State Information Commission smothers RTI pleas, say activists

 

RTI activists say that the experience of Ms Shikha Chhibbar, of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, best demonstrates the anti-transparency approach of the SIC.

 

In January 2015, Ms Chhibbar submitted an RTI application to the State Home Department about the human rights initiatives it had to launch in the wake of the Supreme Court's directives in the Gujarat vs Kishanbhal case. She paid the application fee of Rs 10 using an Indian Postal Order (IPO).

 

The Department's Public Information Officer (PIO) returned the application stating that IPO was not a recognised mode of payment under the State’s RTI Rules and demanded fee payment in cash or through Bank draft or court fee stamp.

 

Payment in cash was out of question as she was based in Delhi. And court fee stamps bought in Delhi will not be acceptable in Kerala. So she sent a bank draft spending more than triple the amount on bank charges and postage.

 

Simultaneously, she also filed a complaint with the SIC arguing that the rejection was against the spirit of the RTI Act. The Act specifies that an application could be rejected only if it comes under the exemptions laid down in the sections 8 and 9 of the Act. None of her demands fell under the nine exemptions laid down in the Act.

 

But the SIC, in an order issued on December 2, dismissed the complaint holding that IPOs are not a valid mode of payment under the RTI Rules and that the PIO's action of rejecting the RTI application was not improper or illegal. 

 

“When Oommen Chandy had taken over, he had promised to ease the  procedure for filing RTI application. Now it seems transparency is of least concern to  

his government,” said Dr Abey George of National Campaign for the Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI).