HCs of Patna, Delhi & Kerala rank the highest on their compliance of the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005 according to a recent study by think tank Vidhi Centre for Legal policy.
The think tank developed a ‘Convenience Index’ which evaluates the extent to which the Right to Information Rules framed by the HCs make it convenient for citizens to file Right to Information applications, as a part of its report titled, ‘Sunshine in the Courts: Ranking the HCs on their compliance with the Right to Information Act’.
Every HC is required to draft Right to Information Rules under the the Act to lay down a procedure for filing Right to Information applications. Many HCs draft Right to Information Rules, which while legal, make it extremely inconvenient for citizens to file Right to Information applications by raising unnecessary hurdles.
“It is quite clear that there is a yawning gap between the judiciary’s bold pronouncements on the right to information & the manner in which the HCs are implementing the Right to Information Act. Not only are the Right to Information Rules of several HCs ultra vires the Right to Information Act, they also provide for a relatively inconvenient procedure when compared to the Right to Information Rules of the Govt of India." The report said.
The think tank developed an index based on 6 main criteria to measure the extent to which the various HC Rules make it convenient for citizens to file Right to Information applications. The HCs at Patna, Delhi & Kerala perform the best on the ‘convenience index’ & the HCs at Gujarat, Madras, Meghalaya & Chhattisgarh perform the worst on the same index.
The report examined whether the rules are published in a local language, the fees charged by the HC & the various methods in which the Right to Information application fee can be made. The think tank used Government’s Right to Information Rules, 2012 as a benchmark for comparing the convenience offered by the Right to Information Rules of all the high courts except Jammu & Kashmir.
One of the key findings of the report is that most of the conversation for greater judicial transparency has focused on ensuring ‘individual accountability’ of judges rather than ‘institutional accountability’ of the judiciary.
It says that many courts currently charge 5 times the amount charged by the Centre for filing Right to Information applications.
The recommendations include having more modes of payment through the Right to Information fees in order to make it simple for citizens to file Right to Information applications. It also suggests that the HCs should publish clearly discernible rules on the website in the local language of the state.
Picture Source :
