Haryana RTI activists seek reforms in State Information Commission, submit 17-point memorandum to Governor

The memorandum asked Governor Ashim Kumar Ghosh to reform Haryana’s State Information Commission and improve implementation of the RTI Act, 2005. Activists said delays, missing information, and weak hearings were undermining the law. They warned of protests if their complaints were ignored.

Their demands included SMS notifications when appeals and complaints are registered. They also sought online RTI applications in every government office, effective Section 4 disclosures on department websites, and faster decisions after hearings. They wanted officials to serve as Public Information Officers in gram panchayats instead of sarpanches.

The activists also requested a toll-free Commission helpline and regular meetings with the Chief Information Commissioner. Statewide awareness programmes for National Right to Information Day were another demand. The Commission said it would begin district-wise online interactions with activists and the public later in October, creating a possible channel for feedback.

The Haryana Chief Information Commissioner said more than 50% of appeals reaching the State Information Commission were bypassing the first appellate stage. This means applicants were moving directly to the Commission instead of first asking a First Appellate Authority to review the Public Information Officer’s response.

The first appeal is meant to give the department an early chance to correct a missing, incomplete, or delayed response. It can also reduce the Commission’s workload. According to T.V.S.N. Prasad, First Appellate Authorities are better placed to provide information because they are the department’s “custodians of information.”

The Commission previously heard such second appeals routinely, he said, but discontinued that practice to enforce the prescribed mechanism. It is now returning bypassed appeals to First Appellate Authorities. Prasad also said the Commission had begun issuing show-cause notices to authorities that fail to provide information.

The RTI process begins with a Public Information Officer, or PIO. This officer receives an application and provides the requested government information. If the answer is refused, incomplete, or not supplied, the applicant can file a first appeal before the department’s First Appellate Authority, or FAA.

The FAA is supposed to review the PIO’s handling of the request and conduct a hearing where necessary. If the matter remains unresolved, the applicant can file a second appeal with the State Information Commission. The Commission is the next review level and can examine complaints about implementation. It may also seek explanations from officials.

Haryana activists alleged that PIOs were withholding information and FAAs were not holding hearings. They also said the Commission was returning second appeals without hearing them. The Chief Information Commissioner defended the returns as enforcement of the prescribed process and said show-cause notices were being issued to defaulting FAAs.

The dispute concerns how privacy protections should affect access to public records. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act deals with personal information. Activist Harendra Dhingra alleged that officials were using it too broadly to withhold allotment letters, official orders, file notings, and no-objection certificates.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, adds another legal barrier according to Haryana Chief Information Commissioner T.V.S.N. Prasad. He said the newer law overrides the RTI Act and denies access to personal information. He also said the law had been challenged in court, but its implementation had not been stayed.

The practical result could be narrower access to records containing personal details, even when applicants seek information about government decisions. The article records competing positions, not a final court ruling. The Commission’s interpretation could therefore affect future appeals, while activists continue demanding that exemptions not be misapplied.

The RTI Act was introduced to make government information accessible to citizens and strengthen public accountability. The source gives its key date: the law came into force on October 12, 2005. Its broader purpose is to let people examine government decisions and records through a legal process rather than relying only on official discretion.

Section 4’s suo motu disclosure requirement means departments should publish specified information on their own initiative. People should not need to file separate applications for information that can be disclosed proactively. In Haryana, activists specifically demanded effective implementation of these disclosures on government department websites.

This mechanism could reduce applications, delays, and disputes over routine public information. The memorandum linked it to wider reforms, including online applications, SMS notifications, and better appeals. The Commission’s planned online interactions with activists and the public may help identify where departments are failing to publish information.

Access-to-information laws generally serve two goals at once. They open government records so citizens can understand decisions and hold authorities accountable. They also recognise that some personal details can expose people to harm or violate legitimate privacy. A workable system therefore needs both openness and carefully limited exemptions.

The Haryana dispute shows why the balance matters. Activist Harendra Dhingra alleged that allotment letters, official orders, file notings, and no-objection certificates were being withheld under Section 8(1)(j), which concerns personal information. The key question is whether a record is genuinely private or mainly concerns official action.

The article also reports that Chief Information Commissioner T.V.S.N. Prasad considers the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, controlling for personal information. Its implementation has not been stayed, although it has been challenged. Future decisions will determine whether privacy protections remain targeted or reduce meaningful access to public records.