Case 9.7: The measurement book request

Difficulty: Easy
Syllabus point: 3: transparency and the right to information
Values and laws tested: Transparency, accountability, rule of law; Right to Information Act, 2005: section 4, section 7(1) (30 days), section 19 (appeals), section 20 (penalty); Nolan's "openness"

Illustrative exampleThe measurement book request

Rajendra is the Public Information Officer in a district-level office. A young man from a village, Arman, has asked for the measurement book, bills and payment details of a village road built last year. Villagers say the road broke up in the first rains. The junior engineer tells Rajendra, "The contractor is influential. Write that an inquiry is on and the information cannot be given. Or call it 'third-party information'." Twenty-seven days have passed since the application. Rajendra knows that no inquiry order has reached the office. The measurement book is in the file, though some entries look faint and doubtful. Arman has also written that he needs the information in time, because the next gram sabha meets in a week. Rajendra has served in this office for six years and has never had an application like this.

Stakeholders: Arman and the villagers (road users), the contractor, the junior engineer, Rajendra, the department, the taxpayer whose money was spent.
Issue: the legal duty of transparency against pressure from a colleague and contractor and fear for the department's image.
Options: A. Write "inquiry is on" and refuse (relief from trouble; but a false ground, risk of penalty and appeal, village distrust). B. Hand over the whole file at once, without reading it and without the Act's third-party steps (open; but skips the procedure the law sets and is hasty). C. Stay within the Act and reply in time: give what is open, state any valid exemption in writing with the appeal route, and separately inform a senior in writing about the doubtful entries (a little more work; but law and truth both survive).
Best: C. Section 7(1) of the RTI Act sets, in general, 30 days; section 19 gives appeals and section 20 provides penalties. Nolan's "openness" says there must be a clear and lawful reason to withhold.

Lesson

Action: Short term: prepare the reply today, keep a copy of the faint entries safe, a written instruction to the junior engineer, tell a senior that a quality check seems necessary. Long term: publish road-work details on its own under section 4, a digital record of measurement books, a social audit before contractor payment.

Practice Questions

Practice questionabout 100 words

(10 marks, 100 words) What should Rajendra do? Solve with the five-step card.

Model answer

The stakeholders are Arman and the village, the contractor, the junior engineer and the department. The issue is the legal duty of transparency against pressure from a colleague and contractor. I have three routes: refuse on a false ground, hand over everything without procedure, or reply in time within the Act. The first invites penalty and appeal. I choose the third, because section 7(1) of the RTI Act demands a timely reply and no inquiry order exists. Today I would give the open information, state the appeal route and report the doubtful entries in writing. Long term I would publish under section 4.

Practice questionabout 50 words

(5 marks, 50 words) Which reasons for refusing information can be valid and which cannot? Answer with this case.

Model answer

Refusal is valid only if a real exemption in the Act applies and the reason is written (for example section 8, sub-section 1, clause (h), information that would impede an investigation, but only if one is really on; the section 11 procedure for third-party information); a baseless "inquiry is on" or fear of a colleague's anger is not valid.

Practice questionabout 50 words

(5 marks, 50 words) Suggest long-term steps to improve transparency in the office.

Model answer

Voluntary publication under section 4, digital records, tracking of deadlines, social audit.