CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Review Application No CIC/C/I/2006

Dated: January 30, 2006

Right to Information Act – Section18

Name of Applicant:  Ms. Madhu Bhaduri

Name of Public Authority: Director (LM), DDA, Delhi.

DECISION

 Decision sought to be reviewed

"Under Sec. 6 of the RTI Act all applications are to be made in writing or through electronic means accompanied by the prescribed fee. However for ease of reference and response this does not preclude a public authority from prescribing a standard format for the purpose of making the application."

It is averred by the applicant as follows:

a)     Issue of forms is part of the rule making exercise which is the prerogative of the 'appropriate government' under the RTI Act

b)      No section of the RTI Act allows rejection of an application on the grounds that it is not according to a standardized form.

The applicant as well as representatives of the DDA are present on 8/2/'06.

The issues before the Commission in considering the original complaint as per the complaint of December 16, 2005 were two:

i)                    Whether DDA was in violation of Sec 6(1) of the RTI in prescribing a form of application

ii)                   Whether DDA, in asking for details of the applicant as well as reasons for seeking was in violation of Sec 6 (2) of the Act in asking for reasons for making the application.  

         The Commission held that in prescribing an application form the DDA was not in violation of Sec 6 (1), but was so in regard to Sec 6 (2). Hence the review application.

         Admittedly, the decision referred to, in cleaving strictly to the interpretation of the law has led to public apprehension that prescription of a departmental format was being given mandatory sanction. Hence the matter needs to be clarified.

       Any decision of the Commission cannot be in contravention of the law but at best simply an interpretation. In the RTI Act, no Department is proscribed from designing an application form that facilitates identification and therefore ease of access to information sought. It cannot be treated as a substitute for a simple application as laid down in Sec 6 (1). Since a standard application cannot be mandated, it is not covered by prescription of Rules but is to be treated simply as an easing of processes. Its absence cannot be grounds for rejection of an application. The DDA representative also stated that it is not so regarded. The time limits for providing information under the Act will therefore begin to take effect from the date of receipt of a written or oral application as required under Sec 6 of the RTI Act, 2005. This was not an issue raised in the original application and therefore not expanded in the order, which simply spoke of ease of reference and response

         It is noted that the language of the review petition is not always in keeping with civil decorum. The applicant has been advised suitably. Shri Kejriwal, accompanying the applicant stated that the authority to prescribe formats would inevitably be misused by public authorities. Whereas the Commission cannot agree with this view, his opinion has been noted.

         In its statement of Object & Reasons the RTI Act is "to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority" Hence it is incumbent upon any public authority prescribing a format that it remain simple and comprehensible as well as accessible to common folk.

(Padma Balasubramanian)

Information Commissioner

(Wajahat Habibullah)

Chief Information Commissioner

Date February 8, 2006