Here's an encounter that the city police are in no mood to encourage. Within days of a Right to Information activist subjected to third degree at a city police station, TOI finds that it wasn't a stray bad experience, with cops pulling out all stops to stay RTI-proof. In fact, police officers in some stations even say they are unaware of the RTI Act and remain most unresponsive when it comes to their responsibilities under the Act. And a telling reality: a significant number of pending cases at the Information Commission pertain to the police department.
From claiming that "there is nothing like RTI" to showing the door to quizzing on the reasons for filing an RTI query, police stations come across well-armed against anybody seeking information under the Act.
On Tuesday, TOI posing as an RTI applicant visited police stations with a simple three-question query: the number of FIRs filed at police stations in the year 2011, the number of cases solved and the number of cases pending. The Cyberabad commissionerate directed the applicant from one official to another, with the third official, an administrative officer, finally reluctantly accepting the application, saying that a "lot of information" had been sought in the query and it would take over a month to put it together.
The Punjagutta police station did not deny giving information. It simply refused to accept the RTI query since the letter was "not in an envelope". In fact, it took time for the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO), the writer (who writes complaints and FIRs) at the station, to decide whether or not to accept the application. He threw a volley of interrogative questions demanding to know the applicant's background, details of professional life and also residence proof etc. The applicant was also advised to show more interest in other police stations and spare Punjagutta. The PIO also demanded to know repeatedly why the applicant was interested in these details and what he intended to do with it. After much persuasion, the PIO insisted that he would accept the application only if it was brought in an envelope. The RTI Act does not mention any such rule.
It was a similar experience at the Begumpet police station where an inspector first tried to physically stop the applicant from entering the premises. The second hurdle was once again the station's PIO (the writer) who bombarded the applicant with questions about background only to advise him in the end to concentrate on social service and stop filing RTIs which is not beneficial to anyone. However, unlike at Punjagutta they accepted the RTI application.
RTI activists corroborate TOI's experience with their own. P Ramakrishna, an RTI activist shared how a colleague had gone to Chandanagar police station on December 4, 2011, to file an RTI query on the number of road accidents in the area. "He was held over and the inspector called me from the station. I was asked rudely about why we needed this information," says Ramakrishna, adding that he recorded that telephone conversation where the inspector was threatening him. While the RTI query was finally accepted, a reply is still awaited.
Another activist, T V Bhaskar of Guntur said that he received threatening calls four months ago following which he informed the collector and district SP and sought protection, which was denied. A government circular released in 2010 states that any RTI activist seeking protection should be provided the same.
Known RTI activist C J Karira said that the home department was the most RTI-unfriendly. He said as per the Act, every police station should have a board outside giving details of the PIO and the appellate officer which is not being followed in any police station in the city.
From claiming that "there is nothing like RTI" to showing the door to quizzing on the reasons for filing an RTI query, police stations come across well-armed against anybody seeking information under the Act.
On Tuesday, TOI posing as an RTI applicant visited police stations with a simple three-question query: the number of FIRs filed at police stations in the year 2011, the number of cases solved and the number of cases pending. The Cyberabad commissionerate directed the applicant from one official to another, with the third official, an administrative officer, finally reluctantly accepting the application, saying that a "lot of information" had been sought in the query and it would take over a month to put it together.
The Punjagutta police station did not deny giving information. It simply refused to accept the RTI query since the letter was "not in an envelope". In fact, it took time for the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO), the writer (who writes complaints and FIRs) at the station, to decide whether or not to accept the application. He threw a volley of interrogative questions demanding to know the applicant's background, details of professional life and also residence proof etc. The applicant was also advised to show more interest in other police stations and spare Punjagutta. The PIO also demanded to know repeatedly why the applicant was interested in these details and what he intended to do with it. After much persuasion, the PIO insisted that he would accept the application only if it was brought in an envelope. The RTI Act does not mention any such rule.
It was a similar experience at the Begumpet police station where an inspector first tried to physically stop the applicant from entering the premises. The second hurdle was once again the station's PIO (the writer) who bombarded the applicant with questions about background only to advise him in the end to concentrate on social service and stop filing RTIs which is not beneficial to anyone. However, unlike at Punjagutta they accepted the RTI application.
RTI activists corroborate TOI's experience with their own. P Ramakrishna, an RTI activist shared how a colleague had gone to Chandanagar police station on December 4, 2011, to file an RTI query on the number of road accidents in the area. "He was held over and the inspector called me from the station. I was asked rudely about why we needed this information," says Ramakrishna, adding that he recorded that telephone conversation where the inspector was threatening him. While the RTI query was finally accepted, a reply is still awaited.
Another activist, T V Bhaskar of Guntur said that he received threatening calls four months ago following which he informed the collector and district SP and sought protection, which was denied. A government circular released in 2010 states that any RTI activist seeking protection should be provided the same.
Known RTI activist C J Karira said that the home department was the most RTI-unfriendly. He said as per the Act, every police station should have a board outside giving details of the PIO and the appellate officer which is not being followed in any police station in the city.
