The RTI Act is one of the rarest, rather the only, citizen friendly and pro-democracy law in India as on date. It is simple, unambiguous and can be understood clearly by even a student who has passed 5th standard in school. But even this law has been subverted by the nexus of the public servants in all the three organs of our Constitution. Here is a short and crisp analysis of the ways in which it has been literally murdered!

1. RI6HT TO INFORMATION ACT- A CASE STUDY FOR SUBVERSION OF IAWS BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
P M RAVINDRAN, raviforjustice@gmail.com, http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in
"Laws are like cobwebs, insects get caught, birds just fly through"
L. The above quote could not have been more true than in the lndian context and the RTI Act proves it, if any such
proof was needed. For a change, this is one law that is as simple as simple can be, clear and unambiguous and
can be understood by anyone who has actually passed 5th standard. And the way it has been subverted is
something that should make any citizen worth the name sit up and actl
The orisinal sins.
2. Competent Authorities and Rules. Sec 2(e) read with Sec 28 which defines certain competent authorities and
empowers them to prescribe the fees/additional fees (cost). ln the event most of the courts havg prescribed
exorbitant fees/cost and even fees for L't appeal, in violation of the provision at Sec 7(5) of the.Act and definitely
inflagrantviolationof thespiritofthelawasprovidedinSec 4(2)of theAct(ltshall beaconstahtendeavourof
every public authority to take steps in accordance with the reqUirements of clause (b) of sub-se&ion (1) to
provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means-of
communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain
information.) And as was bound to happen, the Kerala Govt has emulated'this and amended its own rules in
2OO7 to the disadvantage of the citizen (Refer Kerala Gazette (EO) No 2290 dated 22/121200711
3. Selection Committees. Sec 12(3) and 15(3) on the constitution of the committees for selecting information
commissioners. The Leaders of the Opposition have been included to project some objectivity but in the absence
" of a mandate for unanimity they are just like scarecrows!
4. Status. pav and perks of lnformation Commissioneis. Sec 13(5) and 16(5) have conferred the status of CEC, EC
and Chief Secretary to the State Government to information commissioners whose job is simpler and much less
demanding than that of the munsif. This has led to information commissions being reduced to rehabilitation
homes for the worst public servants retiring from service!
The Crimes of Nodal Departments.
The DoPT. This is the nodal dept of the Central Govt dealing with RTl. However their resistance to disclosing file
notings and confrontation with the Central lnformation Commission has been adequately reported. But their
blatant subversion of the law through'an OM (No FlO/212008-lR dated 24 Sep 2010) directing, in effect, to bury
Sec 6(3)of the law, has not been reported at all. Worse, even those'great' RTI campaigners like Aruna Roy,
Aravind Kejriwaletc seem to have not noticed itl By the way, the claim that it has the approval of the CIC of the
Central lnformation Commission has bedn proved to be a lie! However, this OM has been promptly circulated in
Kerala by the GAD through their letter No 732O9lCdn.sltO/cAD dated 18 Oct 2010 and is being complied with
by almost every public authority with impunity!
GAD. GoK. Two of their a nti-RTl acts have a lready been highlighted in par:a 2 a nd 5. Worse, to complaints
submitted to the CM during his public contact programs (copies are available at
http://raviforiustice. bloespot.com/2011/11lchief-m inisters-public-contact-progra m.htm I
and http://www.slideshare.net/raviforiustice/comp-cmk-isp2015ksic110415 ) this dept had replied saying that
"being a constitutional body State Govt could not interfere in the functioning of the SIC' (their letter No
90105/Cdn5 lttlCA.o dared L/6/12 refers). This not only exposes their incompetence but total ignorance of their
job. Sec 27(2)(el and (f) are unambiguous about the responsibility of the government regarding regulating the
procedures followed by the information commissions and any other matter which is required or may be
prescribed! lt is worth recollecting that in UP Mayawati- headed governrnent had actually removed their ClC, a
former judge of the high court, who later reportedly committed suicide! ln Kerala, in contrast, an information
commissioner has been reportedly paid Rs 34lakhs and kept on the rolls without doing even a paisa worth of job
for the last three years even when complaints and appeals have been pilingl
t,,
.5.
6.

2. lnformation Commissions.
I
7. Failure to impose mandated penaltv. As has been brought out earlier the information commissions, as with ,-
other quasijudicial organisations, had been evidently envisaged as rehabilitation homes for the worst public
servants after their retirement from their regular employment. The information commissioners have to be held
singularly responsible for the murder of the RTI Act. The most important of their lapses is, of course, the failure
to comply with Sec 20 of the Act which mandates imposing penalty for lapses, including delay in providing
information sought. Even while directing information to be provided the lapse of the commissioners to impose
the mandated penalty has led to (a) subversion of the law, (b) loss to the exchequer to the tune of crores of
rupees every month and (c) apprehensions of corruption whereby the commissioners can be logically believed to
have accepted bribes from the defaulting PlOs to 'fail'to impose the penaltyl
8. Failure to streamline their office functions. Right from acknowledging receipts of complaints and appeals to
their disposal smacks of whims and fancies, arbitrariness and waywardness ruling the roost. (Please see the
following blogs: . i
httpll/raviforiustice. blosspot.in12012/02lursent-amend ments-needed-to-rti-act.htm l, f
http://raviforiustice.blogspot.in/2011/10/national-convention-on-rti-uncovered.htm l, $
http://raviforiustice.blogspot.com/2012l01-lrti-old-application-to-president-to.html,
http:/lraviforiustice,bloespot. inl20L2l06/rti-act:shailesh-ea nd h i-a nd. htm l,
http://raviforiustice.blogspqt.in/201"2/10/a-saga-of-blatant-treason-severi-years,htfnletc
9. Blatantlv subversive orders. The information commissioners have been issuing blatantly subversive orders. ln
fact looking for correct orders would be like looking for the proverbial needle in a hay stackl Some of these have
again been published at the website http://raviforiustice.blosspot.in as a series under the title Exposing the
' idiots and traitors amoung public servants.
Judiciarv.
10. The 1't instance that comes to mind is the notorious case popularly known as the judges assets case. To an
application by a citizen, Subhash Agarwal, the then CJl, K G Balakrishnan, had infamously claimed that his office
was out of purview of the RTI Act. Needless to say, it only exposed his ignorance and incompetence to hold that /
high office of this nation! ln the event, a bench comprising allthe information commissioners of the Central (
. lnformation Commission (not that the numbers mattered!) held the Cjlwrong and this decision was upheld by a
single bench and division bench of the Delhi High Court too. lt is now pending with the apex court. But one good
thing happened in the meanwhile. A couple of judges came out openly to disclose not only whether they had
submitted their statements of assets to the CJ but even their statementsl This had a catalytic effect and now the
statements of assets of most of the judges are available in public domain | (And, like they say in our own courts,
the judge can infer the reasons why the rest have not disclosed their stateqrentsl)
11-. Amoung the other questionable actions of our judiciary, in the context of the RTI Act, one more example is
considered pertinent. we are all aware that the High Court of Kerala had held bandhs illegal and this decision
was upheld by the apex court too. But the same activity is now being perpetrated in a different name now-
hartals! So it was deemed necessary to clarify whether it was the term bandh that was held illegal or the
activities that are identified with it. And application to the Home Dept got transferred to the Law Dept and finally
to the High Court itself where the Plo decided that since it pertained to a judicial matter it is not to be disclosed
as per the High Court RTt Rulesl
Conclusion.
12' Now that the RTI Act has been laid to rest, unceremoniously, anybody wishing to use this law should do it with
the explicit purpose of only exposing atleast three idiots/traitors among public servants- the public information
officer, the L't appellate authority and the information commissionerl