Transcript None - Central Information Commission

On implementation of RTI Act 2005:
Government’s initiatives
Department of Personnel and Training
November 4, 2008, Delhi
RTI regime in India: facts
• RTI Act 2005 operational since October 2005
• Information Commissions at the central level as well as at the
state levels (except in J&K) are working
• Capacity building of different stakeholders on RTI is in
progress since December 2005
• GOI has drawn up program for smooth implementation of the
RTI Act, during 11th Five Year Plans
<footer>
Slide 2
RTI Act 2005: looking back to see ahead
•
Government of India
• Recognizes the need to remove constraints in early
implementation of the RTI Act
• Is keen to ensure that intended benefits out of RTI regime
go to the citizens
• Wants to know the factors ( institutional, structural,
systemic, process related, analytical, etc), that facilitate or
hinders implementation of the Act.
•
Launched study on RTI captioned “ Understanding key issues
and constraints in effective implementation of the RTI Act”
during 2008-09 through an independent agency
<footer>
Slide 3
Scope of the Study
Review of RTI implementation
from Information Provider
side based on systemic data
collection and Analysis .
Categorization of
information being
sought under RTI
State of
Implementation
Matrix
Understand
implementation
issues at state and
central level
Review of the
experience of various
categories on
Information Seekers
Issues faced by
Information seeker while
accessing information
under RTI
Prepare a diagnosis of
the current situation and
recommend changes to
be initiated
Analysis of data collected from
Information Providers and
Information Seekers to arrive
at generic implementation
problems
Prepare an action plan for
implementation of the
recommended changes
Design an
implementation plan
for the proposed
recommendations
Approach and Methodology
Participative Approach to the whole study involving NGOs, CBOs, and Media
Assessment of
the current
situation
Three Workshops to identify issues
and validate the findings
• Information Seeker Survey
in five states and central
Ministries
• Information Provider
Survey in five states and
Central Ministries
• RTI Case Studies
Recommend
Changes based
on the assessment
Prepare an
Implementation
Plan
Two Workshops/FGD to discuss the recommendations
and Implementation plan
• Identification of Process
Gaps based on survey
results, observations and
case studies
• Prepare a detailed action
plan for implementation of
the proposed changes
• Recommend changes to
plug process gaps
• RTI successful Practices
from States
• International
Benchmarking with Canada
and Mexico
• Design of State of
• Build in successful
practices into the process
• Capacity gaps
• Infrastructure gaps
Implementation Matrix
• Design of Issue
Identification Framework
Slide 5
Findings of the Study
Status on Key Enablers
Key Findings: Compliance
• Limited SIC reviews
•
Out of 5 States, only Andhra Pradesh has established a mechanism
for regular review of Public Authorities for RTI Implementation
• Low disposal rate of 2nd appeals
•
79.4% of the appeals received in Maharashtra in 2007 are still
pending
• Guidelines for Information Providers and Seekers have not been widely
disseminated
• It was observed during one on one discussions with the PIOs that in
Assam that they needed comprehensive guidelines for RTI request
processing especially related to rejection clauses of the act
Slide 7
Findings: Information Disclosure
• PIOs are not aware of the Proactive Disclosure done by their department
•
•
•
77% of the Central PIOs were found to be aware
84% of the PIOs in Andhra Pradesh were found to be aware
Only 47% PIOs aware in Maharashtra
• SIC reports do not contain the status of Proactive Disclosures done by
Public Authorities
• Out of the 5 States being surveyed, only 2 states (Assam and
Andhra Pradesh) SIC reports show the status of proactive
disclosure done
• There is no monitoring mechanism for Proactive Disclosure in the 4
states
• Andhra Pradesh has formed a committee for review of proactive
disclosures done by the PAs in the state
Slide 8
Findings: Information Disclosure
• Lack of standard dissemination channels for proactive disclosure
•
•
Central PAs were found to use internet for dissemination (93.75%)
Majority of PAs in Assam used Printed Books for dissemination
(83%)
• Information Needs of citizens not being captured to improve Proactive
Disclosure
• None of the PAs in surveyed states have made an effort to
capture information needs and reflect them in their Proactive
Disclosures
• Central and State schemes do not contain RTI specific guidelines for
proactive information disclosure
Slide 9
Findings: Capacity Building
• Lack of budget provisions for RTI Implementation at the state
•
•
No separate RTI budget provision at state level
Budget allocation only for SIC and Training (All four states surveyed)
• Ineffective Record Management Systems
•
Record Management System being cited as the major reason for
delay in processing of RTI application (Above 80% in Andhra
Pradesh, Assam and Maharashtra)
• Low levels of Training among PIOs and AAs
• 46% PIOs at Central level, 72% PIOs in Assam and 50% of PIOs in
Andhra Pradesh have not received training
Slide 10
Key Findings of the Study
Challenges faced by Citizen… Applicant Side of the Story
Key Findings: Easy Access to Information
• Lack of a signage for PIO identification and location at the PA
•
59% of the respondents said that there was no or little signage
present at the PA office for locating the PIO
• Lack of easy channel for Information request filing
•
85% of the respondents said that they had filed their application at
the PA office… would have preferred more convenient channel
• Non standard payment channels for application fee submission
• Use of treasury challans and court fee stamps inconveniencing the
information seekers
• Also in some cases, used as a means to discourage filing of
applications
Slide 12
Key Findings: Easy Access to Information
• Multiple visits to the PA office for filing RTI Applications
•
•
More than 33% of the respondents said that they had to visit the PA
office multiple times for filing a RTI Application
Cost of filing an RTI application is estimated at Rs. 150-300 in Urban
Areas and Rs. 100-200 in rural areas (Estimates collected, includes
cost of lost wages)
• PIO attitude when filing a RTI Application
•
54% of the respondents surveyed said the PIOs has apathetic
attitude towards their RTI request
• Incomplete and incorrect information being provided by the PIOs
• This was identified as the major reason for dissatisfaction among
Information seekers
• Lack of Knowledge about RTI among citizens
•
More than 50% of the respondents surveyed said that they could ask
for information about Private enterprises under RTI Act
Slide 13
Key Findings of the Study
Challenges faced by Government Staff… Other Side of
the Story
Identification of Challenges in Government Set-up
Objectives
State of Implementation Matrix
Citizens to
secure access to
information from
Public Authorities
Gap
Areas
Enabling
Strategies
Information
Disclosure
Lack of standard
procedures and
compliance
mechanism
inhibiting
proactive
disclosure
Capacity
Building for
service
delivery
Lack of resources
(Budget,
Infrastructure) for
effective RTI
implementation in
departments
having high RTI
requests
Limited usage of
technology leading
to low performance
on service levels
Adequate and
quality training is
not being provided
to the PIOs
To promote
transparency and
accountability of
public authorities
Easy Access
Compliance to
RTI provisions
No Standardized
process for filing
RTI application
No clear
Implementation
Guidelines by the
state
Lack of support
facility provided
to the citizens
for filing the RTI
application
Lack of
Monitoring &
review
mechanism in
place to ensure
compliance of RTI
provisions
Awareness
Creation
Ineffective usage
and low awareness
level of RTI
Lack of Promotional
Activities
Slide 15
State of Implementation Matrix
•
•
•
•
State of Implementation being designed to capture objective
implementation data from the states.
In current situation due non availability of standard data points from
across the states, it is difficult to build in qualitative factors into the
matrix.
Due to the fact that qualitative factors have not been built in, the
matrix cannot be used to measure the implementation performance
across the states
It can only be used as a guiding tool for ascertaining the
implementation progress in a particular state over a period of time.
Slide 16
Immediate future Agenda
• Acting upon recommendations of various studies
• Facilitating easy access to information
• Strengthening Information Commissions
• Capacity building
• Awareness on RTI
Thank You