In a recent and significant decision, the Central Information Commission has said that Right to Information queries need not be on a single subject.
In earlier judgments, Chief Information Commissioners Wajahat Habibullah and A.N.Tiwari had ruled that an RTI application should be limited to a single subject matter. If the applicant seeks information on more than one subject matter, he has to file a applications and pay Rs. 10 for each subject matter.
But in the latest order (given by Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi on 28-8-11), the CIC has reversed itself. Referring to the earlier decisions, it observes
"What constitutes a 'single subject matter' has neither been defined in the RTI Act, the rules and regulations framed thereunder and not even by the then Chief Information Commissioners... No parameters have been laid down...by which an applicant and the Public Information Officer can determine whether the information sought pertains to one subject matter. In the absence of any means to determine what tantamounts to 'one subject matter', the PIO can, at his discretion, furnish part information claiming that the remaining information sought in the RTI application pertains to a different subject matter for which a separate RTI application is required to be filed...The exercise of such discretion by the PIO is likely to be subjective resulting in arbitrary curtailment of the fundamental right to information of citizens and unnecessary expenditure of money. In the absence of any clear definition of what 'one category of request' means it would only lead to arbitrary refusals of information under the RTI Act, leading to clogging of the appellate mechanisms."
Sec. 14 of the Karnataka Right to Information Rules made under the RTI Act says that a request should relate to one subject matter. If an applicant seeks information on more than one subject matter, he should make separate applications. So the limit to one subject matter has been made a part of the law itself in Karnataka (The legality of making such a rule is itself questionable. The function of rules is to support and implement the law under which they are made. But rules can not impose conditions which are absent in the law. So the above Karnataka rule could be itself illegal).
Despite the fact that the limit to one subject matter has been made a part of the law in Karnataka, the logic of the latest CIC judgment is still applicable. KRI Rules also do not define what constitutes a single subject matter nor do they lay down parameters by which an applicant and the PIO can determine whether the information sought pertains to one subject matter or more than one. So Sec. 14 of the KRI Rules which limits RTI requests to one subject matter can not be enforced according to the latest CIC decision.
But there are no clear rules of precedence in the Right to Information framework. So the State Information Commission need not follow the judgments of the Central Information Commission and an Information Commission is not even bound by its own earlier decisions. As a result, the next time an Information Commission faces the single subject problem, it can rule in any way.
Maj.Gen. (Rtd.) S.G. Vombatkere, Mysore Grahakara Parishat