Dopt circular is invalid - transfer to as many Public Authority as needed

Join AntiCorruption Team to make the world better
Join AntiCorrutption Team

The CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

In decision no

CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG/12906

Has held that

Section 6(3) of the RTI Act state,

“Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,-

 (i) which is held by another public authority; or

(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:

Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.”

The point to be determined is whether Section 6(3) means that the transfer should only be made to one public authority or to multiple public authorities, if required. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 stipulates inter alia that in all central legislations and regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 enacts a general rule of construction that words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa but the rule is subject to the proviso that there shall be nothing repugnant to such a construction in the subject or context of the legislation which is to be construed. This principle of law has been well- established and applied by the Supreme Court of India from time to time viz. in K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab 1960 SCR (2) 89, Narashimaha Murthy v. Susheelabai & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1826 and J. Jayalalitha v. UOI & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 1912, as well as by several High Courts while interpreting various statutory provisions.

There is nothing in the Act which would show that Parliament intended that the transfer should only be to one public authority. It also appears that DOPT’s office memorandum is in contravention of the General Clauses Act 1987 and interpreted Section 6(3) of the RTI Act wrongly. The whole purpose of the RTI Act has been to facilitate flow of information to the Citizens. In the instant case it has been shown that whereas the Appellant applied to the Lok Sabha Secretariat, the Lok Sabha Secretariat itself believed that the information would be available with the Office of the Leader of the Opposition and with the Cabinet Secretariat. Both these offices have admitted that they have no information in this matter. Thus even in this case, the Lok Sabha Secretariat was not aware who would hold the information being sought by the Appellant. The law does not put any restriction on the public authorities to which the RTI application could be transferred. The Commission does believe that an appellant should seek information from a public authority which he can reasonably believe may have the information. In the instant case the Appellant appears to have exercised reasonable care and applied and to a public authority which an average citizen may believe will hold the information.

There are numerous instances where RTI applications have been transferred by one public authority to another and none of them appears to know where the information is. In this scenario for public authorities to take a position that they will only transfer to one public authority is unreasonable and the law certainly does not state this. Public Authorities claim that it would be difficult to transfer RTI applications to multiple authorities since it would mean putting a lot of resource. Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act has talked of computerization of records and functions in various public authorities. Various Prime Ministers since 1985 have been promising to computerize operations in Government. This is a promise and commitment which is not being followed by various public authorities. If the records and operations were computerized, transferring an RTI application to even 50 or 100 public authorities could be done with a click of mouse by email. If public authorities do not meet commitments implied in the RTI Act, the citizen cannot be denied his fundamental right.

The Commission rules that DOPT’s office memorandum no. 10/02/2008-IR dated 12/06/2008 is not consistent with the law