Ms. Preeti Khanna <usrti-dopt@nic.

in>
In response DOPTs circular inviting comments regarding the
proposed rules, I wish to offer the following suggestions for
changes in the Draft Rules 2017.
(Note: All my suggestions are in italics. In some cases I have quoted
from the draft rules, and they are not in italics.)

A.3. Application Fee:- An application under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Act
shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten or as notified by Central
Government from time to time and shall ordinarily not contain more than five
hundred words, excluding annexures, containing address of the Central Public
Information Officer and that of the applicant:-

Provided that no application shall be rejected only on the ground that it contains
more than five hundred words.

There should be clarity on what a PIO should do when the application is over 500
words. Perhaps PIO can read the first 500 words and respond.

B.6 (c) by electronic means to the Accounts Officer of the Public authority, if
facility for receiving fees through electronic means is available with the public
authority.

Should be (c) by electronic means to the Accounts Officer of the Public authority.

Comment: All public authorities must accept digital payment in line with the
governments objective.

C.8 (2) Every appeal, application, statement, rejoinder, reply or any other
document filed before the Commission shall be typed, printed or written neatly
and legibly and in double line spacing.

Comment: Requirement of double spacing should be removed, since it would

waste paper, and would be difficult to follow in hand written appeals.

D.9. Return of Appeal:- An appeal may be returned to the appellant, if it is not

accompanied by the documents as specified in rule 8, for removing the
deficiencies and filing the appeal complete in all respects.

Should be within 30 days. Returns must be within 30 days

E. Section 12. Should be changed to: If an appellant requests for a withdrawal

of an appeal, or dies during the pendency of an appeal and the commission
decides that the information sought must be disclosed it will direct the public
authority to display the information on the website.
 This rule appears to have been proposed in the belief that when the seeker of
information does not want the information it need not be given. By the same
logic when she dies, it cannot be given to the applicant. It has not been
appreciated that the information sought in RTI belongs to all citizens since they
own the government and every piece of information held by it. Thus everyone
has the right to get the information which is sought by an applicant. Allowing
withdrawal of RTI appeals would be a direct encouragement to undesirable
pressure on applicants, and deal making. The law expects all information to be
available suo moto. This proposed rule should be modified to state that when an
appeal is sought to be withdrawn or an appellant dies, the information sought
shall be placed on the website.

F.13 (1) (i) a copy of the application submitted to the Central Public Information
Officer;

The words if submitted must be added. There are many instances where no RTI
application can possibly be made such as complaints under Section 18 (1) (f).
Examples: Lack of Section 4 compliance; wrong practices like issuing circulars
prohibiting PIOs from giving certain information; issuing rules by public
authorities which are not competent authorities

G.13 (2) Requirement of double spacing should be removed as in 8 (2)

H.14 Return of complaint should also be within 30 days.

I.16 (i) Return of non-compliance should also be within 30 days.

J.18. (5) is unnecessary since 18 (3) already covers this.

K.18 (5) should state: It is not necessary for the parties to be present for the
hearing, and absence at the hearing would not be a ground for the commission
to give an adverse order.

L. Additional suggestion: The RTI Act has a provision for RTI applications to be
made by electronic means. The rules should mandate that PIOs, First Appellate
Authorities and Commission would accept RTI applications and appeals
electronically and digital payments should be accepted by all public authorities.

I would be happy to clarify or discuss the suggestions.

Shailesh Gandhi

Former Central Information Commissioner

shaileshgan@gmail.com 918976240798