|
Problems in accessing the information
In October 2006, SNS launched a campaign aimed at getting information, using the RTI Act, on how the Municipal Councillors are utilizing these public funds. Details of all works undertaken using the Councillor Funds during 2002-2007 were sought, under Section 4 of the RTI act including: name of works awarded, total amount sanctioned for each of these works, date of start and completion, name of contractor etc.
However, when SNS along with interested citizens sought this information from the Engineering department of the MCD, it became clear that there is no mechanism in Delhi to proactively inform citizens the details of how Councilor funds are spent. The information is not made available to citizens by the MCD or its Councilors through any website, publication, or other means.
A member of SNS, submitted a written request to the relevant PIO asking for information under Section 4 of the RTI Act, on how Councilor Funds are being spent. In response, SNS was informed by the Engineering department that the information would not be made available proactively by the MCD since the RTI ‘experts’ of the MCD had advised them that there is no provision in the RTI Act for providing suo moto information to citizens and that only the Courts could direct the MCD to make information available proactively. We were told that his application would be treated as a regular request for information and he would be charged as per the provisions of the RTI Act for the information.
SNS subsequently mobilized interested citizens to file RTI applications in all the 12 MCD zones of Delhi seeking the details of how Councilor Funds were spent by the Councilors in their Wards. (Delhi is divided into 12 zones by the MCD which cover all 134 wards.) These 12 RTI applications were filed by citizens from different walks of life ranging from students to RTI activists to people living in low income slum settlements who were interested in finding out how councilors were spending the public funds allocated to them. An application was also filed in the Engineering department of the MCD seeking copies of the booking registers of each ward of Delhi which shows the works on which the Councilor requested funds be spent and also shows the works actually undertaken in each ward.
In 10 out of the 13 RTI applications filed seeking information on Councilor Funds appeals had to be filed as no information was provided to the applicants.
Given below are a few instances of the problems faced by applicants in accessing the information sought. These show how difficult it is for a common citizen to access information on how Councilors are spending public funds at their disposal, thereby highlighting the need for proactive disclosure of this information.
Some cases:
Case 1: A resident of the South Zone of the MCD, filed an RTI application seeing information from the South zone about how Councilors had spent their funds in the zone. When he did not receive any information for over 30 days, he filed a first appeal with the MCD.
In the hearing for the first appeal, the Appellate Authority of the South Zone- the Additional Commissioner (Engineering) - observed that the information sought by the applicant, was not in public interest. He reprimanded the applicant for seeking irrelevant information (although applicant clarified that he is a resident of the South zone). The PIO was not penalized by the Appellate authority despite the fact that month and 22 days had elapsed since the application was filed and no response had been sent to the applicant in that time period. Instead, the appellate authority insisted that the information sought by applicant was extremely bulky and his purpose behind seeking the information was to blackmail and create trouble.
Case 2: A BPL ration cardholder filed an RTI application seeing information from the Civil Lines zone about how Councilors had spent their funds in the zone. Under Section 7(5) of the RTI Act, people living below poverty line are not liable to pay any application fee/ photocopy charges for the information.
Section 7(5) reads:
Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed:
“Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.”
When she did not receive any information for over 30 days, she filed a first appeal with the MCD. She was asked to show her ration card as proof of her BPL status, which she did. At the MCD office she was told that she had no right to seek the kind of information she had asked for.
She was not called for any hearing by the appellate authority, instead she received a letter from the appellate authority stating that her appeal had been considered and that she should not be provided information. One of the main reasons given was that she was associated with “SNS – a newspaper concern” – and therefore her BPL status was not acceptable. The order went on to state that her BPL ration card should be cancelled by the government – the intention being clearly to threaten her with the purpose of dissuading her from seeking the information on Councilor Funds.
Case 3: The Deputy Commissioner (PIO) of the Karol Bagh zone refused to give the information free of cost to a BPL applicant. The applicant showed her original BPL Ration card and her voter photo identity card and also referred the PIO to section 7(5) of the RTI Act. But the Deputy Commissioner- insisted on payment of photocopy charges for the information. The applicant finally had no option but to pay the fee under protest. She has subsequently filed a complaint to the Central Information Commission.
|
