Tuesday, 4 September 2012




1.   Application fee reduced from Rs. 50/- to Rs.10/-


2.   Fee for supplying information  rupees two for each page (in A4 or A-3 size paper) created or copied; IN RTI Rules 201o this fee was Rs.10/- per page.


3.   For information provided in diskette or floppy rupees fifty per diskette or floppy; Earlier it was Rs. 75/- per floppy and RS. 100/ per compact disc.


4.   No form has been prescribed for filing RTI application or 1st Appeal.








1.   It contains just 13 rules with of confusion and ambiguity, whereas earlier act was 

more described  running into some 51 rules.



3.   Procedure to decide First Appeal repealed.


4.   As per rule 20(4) the  Chief Information Commission had power to write to the minister concerned for taking corrective measures to sensitize the officers of the department about their obligations under the Act if, in case of a public authority, the Chief Information Commissioner, on the basis of number and nature of second appeals pending /decided in the Commission, comes to the conclusion that the first appeals are being rejected cursorily. NOW IN 2012 RULES THIS POER HAS BEEN REPEALED.


5.   Rule 30(2) of 2010 rules provided that the appellant/complainant could participate through Audio/video conference. But under 2012 rules appellant/complainant cannot participate via Audio/Video Conference.


6.   Proviso to sub rule 3 of Rule 4 of RTI rules 2010 provided that the Public Authority could provide alternate mode of making payment of Fee. Under 2012 rules the Public Authority has no power to prescribe alternate mode for making payment of Fee.


7.   Rule 36(4) of RTI RULES 2010 provided the affected Public Information Officer may file a review before the Commission for revision/waiver of the penalty on the basis of facts that could not be brought to the notice of the Commission at the time of hearing of the appeal. UNDER RTI RULES 2012, there is no provision for filing review by the affected PIO. Now PIO can not bring to the notice of the Commission, the facts which could not be brought before the Commissiom at the time of hearing. The repeal of the said provision shall seriously affect the PIOs.



8.   Rule 11 of 2010 Rules provided for the establishment of following institutes. 

a.    Monitoring and Reporting (MoRe) wing;

b.    Right to Information & Transparency Institute (RITI);

c.    Administration and Human Resource Development wing; and

d.   Public Relations wing.




9.   [Rule 38] Provisions relating to RATING OF Public Authorities repealed.


10.                [rule 22] Provisions relating to Annual reports on implementation of RTI Act repealed.


11.                [Rule 44] Provisions related to Duty imposed upon the Commission to prepare annual roaster for the appearance of the Public Authorities repealed.


12.                [Rule 36 & 45] Provisions related to powers of the Commission to take penal          measures in case of non-compliance of its orders repealed.


13.                Under rule 2(1) (j) of 2010 rules the PIO meant "Public Information Officer" means an officer designated by a public authority under sub-section (1) of section 5 and includes an Assistant Public Information Officer so designated or notified under sub-section (2) of section 5 and the head of the public authority in case no Public Information Officer is appointed or notified. As such under 2010 rules a Public Authority could not remain without PIO. But under 2012 rules, any Public Authority could be without PIO for years together and no one shall be liable for providing the information or for the delay in information.


14.                 Similarly as per rule 2(1)(g) of 2010 rules, no Public Authority could remain without First Appellate Authority under 2010 rules. But under 2012 rules any public authority could remain without First Appellate Authority for even years.


15.                Under rule 27(d) of 2010 rules, the Commission had power to summon files, records, documents, samples, materials etc or inspect or cause to be inspected, any premises, sites, places etc. This power of the Commission has been repealed under 2012 rules.


16.                Under rule 30(5) of 2010 rules appellant/complainant chose not to be present in accordance with rule 30(2), it was specifically mentioned that the Commission shall pronounce its decision or pass its order in the matter on the basis of records available. But under 2012 rules, there is no provision in the nature of rule 30(5) of the 2010 rules.


17.                 Under rule 32 of 2010 rules, the Commission for the purposes of conducting an investigation pertaining to an inquiry, could utilize the services of  the services of any officer or investigation agency of the government. This power of the Commission has been repealed under 2012 rules.




Raman Sharma---


No comments:

Post a Comment