The first appeal by the Appellate Authority allows unhappy requesters to complain about an order not to release information. In the spirit of facilitating access to information, requesters are also allowed to approach the Appellate Authority even where NO order has been given.
The
Central Act is very comprehensive though and gives the new Information
Commissions an even broader appeals mandate, allowing them to consider
appeals relating to any matter concerning requesting or obtaining
access.
Section
18(1) of the Central Act sets out the appeal remit of the Information
Commissions and has deliberately been written in the broadest terms.
Specifically, it permits the Commissions to handle complaints where
a person:
- has been refused access to any information requested
under the Central Act (presumably in cases where the person believes
there has been a misapplication of an exemption
under s.8(1) or the failure to properly consider the public
interest override under s.8(2));
- has been unable to submit a request or appeal
to a Central or State Public Information Officer (PIO) or Assistant
PIO;
- has not been given a response to a request for
information within the time
limit specified under the Central Act;
- has been required to pay an amount of fee
which he/she considers unreasonable or is unhappy with the form
of access granted;
- believes that he/she has been given incomplete,
misleading or false information under this Act.
Importantly,
s.18(1) ends with a catch-all clause included at s.18(1)(f)
which broadly gives the Information Commissions power to handle
a complaint "in respect of any other matter relating to requesting
or obtaining access to records under this Act". This clause
basically means that the Commissions have the power to inquire
into any matter at all, even if not specifically mentioned
in s.18(1).
|
Notably,
the appeal remit of the first
Appellate Authority is much narrower than the Information Commissions'
because it is limited to cases only where a person "does not
receive a decision within the time specified…or is aggrieved by
a decision". As such, the Information Commission may be required
to handle complaints which have not been first handled by the relevant
Appellate Authority.
Significantly,
experience has shown that this is a major issue because under State
RTI laws there was sometimes dispute between first and second appellate
authorities as to when the second appellate authority could actually
hear a case, with the result that complaints were rejected by the
second appellate body summarily for lack of jurisdiction even where
the first appellate body was not processing the complaint.
In
keeping with their responsibility to provide effective oversight
however, all appeals bodies should, as much as possible, seek to
interpret their mandate broadly to ensure that a decision-maker
cannot simply ignore a request and get away with it and/or that
public can shirk their obligations under the new law.
Please
click on the link to the Central
RTI Act to read the detailed provisions contained in the law.
Please click on the link to CHRI's
State RTI pages to find out more about relevant rules and implementation
in your specific State.
|