Do's and Dont's of a RTI application

The Right to Information Act of 2005 has become the new way for citizens to interact with government institutions, arming the citizens with the right to ask for transparency within the said government institution and ensuring that the public authorities remain accountable to the public. The RTI Act, essentially, improves democratic governance by achieving access to information within the public authority’s custody. However, drafting an effective RTI application is not as simple as it sounds. Before an application actually becomes effective and falls within the purview of the Act, applicants have to undergo various legal, procedural, and strategic considerations to ensure that the information sought falls within the scope of the Act.

Though the RTI Act is intended for the free flow of information, it is more than unfortunate that most RTI applications are rejected as the questions are too vague or are requesting for specific information that is exempted under the Act, and misunderstanding what constitutes "information" according to the law. The judicial deliberation by the Central Information Commission (“CIC”) and the High Courts and Supreme Court have provided clarifications and guidelines on how to structure an RTI application effectively. These decisions by the judiciary act like a roadmap for the applicants by offering them valuable do’s and dont’s on how to draft an RTI application while also emphasising the importance of clarity and adherence to the RTI Act. For instance, the application filed by the applicant must focus on the existing record or documents rather than seeking explanations from the authorities in the application. The decisions have particularly highlighted what information can be sought under the Act and have also highlighted the necessity of seeking information that is relevant, while avoiding unwarranted information and explanations. Meanwhile, judgments point out that applicants must be aware of exemptions offered under the Act - including those on matters of national security or personal privacy and third-party information-related reasons exemptions to avoid unnecessary rejection of applications.

In this article, we shall examine and analyse a few of the orders by the CIC that have defined best practices in framing RTI applications. They clarify the scope of the Act and thus provide essential guidelines for framing questions, the appropriateness of information to be sought, and common pitfalls to avoid. Therefore, by understanding these legal precedents, applicants could increase the possibilities of receiving the information requested, coupled with the effective assurance that their applications do not contravene the laws governing them.

ANALYSIS

While filing an RTI application, a few dos and don'ts should be followed, which would ensure that the request is processed fairly under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Act empowers citizens to ask for any information, but applicants must frame their questions strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A few decisions by the Central Information Commission outline how to draft an RTI application to prevent rejection and delays. This article, herein below, contains a detailed analysis of these dos and don’ts, illustrated by key CIC rulings.

• A.K. Vasudev v. Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution

The appellant, Mr. Vasudev, filed an RTI application seeking clarification or, rather, an opinion on whether wristwatches fall under the ambit of pre-packaged commodities under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. The RTI request so made was framed in the form of obtaining an interpretation of the law rather than a straightforward request for specific documents or records. The Central Public Information Officer refused to provide a detailed response, owing to which the applicant filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The issue that arose in this case was that the applicant had framed the questions in a manner that sought explanations or clarifications about the legal classification of wristwatches. The CIC, while holding that the queries sought do not fall under the ambit of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI act, held that the role of the CPIO is to provide information already existing with the public authority, and not to interpret laws or render any opinion or advice to the applicant.

The CIC, substantiating its response, upheld the decision of the CPIO while referring to the judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto v. Goa State Information Commission, wherein it was held as “The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matters within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.” 

Key takeaways for applicants: 

• Point to specific documents or records: While the RTI Act allows citizens to access documents, the applicant must be crystal clear with the information sought by requesting specific documents rather than allowing the PIO to interpret the request made.
• Sanjeev Kumar v. Public Information Officer, Transport Department

The applicant, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, filed an RTI application seeking information related to a complaint he had lodged. The information that was sought was details such as daily progress reports, names of the officers responsible, timeframe for when the action would be taken, etc. However, the applicant received no response from the PIO, compelling him to approach the First Appellate Authority, which refused to furnish the information sought as it did not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act. 

The central issue in this appeal revolves around the appellant's application for information relating to his employment, which was with a contractor, M/s SIS India Ltd., doing business under contract with the Transport Department. Mr. Kumar was enquiring about the progress of his complaint and details on those officers responsible for the delay. The FAA, however, dismissed the appeal, holding that Mr. Kumar's employment dispute was not within the purview of the RTI Act since it was restricted to public authorities only. The CIC upheld this view, emphasising that RTI is not a forum for redressing personal grievances in employment disputes, especially when involving private entities. The CIC clearly stated that the RTI Act was enacted to provide access to information held by public authorities and promote transparency. However, the Act cannot be used as a mechanism to resolve personal grievances. Moreover, it also held that such matters should be addressed to an appropriate legal forum and not the RTI Act, which is solely meant to provide access to factual information held by the public authorities. 

Key takeaways for applicants:

• Do not ask questions or demand explanations: The RTI application filed should not look like a letter of complaint but should be emotionless and bland and avoid any vague expressions. The application must be straightforward, seeking information from any public authority.
• RTI Act is not for grievance redressal: The RTI application should not be a platform to resolve personal grievances or employment disputes. The RTI Act is not a platform for resolving personal grievances but aims to promote transparency by extracting information from the public authorities. 
• N.C.S.M Prasad v. State Bank of Hyderabad

The applicant had filed an RTI application seeking information about an alleged “cold storage scam” that took place in the Tirupati zone. He enquired about the total loans involved, names of employees implicated, and reports of lapses within bank’s system. The PIO held that most of the queries the applicant raised were hypothetical and imaginary in nature and, therefore, did not constitute “information” under the provisions of the RTI Act. The applicant appealed before the CIC, contending that the scam had been reported in the newspapers; hence, the information sought was not imaginary or hypothetical, and the PIO’s response was unjustified. Upon perusing the facts, the CIC upheld the PIO's decision, holding that the queries were speculative in nature and unsubstantiated by factual records. The Commission also observed that the appellant had not sought specific information but rather sought hypothetical details that are not covered under the RTI Act. The CIC also noted that the bank had provided information that covered the factual aspects, such as the suspension and reinstatement of certain officials, and was not bound to provide information based on hypothetical details.

Key takeaways for applicants:

• Do not ask hypothetical questions: The RTI Act, as specified, was designed to provide information to the public about the existing factual information held by the public authorities. The applicants must always ensure that they frame their requests based on actual, documented facts or existing records. Take, for instance, in this case, the applicant, instead of seeking information about a speculative scam, the applicant should have sought information such as an audit report or internal communications that can be used to substantiate the scam.
• Keep the request simple and manageable: Keep your application under RTI simple and clear. The more lengthy or wordy it is, the more burden the PIO is likely to bear, not to mention that you may add to the rejection or delay rate. The applicant may split up multiple applications to facilitate the PIO's response.

CONCLUSION

The Right to Information Act 2005 has empowered citizens to demand transparency and accountability from public authorities, but drafting an effective RTI application requires understanding what constitutes "information" under the Act and how to frame queries that come under its scope. The key findings of CIC indicate common mistakes by applicants in their applications, such as seeking opinions or hypothetical details or using the RTI Act as a platform for grievances. Applicants need to be sure that their requests are specific and not hazy, speculative, or overly complex documents or records that can cause overburdening in processing the request. RTI cannot be a means of redressing personal grievances or legal interpretations; rather, it is a platform to extract information held by public authorities. In a nutshell, the clarity and specificity of an RTI application will chart its success. Beyond the act of making a request, it is the clarity and relevance of information that would be sought after, and that information would be extracted into a concise and manageable format.