments are mutatis mutandis as above. Further, if the appeal is not filed then the obvious question is how the first appellate authority passed the order. Therefore, it is ridiculous to submit proof of filing the first appeal when an order from the first appellate authority is being disclosed.
This clause too serves only one purpose and that is, making the appeal procedure before the CIC complex so that the ordinary citizen is unable to approach the CIC.

The orders or decision or response, if any, from the First Appellate Authority against which the appeal or complaint is being preferred...

This is the only document that is required in case of refusal of information by an order. In case of deemed refusal, the documents denied may be sought. In case of complaints, the last communication against which the complainant is aggrieved is required to be enclosed.

A certificate stating that the matters under appeal or complaint have not been previously filed, or are pending, with any court or tribunal or with any other authority...

To make the appeal procedure simple, this is not really required. The appeal to the CIC is not like a writ petition. However, if required, a form of appeal can be prescribed and this declaration can be incorporated in the verification clause.

An index of the documents referred to in the appeal or complaint...

If the idea behind framing of regulations was to make the appeal procedure simple, this clause was not required. In any case, it should be at the option of the appellant and should not be compulsorily imposed.

A list of dates briefly indicating in chronological order the progress of the matter up to the date of filing the appeal or complaint to be placed at the top of all the documents filed...

Even this clause should be at the option of the appellant and should not be compulsorily imposed.
Regulation 10 requires that before submitting an appeal or complaint to the Commission, the appellant or the complainant shall cause a copy of the appeal or complaint, as the case may be, to be served on the CPIO and the appellate authorities and shall submit proof of such service to the Commission.

Once again, various High Courts or the Supreme Court never insist on such service. The appeal papers are served to respondents by the court itself. The commission may take multiple copies of appeal for such service.

Inclusion of this clause is yet another reason to doubt the commitment of the CIC to facilitating free flow of information. Under Regulation 8, the format of appeal has been prescribed which is very similar to the format of appeal filed before regular courts. This is yet another move to complicate the procedure.

The Registrar is an executive posted in the CIC to assist it and he is not empowered to decide the admissibility of appeal and so on. However, under the regulations, especially Regulation 11, he is supposed to scrutinize the appeal and pass judicial orders which have been made non-appealable. Therefore, the regulations make him a ‘super registrar’ on par with the apex court of the country. For example, Regulation 11 (v) is as under:

The Registrar may reject any such appeal or complaint petition—if it is time-barred;
Under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, the CIC can admit the time-barred appeal in fit cases depending on the facts and circumstances. Now, the CIC under the regulation, in contravention of the said provision of the parent Act, authorizes the Registrar to reject the appeal on the ground nit is time-barred.

...if it is otherwise inadmissible..

The CIC, under the regulation, in contravention of provisions of the parent act, authorizes the Registrar to decide on the admissibility of appeal. The CIC is not empowered to delegate such functions to an executive like the Registrar.

...if it is not in accordance with these Regulations...Provided that no such appeal or complaint petition shall be rejected by the Registry unless the concerned appellant or the complainant is given an opportunity of being heard. The decision of the Registrar in regard to the issue of maintainability of an appeal or a complaint shall be final.

Now, the CIC under the regulation, in contravention of provisions of the parent act, on the issue of admissibility of an appeal, not only authorizes the Registrar to take decisions but also makes the decision of the Registrar final. The CIC is not empowered to make him the final authority in
this regard.

There are other inconsistencies in the regulations that violate the of provisions of the parent
Act. These regulations discourage the common man from approaching the CIC and need to
be withdrawn.