The Right to Information (RTI) Act, of 2005 provides citizens with the right to access information held by public authorities. The Act establishes a two-tier appeal process, where an applicant can file a first appeal with the designated First Appellate Authority (FAA) within the public authority, and a second appeal with the Central/State Information Commission if they are not satisfied with the FAA’s decision.
The requirement to Annex Documents in the Second Appeal
The key issue being considered by the Supreme Court is whether an appellant is required to annex documents that were already part of the first record when filing a second appeal before the Information Commission
Some Information Commissions have been insisting that appellants submit all relevant documents, including those already provided in the first appeal when filing a second appeal. This has caused difficulties for appellants, who may not have easy access to the complete record of the first appeal.
Arguments in Favor of Annexing Documents
The argument in favor of annexing documents is that the Information Commission needs the complete record to effectively adjudicate the second appeal. Without the full set of documents, the Commission may not have sufficient context to make an informed decision.
Additionally, requiring appellants to submit the documents again ensures that the Commission has a self-contained record for each appeal, without having to refer back to the first appeal file.
Arguments Against Annexing Documents
On the other hand, the argument against annexing documents is that it places an undue burden on the appellant, who has already submitted the relevant documents during the first appeal. Forcing the appellant to gather and submit the same documents again can be time-consuming and frustrating, especially for those who may not have easy access to the records.
Furthermore, the Information Commission already has access to the first appeal file, which contains all the relevant documents. Requiring the appellant to submit these documents again is seen as an unnecessary duplication of effort.
Supreme Court’s Observation
In its recent hearing, the Supreme Court acknowledged the difficulties faced by appellants in submitting documents that are already part of the first appeal record. The court noted that the requirement to annex these documents again may be “too onerous” on the appellant.
The Court also observed that the Information Commission should have access to the first appeal file, which would contain all the relevant documents. Requiring the appellant to submit the same documents again may not be necessary.
The key responsibilities of the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act are:
1. Deciding appeals filed by applications who are not satisfied with the decision of the Public Information Officer (PIO). This includes appalls against:
- Rejection of information requests
- Quantum of fees charged by the PIO
- Incomplete, misleading, or false information provided by the PIO
2. Ensuring that justice is done and seen to be done by passing reasoned, speaking orders that justify the decision taken. The order should indicate the reasons for concluding.
3. Directing the PIO to provide additional information to the appellant, if so concluded while deciding the appeal. Alternatively, the First Appellate Authority can provide the information directly to the appellant along with the order.
4. Ensuring that the PIO implements the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. If required, the matter should be brought to the notice of a competent authority to take action against the PIO for non-compliance.
Disposing of appeals within 30 days of receipt. In exceptional cases, the disposal can be extended to 45 days, but the reasons for delay must be recorded in writing.
Deciding appeals in light of the RTI Act’s provisions and principles of natural justice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s consideration of this issue is an important step in ensuring that the RTI appeal process is streamlined and accessible for citizens. The Court’s final decision on whether documents available in the first appeal record should be annexed to the second appeal could have significant implications for the implementation of the RTI Act.
Ultimately, the goal should be to strike a balance between the Information Commission’s need for a complete record and the appellant’s right to a hassle-free appeal process. By addressing this issue, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to provide much-needed clarity and guidance on this aspect of the RTI appeal procedure.