Majority of RTIs genuine, but few filed in public interest: Information Commissioner Uday Mahurkar

Uday Mahurkar

Former journalist and Information Commissioner Uday Mahurkar told Moneycontrol that while the Right to Information (RTI) is mostly used for genuine purposes, very few applications are filed in larger public interest.

“Politically motivated applications are very few now. Eighty to 85 percent of the applications are genuine, but few are filed in larger public interest. Most applications are filed to redress personal grievances,” he said.

Elaborating further, Mahurkar explained that most Covid-related RTIs also pertained to personal grievances. Many RTIs pertain to job promotions, or tenders, or suspension from work by public authorities, he added. “Applications in the larger public interest, which influence policymaking, are still few,” he remarked.

Mahurkar, however, noted that about 15 percent of the RTI applications are filed with ulterior motives, such as blackmail or gaining popularity. He said, “People want to use RTI to extract revenge or become leaders overnight.”

Passed by parliament in 2005, the RTI act enables any citizen of India to seek information from a public authority. The authority is required to respond to the citizen’s request in a stipulated timeframe. The law was passed to promote increased accountability in the system.

An RTI applicant can file an appeal against an authority if they feel they have been unfairly denied the information. Information Commissioners are appellate authorities under the RTI Act.

Exemptions to the act include information pertaining to national security, strategic matters for the state, foreign relations, incitement to offence, contempt of court, commercial interest, trade secrets, third-party personal information, intellectual property rights, information related to physical safety and life, and cabinet papers.

Mahurkar was appointed the Information Commissioner in November 2020 by a central government panel that included the Prime Minister. During his tenure of over 34 months, Mahurkar has cleared more than 13,000 appeals.

Mahurkar noted that in order to encourage the general public to file RTIs, there is a need to conduct advocacy programs, and added that the task of making the public RTI literate should be given to Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), which have a proven track record of social service. Such NGOs should also be encouraged to use RTIs in their field of work, he added.

Private firms providing essential services should be part of RTI

Mahurkar is of the opinion that private companies engaged by the government for essential services should be brought under the ambit of RTI. The RTI Act exempts private companies from providing information at the request of citizens. A person intending to get information from private companies must approach the court or registrar of companies. “Over the last few years, private companies have been engaged to provide essential services. How can such companies remain outside the ambit of RTI?”, he asked.

He highlighted that many companies had obtained a stay from the courts when asked by the RTI body to furnish information, even though such firms were providing essential services to citizens. “In one of my orders I have said that such a situation is odd and illogical, therefore I leave it to the conscience of the companies to bring themselves under the RTI Act,” he said.

Mahurkar noted that the government holds sizeable stake in many of these companies, however, they managed to obtain a stay from the courts. However, he clarified that the courts have largely been supportive of RTI, barring such instances.

Third-party information

While stating that there is always a chance for RTI to be misused for personal gain, Mahurkar said that the law should permit the authority to question an applicant as to why they are seeking information pertaining to a third-party.

According to the RTI act, when the authority receives request to disclose information pertaining to a third-party, they must ask the third party concerned to explain whether or not such information should be disclosed. The authority must then decide whether the information should be provided or not. However, the law does not permit the authority to question the applicant as to why he needs the information.

“Under the RTI act, an applicant cannot be asked why he needs the information,” he said.