Right to information Act 2005 realistic democratic weapon- Certain suggestions to amend the act

Right to information Act 2005 -Certain suggestions to amend the act under section 25 (g) of the act.
1 In the preamble Rather than " to provide for furnishing certain information
to citizens"
Be amended as "people"
As the word citizen restrict rest of the people who are not citizens from
Seeking information. Also this will be in consonance with the provision
under section- 6
2 Section 5(2) Provided that where an application for information or appeal is given to central Asst. PIO or State Asst. PIO -
the word Central PIO or State PIO other than designated PIO for particular
information should be inserted before central or state APIO.

When 5 days grace period is permissible in case of application made to
APIO why not in case application made to other PIO.
3 Section 6 (1) - after "A person who desires to obtain information" words
including an appeal should be inserted.
4 Section 6 (4) may be inserted as " if applicant is seeking information of more than one public Authority, on transfer under section 6(3) shall pay prescribed application fee within 7 days to such Public Authority within 7 days of intimation of transfer. Failing which it will be treated as withdrawn.

As every application should be with fee . An appeal made under this act is also separate application there for it should not be free. while applicant may seek info under one P.A. of as many PIO but not in one application of many public authority. This will also simplify the disposal procedure within time limit. Applicants bonafide can also be ensured.
5 Under section 8 (j) After “ Information which relates to personal information”
Following provision may be inserted. “ Except statutory information or
details furnished by any person or body to the public Authority to fulfill
legal obligations”

As any information provided to fulfill legal obligation to the P.A. Can not be
categorized normally as personal info. Thus to avoid inevitable disputes of
appeal or cases of denial & ultimately to maintain the spirit & provisions of
the act.
6 In section 11(4) following may be inserted after the words “under section 19
against the decision.”
And in such event PIO will not disclose such information for the period of
appeal i.e. for 30 days from the date of intimation notice of overruling
objection raised by third party to him/her to facilitate the third party to prefer an
appeal. Appellate Authority may grant interim stay or reject the appeal in such
case.

As there is no provision to protect the interest of third party in the event of not
acceptance of objection by PIO. IF THIS PROVISION IS NOT INSERTED
THERE IS NO USE OF APPEAL BY THIRD PARTY ONCE INFO IS
DISCLOSED BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF HIS/HER APPEAL.
7 In section 19(1) after “Prefer an appeal “ following should be inserted.
“Accompanying such fee as may be prescribed.”

To ensure bonafide appeal this becomes necessary.
8 In section 20 This may be inserted as 20(3)

Any public authority who has violated the any provision of section 4, 5, 25 or

26 And also any first appellate authority who has violated the provision of
section 19(6) or without applying principles of natural justice or good faith
disposed off the appeal or upheld the decision of PIO to deny the information
or refusal of application in any way without proper justification provided
under the act may be penalize as per the provision stipulated in section 20 by
the central or state information commission by following the procedure laid
down under section 20.

As penultimate provision for Public Authority under section 19
& for PIO & deemed PIO under section 20 have been made for the reasons
mentioned there in but not for the rest. While there is no such
provision for First appellate Authority under the act. To ensure spirit &
provision of the act & scrupulous implementation of the act the officer senior
in rank of PIO should also be held responsible. .