SAFEGUARDING THE RTI

REPORT OF THE PEOPLES RTI ASSESSMENT 2008

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Right to Information Assessment and Analysis Group (RaaG) and National Campaign for Peoples Right to Information (NCPRI)

Coverage: States and Districts

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Assam Dibrugarh, Karbi Anglong, Nalbari Andhra Pradesh Ananthapur, Nalgonda, Visakhapatnam Gujarat Kutch, Narmada, Mahesaha Karnataka Bijapur, Dakshin Kannada, Haveri Maharashtra Aurangabad, Yavatmal, Raigad Meghalaya South Garo Hills, West Khasi Hills, Ri Bhoi Orissa Kalahandi, Deogarh, Kendrapara Rajasthan Dungarpur, Jhunjhunu Karauli Uttar Pradesh Azamgarh, Bijnor, Jhansi West Bengal Burdwan, Cooch Behar, Uttar Dinajpur NCT of Delhi
2

FINDINGS: Awareness Levels

Nearly 65% of the randomly selected respondents stated access to information would help solve basic problems. Over 40% of urban and under 20% of rural respondents knew about the RTI Act. Source of awareness rural: news papers (35%), followed by television and radio, friends and relatives (10% each), and NGOs (5%). Urban: newspapers (30%), NGOs (20%), TV (20%) friends and relatives (10% ).
3

Use of the RTI Act

An estimated 4 lakh applicants from the villages of India filed RTI applications in the first two and a half years of the RTI Act. Disturbingly, over 90% of the rural applicants and 85% of the urban applicants were males

PROFILE OF USERS
ARE THEY THE ELITE? WELL TO DO? HIGHLY EDUCATED? MOSTLY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES? Nearly 60% of the rural and 40% of the urban applicants were not even graduates. Only 6% of the rural and 15% of the urban applicants were government employees. About 30% rural and 15% urban applicants and had BPL or Antyodaya ration cards. The proportion of STs, SCs and OBCs among the applicants was consistent with their population.

Filing Applications: Problems

Over 40% rural 15% urban respondents faced harassment and threats from officials. Nearly 30% of the villagers filing RTI applications for us reported that they were discouraged by the PIO from filing the application. Difficult to get Addresses of PIOs at district and sub-district level.
6

Filing Applications: Problems

Differing Rules there are 88 different sets of RTI rules in India and no one place where they are all available. Some states insist on even correspondence in local language despite S. 4(4). Poor signage, multiple windows, multiple visits to PAs, multiplicity of PIOs.

WHAT IS THE RATE OF SUCCESS?

Between 55% (our experience) and 70% (government statistics) of the information asked for is provided. Somewhat lower in rural areas than in urban areas. Only 40% (our data) and 90% (government data) of the information received was received in time somewhat better in rural areas than urban areas. Huge inconsistencies in basis for rejection even for identical applications.

WHAT IS THE RTI BEING USED FOR, AND WITH WHAT IMPACT?
Only 30% urban and 65% rural applications related to individual issues. Many types of impacts, aside from the intended ones, have been reported. Even the filing of an application, distinct from getting the information, has an impact. 40% of the rural and 60% of the urban applicants testified that exercising their RTI fulfilled the intended objective.
9

Various Reported Impacts of RTI

Ensuring open information is actually open. Preventing and exposing corruption. Preventing and exposing bad decisions. Curtailing wasteful public expenditure. Exposing misuse of power and influence Accessing justice. Accessing entitlements. Redressing grievances. Supporting good officials. Empowerment of the Public.
10

Impact of the RTI on PAs

Over 20% of the rural and 45% of the urban PIOs claimed that changes had been made in the functioning of their offices because of RTI. Over 60% of these changes pertained to improving record maintenance. Interestingly in 10% of the rural PAs and 25% of the urban PAs what had resulted were changes in procedures of functioning and decision making.
11

Penalties
The number of cases where some penalty should have been imposed (just for delayed supply of information), by very conservative estimates, would be 22,500 in the 18 commissions for which the relevant data was available. Let us round it off to 20,000. The actual penalties imposed were 284, or about 1.4%!!
12