Welcoming the Gujarat high court’s decision to live-stream hearings on an experimental basis, Right to Information (RTI) activists point to Rahul Singh, state information commissioner of Rewa, Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission (MPSIC), as a person to emulate.Singh has been live-streaming his hearings on his Facebook page since August this year to undo the limitations brought upon open court hearings by the nationwide lockdown due to the pandemic. His style of transparency, RTI activists feel, needs to be emulated by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. Singh, one of the youngest information commissioners in the country at 43, had been a journalist before he joined the commission on March 30, 2019, and thus is from a “non-bureaucrat” background. He has been reaching out to applicants and citizens, guiding them every week by attending RTI meetings and answering questions and queries through social media, something most sitting commissioners are averse to doing.He spoke to The Wire on his decision to live-stream hearings, his effort to bring down pending appeals, the use of technology to reach out to citizens and guide them, what he thinks of the “misuse” of RTI and the importance of RTI among other issues.When did you start live-streaming your proceedings and what made you start it?I started live streaming my hearings through my Facebook page on August 19, 2020. This was around the lockdown time when COVID-19 forced us to look at ways to reach out to people. I took this curb as an opportunity. The idea was to provide transparency in the functioning of the commission. As per rules, our orders are anyway supposed to be pronounced in open court. Lockdown had stopped that from happening. But with live streaming, we can achieve that. The mobile [phone] is put on a stand and live-streaming is started as hearings begin.Viewers write comments during Rahul Singh’s live broadcast of the hearings.There were many other things that became transparent too. The conduct of the commissioner, whether he is fair and just, reduces the probability of bias creeping in, the arguments given by public information officers (PIO) and applicants are known to people and even they can judge us with what we have done.There were times when the appellant or the PIO would ask why a certain decision had been taken in their absence. They would say that they had given their defence and it was not taken note of by the commission. Live-streaming was done to not give them enough room for suspicion. They can revisit the hearing this way and see that their arguments were considered. The idea was to ensure that there is fairness and no manipulation. I have seen that commissioners have often said that they have taken note of things and they will pass an ‘appropriate’ order. Now, what this appropriate order is no one knows unless they have the order in their hands. In my case, I announce the verdict then and there and also mention why the officer is being penalised. I mention the sections why an officer is to be penalised and reasons why information is to be given. Since we are called transparency watchdogs, I thought why not make the watchdog more transparent?What is the total number of appeals and complaints you have disposed of?I have heard a total of 786 appeals and 28 complaints since I took office on March 30, 2019. The oldest file was from 2015. When I joined, 648 appeals and 197 complaints were pending for my bench. MPSIC has around 15,000 appeals and complaints pending. In my bench, the appeals have reduced to 591 and complaints stand at 288 and we are hearing cases from 2018 now. Over 90 appeals and complaints were heard last month and that is the average I have tried to keep. I have recommended penalty and action in over 70 cases, where the penalty amount stands at Rs 8.5 lakhs. Over Rs 1 lakh has been recovered till now as per my information. In some cases we learned that the penalty was not being collected, so now my order states that the penalty is mentioned in the service book also, so that if it is not recovered now, when the officer retires, it will be deducted from his final settlement amount.The number of disposals would still be considered low…The number of disposals is low because I have the sanctioned strength of only one assistant and two people working on my bench. In some commissions, like Maharashtra, they have a staff of over 15 people. What can you possibly do with just two people? They have office work as well. The two are supposed to do everything, from accepting appeals and complaints to helping with the final orders and sending them out. A number of appeals and complaints were filed during my tenure when people started seeing that appeals and complaints are being heard and disposed of.Also read: ‘Mounting Pendency,’ Petitioners Ask SC to Urgently List Information Commissioner Vacancies MatterYou cannot compare us with other commissions or even the Central Information Commission as we do not even have a registrar. I am trying to get some interns. It is something Shailesh Gandhi and Sridhar Acharyulu suggested as they also faced similar problems. [Shailesh Gandhi and Sridhar Acharyulu were former Central Information Commissioners from “non-bureaucratic” backgrounds who passed many landmark orders and whose work set a benchmark of sorts.] We are also taking up hearings of the present year in batches so that the present PIOs are sensitised and fear that they could be fined if they are sitting on applications or not providing information. I have tried to use many ways to give both applicants and officers the ease of reaching out to the commission and hearings are conducted soon.What are these steps?This is something I was trying to work on even before the pandemic struck. We have tried to use WhatsApp, email and phone calls in a big way. I also interact with people on my FB page and Twitter handle, replying to their queries. I have taken life and liberty cases (these need to be taken up in 48 hours) through Twitter. Even notices were sent the same way. Even earlier, we observed that a number of times, the postal services were taking a lot of time. What we have done instead is use WhatsApp to send notices and emails to get replies and arguments. We had a problem in this because for some reason, Hindi – the language used here – documents were not going in PDF format. It also increased our work as we had to do things twice.RTI Act. Illustration: The Wire/Public domain imagesUnlike in Maharashtra, all commissioners sit in one place here. Instead of calling officers and applicants here, we ask them to speak on the phone after confirming their contact number. This way, man-hours are not lost and officers can do a lot more work. One officer was in a field in a village, doing some inspection work. He took a break from that, spoke to us on the phone where even the applicant could hear him and then got back to what he was doing when the hearing was over. A lot of unnecessary government expenditure is saved this way and above all, man-hours are not lost in commuting. This is also speedier.Also read: PMO Blocks RTI Requests on PM-CARES Again, Says Responding Will ‘Divert Resources’I am also trying to have a Grievance Redressal Day on Constitution Day, where interns can help redress the grievances of citizens on how to file an application and address queries such as when the hearings will take place, etc.Unlike most sitting commissioners, you attend RTI meets and are active on social media.I have tried to reach out to citizens through Zoom meetings which many commissioners have been averse to. But I have attended and continue to attend them. Earlier we had people from villages calling from their homes and asking if they can use RTI for some problem. Now the audience has grown and people outside Madhya Pradesh also attend. People do not know how to go about filing an RTI application. Some do not know that RTI is not the way ahead for what they want. We have taken suo motu cognisance against officers. I have asked my office to send notices to officers. In one case, an officer did not know the rules of RTI. He insisted that he will not take fees in a certain way. The applicant took a video of it and even asked him to give it in writing. Since there was written evidence, we took this up as a complaint after the applicant contacted me on social media. Our office got in touch with him and we penalised the PIO. Even after 15 years, many still are not aware of the RTI Act as much as they should be.What do you have to say about allegations of “misuse” of RTI and “blackmailing”?There are allegations of misuse made by public information officers. When you hear something like this again and again, you have to take notice of it. A PIO once said that someone was blackmailing him. Now, blackmailing is a criminal act. I mentioned his allegations (only that bit as an allegation) in my order and sent a copy of my order to the superintendent of police to enquire into the allegations of the PIO. I did not write anything else. I am yet to follow up on it though.Also read: Vacancies, Pending Cases Threaten to Take the Wind Out of RTI’s Sails as it Turns 15I have also told PIOs that they should file a complaint with the police. The applicant, however, continues to file the RTI in that case (as is his right). Increasingly there were instances not just in my bench but others also, where applicants wrote that officers should not be fined. They have done this after the commission hearing has happened, they got information and show-cause notices were served on the officer asking why they should not be fined. There was an impression created that after getting information, there was some dealing between them to avoid the fine. In one such case, I fined the PIO, as the matter of penalising is between the commission and the officers. I am of the opinion that more and more information should be declared suo motu by all public authorities so that there is no question of any blackmailing or wrongdoing. Transparency will help curb this. Many people still do not know how to use RTI and there is also blatant violation by the PIOs.I have also discouraged people who have lost their jobs for not attending office for days together and then harassing colleagues by filing random RTI applications. I understand they can fight their cases of expulsion if they feel it was unjustified and use RTI for the same, but it cannot be allowed to be used to settle personal grudges. In the RTI, the intent is important. By filing random RTI applications in large numbers and asking for voluminous information, they only try to trouble their former colleagues. They can use it for transparency and accountability. So I ask them why they need information and if I am not satisfied, I turn down their applications if it is meant to only obstruct and hamper government functioning and harass their former colleagues.But it is said that applicants need not be asked to give any more detail than required to contact them when filing an RTI application.Reasons and intents needs to be known. For example, there are people who ask for personal information that is exempt under 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act unless larger public interest is justified. Now, to understand if public interest is served or not, either I understand on the face of the RTI application or I have to ask the applicant to explain and justify where public interest is served.The RTI logo. Illustration: The WireI remember there was a court order that said a degree cannot given if it is of a third party. But I asked that the applicant be provided a copy of the degree of someone else even when the court order was against it because he could convince me of public interest. He said that a person managed to get a government job based on the degree and he wanted to know if he had a degree. The university had not provided it, saying it is third party information. I allowed the application and he was provided with the degree as he has the right to verification.Also read: Modi-Led Panel Appoints ‘BJP Supporter’ Journalist as Information Commissioner, Opposition ProtestsWhat has been the importance of RTI and any landmark order of yours you would want to talk about? There was a case where a person got justice after he filed an RTI application and the Information Commission pursued his matter. The high court had given orders to clear his pension, but he did not get it. When the matter came before the Information Commission, I made the principal secretary of the department a ‘deemed’ public information officer. In such a scenario, he could be penalised or have disciplinary action initiated against him for not giving information because such information finally rests with him. The applicant’s case was speeded up. What could not be achieved even after a court order could be done via an RTI application and the fear of the commission penalising even a senior officer. Another case was of a taxation scam unearthed in a panchayat through RTI. I asked that all information be put on the website suo motu so that functioning is transparent in future. There are some important orders in the pipeline. After 15 years there are still some bodies that think they do not come under RTI. I will be bringing them under the RTI ambit and ensuring they make suo motu disclosures so that people do not resort to filing RTI applications. Ashutosh M. Shukla is an independent journalist based out of Mumbai. He has been writing on RTI and transparency related issues among other topics. He tweets @scribeashutosh.
