Singh said although a formal direction to the government may be beyond the jurisdiction of the commission, nevertheless, keeping in view the clauses of the rules, which violate the RTI Act, it was imperative to direct the Department of IT and AR to make suitable amendments so that continuous violation was rectified at the earliest.
He made the observation while deciding the case of Bagheil Singh of Khadoor Sahib in Tarn Taran, whose RTI application was turned down by the PIO of Kapurthala Deputy Commissioner on the ground that it was not submitted in the prescribed proforma.
Aggrieved, Bagheil Singh moved the information commission, pleading that he was not aware of the proforma rule. The district revenue officer, who appeared on behalf of the respondent, submitted that complete information has been given to the complainant, and as regards the delay, he pleaded that as per the Punjab RTI Rules, as notified by the Department of IT, all requests should be submitted on a proforma.
Surprisingly, the rules said, “A person, who desires to obtain any information admissible under the Act, shall make an application in Form ‘A’.” The plea of the complainant on the other hand was that rules clearly violate the Act, and the government has not taken any steps to amend them. “The rules cannot override the Act,” he argued.
After hearing both sides, the CIC said the PIO acted as per the provisions of the rules, therefore, he was not to be blamed for delay. Finding lacunae in the rules, he said, as per the RTI Act, an information-seeker could make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area. The request may be made in writing or by electronic means, and in cases where such request could not be made in writing, the PIO should render all assistance in writing it down, RI Singh said.
“Obviously, there is a conflict between the Act and the rules. Form ‘A’ prescribed under the rules lists out nine queries which an applicant must answer before submitting his request to the PIO/APIO. However, there is no such requirement in the Act. Form ‘A’ is in clear conflict with the Act, and its overall spirit and objectives,” the CIC noted.
He said perusal of the rules also shows that there was no provision for making application electronically or by oral submission to the PIO. Listing more gaps, he said Form ‘E’ in the rules, which empowers the PIO to reject an application on grounds of “identity not satisfactory” or “information is available in published material” or “information available on website and youmay download it from there” violates the Act.