Right To Information

RTI: Right to Information Act 2005 mandates timely response to citizen requests for government information.

Right to Information includes the right to:

1. Inspect works, documents, and records.
2. Take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records.
3. Take certified samples of material.
4. Obtain information in form of printouts, diskettes, floppies, tapes, video , cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts.

Who can ask for information

• Any Indian citizen can ask for information under this Act. The Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

• OCI's (Overseas Citizens of India) and PIO's (Persons of Indian Origin) card holders can also ask for information under the RTI Act.

The application should be addressed to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned public authority in writing in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is made.

Who is Public Information Officer?

PIOs Public Information Officer, are officers designated by the public authorities in all administrative units or offices under it to provide information to the citizens requesting for information under the Act.

Any officer, whose assistance has been sought by the PIO for the proper discharge of his or her duties, shall render all assistance and for the purpose of contraventions of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a PIO. 

FEES:

Fee for seeking information is Rs, 10/- which can be paid to the Accounts Officer of the public authority. Mode of payment can be cash, DD, cheque or postal order.

Time limit for disposing-off applications is 30 days in normal course and 48 hrs if it concerns the life or liberty of a person.

Success story of RTI:

THE AASHIANA rape victim’s father has turned to the Right to Information Act in a bid to pin the accused down.

Sabruddin has filed an application at the district magistrate’s office under the Act. He has sought information on whether three of the accused, who are lodged in a juvenile jail, are actually minors.

While surrendering in court, the trio had submitted documents which said they were minors. They are on trial in a juvenile court. The rest of the accused are facing trial in the court of the additional district judge.

Sabruddin wants to know if the three accused possess arms licences. If these licences have been issued in their names, no other evidence is required to prove that the accused are not juvenile.

Sabruddin will also seek information from the Regional Transport Officer’s office on whether driving licences were issued in their names.  He said, “They are not juvenile. All the evidence supporting their claim is fake.”  The victim, too, had said that the accused were not juvenile. The father, however, feared that influential family members of the main accused could cause obstacles in getting details from the departments concerned.

The main accused, nephew of a don-turned ruling party leader, had first surrendered before a court and claimed he was a minor. Earlier, he had obtained a stay against arrest from the High Court. Police investigation and the evidence corroborated that the don’s nephew was the first to abduct the girl from Aashiana area on May 2, 2004.

This was confirmed by the victim herself. The car used in the crime was owned by the elder brother of the main accused. The victim had also stated that it was this youth only who was leading a group of goons in the car.

The girl was later taken to the Kapoorthala shop of the youth and  from there to a plot owned by the family of the main accused. The accused had taken turns on the girl there, too, before throwing her out of the car near Daliganj railway crossing in a semi-unconscious and critically injured state.

To read more of the success stories visit: http://right2information.wordpress.com/category/rti-success-stories/