RTI – Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Case – Lokpal RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 BACKGROUND Guaranteed by the Constitution. Provides for setting out a practical regime of right to information for citizens. Repeals Freedom of Information Act, 2002. Passed by Parliament on 15 June 2005. Came into force on 12 October 2005.

OBJECT To empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government, contain corruption, and make our democracy work for the people in real sense. Constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions. IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS “INFORMATION”: Information is any material in any form. It includes records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form. It also includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any law for the time being in force.

“PUBLIC AUTHORITY”: A "public authority" is any authority or body or Institution of self-government established or constituted: By or under the Constitution; By any other law made by the Parliament or a State Legislature; By notification issued or order made by the Central Government or a State Government. The bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Central Government or a State Government and Non-Government Organizations substantially financed by the Central Government or a State Government also fall within the definition of public authority. The financing of the body or the NGO by the Government may be direct or indirect.

INFORMATION EXEMPTED FROM DISCLOSURE: Sub-section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act enumerates the types of information which is exempt from disclosure. Sub-section (2) of section 8, however, provides that information exempted under sub-section (1) or exempted under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 can be disclosed if public interest in disclosure overweighs the harm to the protected interest.

Section 8(1)(j): “Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information”

2. GIRISH RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE V 2. GIRISH RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE V. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & ORS.[1]AND SECTION 8(1)(j) OF THE RTI ACT. Read as a precedent by public information officers, Information Commissions and courts and is constricting the citizen’s right to information significantly. FACTS OF THE CASE The petitioner had submitted an application on 27.8.2008 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour, Government of India) calling for various details relating to the respondent, who was employed as an Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Office, Akola. The document sought for pertained to appointment and promotion, disciplinary action and assets and liabilities and gifts received by the respondent.

THE ISSUE BEFORE THE APEX COURT: Whether the information pertaining to a Public Servant in respect of his service career and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties, can be denied on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. DECISION OF THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (for short “CIC”) CIC referred to the Full bench decision of the Commission in Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 (Milap Choraria v. Central Board of Direct Taxes) where the commission held that “The Income Tax Returns have been rightly held to be 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority; and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this information.”

CIC observed that the information falls in two parts-(i) relating to the personal matters (ii) assets & liabilities, movable and immovable properties and other financial information and held the information to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE APEX COURT:  “13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.” THE APEX COURT HELD THAT: The Apex Court held that copies of all memos, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, assets, income tax returns, details of gifts received etc. by a public servant are personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act and hence exempted.

3. THE LOKPAL AND LOKYUKTAS ACT, 2013 (for short “L&L Act”) BACKGROUND 2011 - India ranked 95th in the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International. India lost a staggering $462 billion in illicit financial flows due to tax evasion, crime and corruption post-Independence - Washington based Global Financial Integrity.   The term Lokpal was coined in 1963 by Laxmi Mall Singhvi, a Member of Parliament during a Parliamentary debate. The word was derived from the Sanskrit words "Lok" (people) and "Pala" (protector/caretaker), meaning 'Caretaker of People'. Assent from President on 1 January 2014 and came into force from 16 January, 2014.

OBJECT It aims to prevent and control corruption through the setting up of an independent and empowered body at the central level, called the Lokpal that would receive complaints relating to corruption against most categories of public servants and ensure that these are properly investigated and, where warranted, effectively prosecuted. All this is envisaged in a time-bound manner, with the help of Special Courts set up for the purpose. IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF THE L&L ACT The L&L Act provides for setting up a body called the Lokpal at the central level to have complaints of corruption against various categories of public servants enquired into, investigated, and prosecuted, as warranted. L&L Act states to set up Lokayuktas within one year from the commencement of the L&L Act, but the nature and type of Lokayukta is left to the discretion of the state legislatures. The institution of Lokpal is a statutory body without any constitutional backing. Lokpal is a multimember body, made up of one chairperson and maximum of 8 members.

INQUIRY WING OF LOKPAL The Lokpal would constitute an Inquiry Wing, which is tobe headed by Director of Inquiry. Its function is to conduct the preliminary inquiry into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. PROSECUTION WING The Lokpal by notification would constitute a Prosecution Wing. This wing will be headed by the Director of Prosecution for the purpose of prosecution of public servants.

JURISDICTION OF LOKPAL The following come under the jurisdiction of Lokpal: Prime Minister of India, under certain conditions. All ministers of the Union. Members of Parliament except for matters related to article 105 of constitution. (that is anything said or a vote given by him in Parliament) Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ officers as defined in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ officials as defined in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Any person who is or has been in-charge (director / manager/ secretary) of anybody / society set up by central act or any other body financed / controlled by central government.

DECLARATION OF ASSETS Sec 44 falls under Chapter XIII which is about ‘Declaration of Assets’. The Lok Sabha on 27th July, 2016 passed a bill named “The Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Bill, 2016”. This is to amend the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.   Basically, Sec 44 and Sec 59 have been amended. As can be seen the following are withdrawn: 30 days’ time limit for submission of his, his spouse and his dependent children’s information on assets and liabilities ‐ Sec 44 (2) 30 days’ time limit for above mentioned submission if he/she is holding office as public servant   at the time of commencement of the act ‐ Sec 44(3) Annual returns to be filed for assets and liabilities by 31st July every year ‐ Sec 44(4) The prescribed forms in which the returns are to be submitted ‐ Sec 44(5) The competent authority and the requirement for such authority to publish the information on the website ‐ Sec 44(6).

CONCLUSION Chapter XIII of the L&L Act makes it compulsory for all public servants under the Government of India (All India services and Groups A-D Services) and all Ministers including the Prime Minister, to declare their assets and liabilities as well as those of their spouses and dependent children. Section 44(6) of this law requires the competent authority of every department to publish these statements on its website by the end of August every year. Only the defense forces are not included in this chapter.  The Apex Court's ratio in G. R. Deshpande is in reference to RTI Act but not applicable to Lokpal.

Thank You…………