Gene Campaign's Experience with the RTI Act

When Gene Campaign requested evidence of the rules or laws that state that results of food safety tests are to be kept confidential, no answer was given and no safety data were provided.

Gene Campaign ’s experience with the Right To Information Act has been principally with the Ministry of Environment  and Forests. This is because we have used this Act to access information on how genetically engineered crops are  being regulated, the sort of safety tests being done and the manner in which decisions are taken. So far, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) had consistently refused to answer any questions or provide any data. Now with the use of the RTI, our experience has been that rather than compliance and cooperation, the government's  response has been obstructive rather than helpful and the attitude has been to provide as little information as  possible.

Information when provided is late and inadequate. Gene Campaign has had to approach the Central Information Commission to register its complaints against the Public Authority in the Ministry of environment and forests, which is where the GEAC is located.

During our interactions, the response of the Public Authority of the Ministry of Environment and Forests was hostile  and high-handed, even making direct allegations against Gene Campaign. Given below are the comments made by the Public Authority (Respondent) after Gene Campaign's complaint under section 18 of the RTI Act, along with Gene Campaign's responses.

The Respondent has accepted that GEAC and RCGM work in close cooperation with each other then why is there the delay in transferring the request to the DBT.

The Respondent claims that the complainant should have provided the specific details of the information sought. GC The information sought is clear and specific. The Respondent should have clarified with the complainant what was  not specific.

v

The Respondent alleges that Dr Sahai has been a former member of the GEAC and conversant with the functioning of the Public Authorities.

That precisely is the reason why she is aware when information is available and when it is being concealed.

The Respondent claims that it involves huge amount of work just to find out as to which was the concerned department.

Does it mean that the Department does not keep the records of its functioning in a way, which can be easily referred and accessed?

The Respondent alleges that information sought comes more in the ambit of  "inquiry" rather than "information".

We would like to mention that the inquiry made was for the information sought.

The Respondent has interpreted information as defined under S.2 (f)as information, which should be easily available in the form of a document.

GC

This is an absurd interpretation. First of all, the section very clearly defines information as "any material in any  form", which makes it very clear that it need not be in the form of a document. Reference is also made available to the provisions for file and file notings being classified as information [Central Information Commission decision in Appeal No.ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006 decided on 31st January,2006 (Satyapal  v. CPIO, TCIL)]

×GenenewsHomeØ                                                                                          NextØ