Date with Data #4: Navigating the Judiciary’s RTI Maze
Justice Hub held its 4th Date With Data session last week, hosting Vaidehi Misra and Shreya Tripathy from team JALDI (Justice, Access and Lowering Delays in India) of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. The conversation revolved around the findings of their report titled, ‘Sunshine in Courts: Ranking the High Courts on their Compliance with the RTI Act’ which throws light on the state of compliance of High Courts of India with the Right to Information Act, 2005. Across the country, High Court Right to Information (RTI) Rules vary- affecting formats, modes of filing, costs of application and methods of payment and creating hurdles for information-seekers everywhere.
Here are the key takeaways from the report that became a part of the discussion:
It has been found that Madras High Court has the most RTI compliant Rules whereas the Gujarat High Court performed the worst. Incidentally, Madras High Court is the only High Court in the country for which one can file an RTI application online. Kerala and Maharashtra High Courts have been found to be the most obliging, in terms of disclosure of information.
Discretion of the courts to affix the fees for an RTI application has led to it being as high as Rs 50 per question - as in the case of Allahabad High Court. There are various other variations in the fees required to file an RTI application, such as a certain amount of money to get information for each year and others.
The researchers in the course of their findings discovered that inconsistent judicial precedents, repealed rules and superfluous bureaucracy are inordinately used to reject RTI Applications. Trivial reasons, beyond the control of the applicant (such as illegible date stamp from the post office), can also be used to deny RTI requests.
The provision to transfer RTI Applications under Section 6(3) [which provides for public authorities to transfer an RTI Application to the authority whose department is more relevant to the application] is utilised by authorities as a ‘football provision’ to dodge RTI requests, hand them over to others and sometimes, to even buy more time.
Details regarding diversity such as religion and caste are not disclosed by public information authorities citing such data as personal.
High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta, Manipur, Meghalaya, Patna, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana and Tripura are found to have made no disclosures under the RTI Rules and in the very few cases where they have done so, disclosures are not made available in regional languages.
Finally, the report containing state-centric recommendations for each High Court was sent to the respective High Courts. Though largely ignored, Delhi High Court ceded to the recommendations prescribed, reducing the number of grounds on which an RTI Application can be denied and also amending the requirement of a compulsory format for such applications.
To simplify the process of filing RTIs, JALDI has also created an online portal that compiles templates and rules for RTI applications to High Courts throughout the country. The esteemed guests guided the listeners through the process needed to file an RTI and to do so in a way that will enhance the chances of getting a reply. Listen to the entire discussion here:
Read the entire report here.
Visit the JALDI RTI Portal here.