RTI applicant to pay for getting information

In a landmark order, the state chief information commissioner told an applicant to pay for information that should have been given to him free of cost.

Provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act mention that an applicant cannot be charged for information if it is not provided within 30 days if there is no valid explanation given for the delay. An applicant also cannot be charged if he is not provided with any information at all.

Advocate Yatin Shah had sought information on the slums which have surfaced since 1960 near Khetwadi, Santa Cruz (west). The information was sought through five applications over a period of time. The hearing on the applications, which were clubbed as one, was held on September 20, 2011.

Information commissioner Vijay Kuvalekar who is holding charge as chief commissioner of the state got to know during the hearing that the information was sought for professional use.

The RTI Act also states that the purpose for which the information is sought cannot be asked. Kuvalekar, however, insists that in this case, the reason for seeking information was incidental to the situation.

“Someone else came on behalf of the applicant for the hearing. On being asked why the applicant was not present, I was told that he was in a hearing and that the information was required for the same reason,” said Kuvalekar.

He then passed the order that though the information should have been given free as it was not provided within the stipulated time, in this case, the applicant will have to pay for it.

“But since the applicant sought it for professional/commercial use and providing information that runs into several pages can cause a heavy burden to the taxpayers’ money, Xerox charges can be taken from the applicant,” the order dated September 20, 2011, read.

The applicant was not pleased with the order. “The order was unfair but what can one do? Nowhere does the rule state that the applicant can be charged if he is from a particular profession. The information should have been provided free of cost,” said Shah.

RTI activist SK Nangia is bewildered with the order. “The act does not stipulate that charges have to be linked to the usage of the information. Section 7(6) clearly states that if the information is given after 30 days it has to be free of charge. That is the operative part of the act. The applicant is not supposed to give reasons for seeking information,” said Nangia.

Krishnaraj Rao, another RTI activist, said the order should have been passed taking the law into consideration. “Nowhere does the RTI Act mention anything about one’s profession. It should be given free of cost in this case. They should comply with the law instead of coming up with numerous arguments,” he said. “RTI does not differentiate between public and personal use - and rightly so. None of the stakeholders has any reason for getting into the purpose. Section 6 (2) clearly states that.”