The Delhi High Court Friday issued notice to the Department of Personnel Training (DOPT) on a plea seeking its direction on whether the Central Information Commission (CIC) was legally empowered to prosecute an entity or a person for the offence of perjury if false documents are filed before the commission.

A Delhi-based lawyer, Shanmuga Patro approached the Delhi High Court after being refused by CIC to initiate a criminal complaint against the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, its aides and affiliates, who, according to him, misled CIC by filing forged and fabricated documents in evidence and succeeded before CIC.

Justice V.K. Shali hearing the matter sought response from DOPT before the next date of hearing March 16, 2012.

Through the petition, Patro raised the issue as to whether the CIC could be treated as a court for prosecuting persons for the offence of perjury or not.

Patro, the petitioner, argued: ?If a person or entity is permitted to give false documents and evidence before CIC with impunity, then how can CIC be expected to enforce Right to Information??

The petitioner said that in June 2011, he approached CIC to institute proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC and sought initiation of criminal case against the foundation, its aides and affiliates for filing forged and fabricated documents in evidence before the panel.

In December 2011, CIC had refused to initiate prosecution for the offence of perjury against foundation and ordered that ?it has no powers to take action for perjury under Section 340 of CrPC?.

Based on the information and reports filed by Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, the CIC had in October 2010 declared that Rajiv Gandhi Foundation is not a `Public authority? in terms of RTI Act and is not bound to provide information under Right to Information Act.

Patro, however, alleged: ?While Rajiv Gandhi Foundation informed CIC that only about 4 percent of its revenue is received from Government, in reality it receives a greater percentage of its revenue from Government.?

Being aggrieved with CIC?s order of expressing inability to examine whether Rajiv Gandhi Foundation committed perjury or not, Shanmuga Patro approached the Delhi High Court.

?Outcome of this case will decide CIC?s powers to commence criminal cases against parties who have been committing perjury, offences against public justice and offences relating to documents given in evidence before CIC,? said Patro.

The petitioner in his petition also raised the question whether the Information Commissioners, including the CIC, could be treated as “public servants” within the definition of section 195 of the CrPC.

RTI applications may now be limited to 250 words and to only one topic if the rules for processing of such applications suggested by the Department of Personnel may find their way through.

According to proposed amendments in the RTI rules, the DOPT, nodal body for implementing the Act in the country, has said each application will be limited to 250 words excluding the address of the public authority and applicant. It will also be limited to only one subject matter.

Even more surprising is the fact that RTI applicants will have to pay the "actual amount" spent by public authority on hiring a machine or any other equipment, if any, to supply information.

The rules will be a modification of the present RTI (regulation of fee and cost) rules, 2005 and the Central Information Commission (appeal procedure) rules, 2005.

The DoPT has sought the comments on these changes from public on email id "usrti-dovt@nic.in" by December 27, 2010.

The rules have resulted in furore among RTI activists who say that they will be of no good to semi-literate and illiterate people who are the main users of the law.

"Though Comments being sought from Civil Society though in accordance with Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act, however this notification gets limited to only those who are net friendly and that too only two weeks time given," Commodore (Retd) Lokesh Batra said.

He said people from rural areas who do not have Internet access will be devoid of sending their views on the subject.

"Putting a word limit of 250 words will obstruct the Right to Information. There was very minute number of people who misused the provisions of RTI applications by asking large number of questions but there are enough powers to reject such applications. There was no need for such limits on word usage," said Subhash Agrawal, another RTI activist.

"The new rules widen the ambit of discretionary use by the concerned Public Information Officer who can reject the applications summarily," Venkatesh Nayak of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative said.

He asked how can the government set a limit of words, especially when same set of questions in different languages will require different word usage.

He also said legally the process of RTI starts when application is submitted to a PIO. "The State cannot dictate the user to set word limit before process starts. Instead the CPIO should be empowered to ask the appellant to prioritise the information, in case of voluminous information," he said.

The department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has asked the states and competent authorities to 'harmonize RTI fee' and charge the amount as prescribed in the Act. The DoPT was forced to release the directive as there have been instances where state governments and departments have charged exorbitant fee, in lieu of the information sought. The hefty fee is a disincentive, said DoPT.

Further, the to make sure that state governments don't take it as just yet another order from

DoPT has asked states to inform it about the action taken. The department has written to the chief secretaries of all states, registrars of high courts and registrar of the Supreme Court to harmonize the RTI fee.

The sections 27 and 28 of the Right to Information Act empower governments and competent authorities to make rules to prescribe the fee payable under the RTI Act. In effect, Central government, state governments and high courts have notified fee rules.

However, DoPT said it has observed that the fee prescribed by different governments/competent authorities is at great variance. While most of the states, including Uttar Pradesh, charge Rs 10 for information and Rs 2 per annexure, very much in harmony with the rules defined under the RTI Act, Sikkim charges Rs 100 as RTI fee, per application, and Rs 10 per annexure. States like Haryana, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu charge varied amounts of fee.

Haryana and Tamil Nadu charge Rs 50, while Andhra Pradesh charges no money at village level, Rs 5 at mandal level and Rs 10 for all other public authorities.

"The second administrative reforms has said that states should frame rules regarding application fee in harmony with the Central rules and ensure that the fee should not become a disincentive for using the right to information," said DoPT, in response to a query by Subhash Chandra Agrawal, an RTI activist.

Delhi, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar, Mizoram, Karnataka, Orissa and Gujarat said they charge the same fee as prescribed in the Central rules.

UP, though has the Central rule in place, but is yet to inform DoPT about the action taken on its latest instruction.

Some of the suggestions given are:

1. Annual reports submitted by departments should contain a chapter on RTI including information like number of applications received, number in which information denied, novel efforts made for RTI implementation, etc.

2. Each Ministry/Department/subordinate offices/PSUs/etc. to organise at least one half day training session for PIOs/FAAs - every year

3. All PAs who have a website to upload RTI related data/information on the portal regarding receipts and disposal of RTI applications within 10 days of the close of the month. This is to start from 10th July 2011 - for the Month of June 2011.

Indian Law: The Whistleblower Protection Law

The whistleblower protection law has been enforced in various countries. Now, the government of India is planning to enact such a law, particularly after the murder of Satyendra Dubey, an engineer with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). Dubey was killed after he wrote to the ex-Prime Minister, A.B. Vajpayee’s office about the corrupt practices in the construction of highways.

Dubey had specified in his letter that his identity should remain concealed. True to word, the letter was forwarded to the concerned departments, without an attempt to conceal his identity. Dubey was murdered and his death led to a public outcry. 

Indian Law: Will these New Laws Empower or Endanger Citizens?

A similar case is that of Manjunath Shanmugham, a sales manager of the IOC. He was killed in 2005 for uncovering a racket that dealt in petrol adulteration. Following the public outrage surrounding his murder, the government proposed a bill pertaining to the matter.

The Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) developed the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Informers) Bill. The bill provides that anyone can file a complaint of corruption, with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), against any employee of the Central Government or organizations backed by the Central Government.

The CVC is an authorized nodal agency for addressing complaints. It has powers similar as of civil court, such as powers to issue summons, order police investigation and provide protection to the whistleblower. However, the CVC is not authorized, by Indian laws to address the complaints regarding matter that are already in court’s purview, prejudicial to national security, international relations and proceedings of the Union Cabinet.