v

The Respondent alleges that the person seeking information must specify the nature of document requested which if held by public authority and subject to satisfaction of other provisions of the Act, can be handed over to said person.

GC

It is not for the applicant to specify the nature of the document, as s/he is not conversant with the manner in  which information is kept in the government departments.

GC

The complainant does not have access to government's information. The onus under the Act is on the Public  Authority to access the information and provide it to the applicant.

v

The Respondent claims that the RTI is not intended to enable people to enter into a dialogue with the Public Authority.

GC

This is precisely why the information should be provided clearly and completely in first instance.

v

The Respondent alleges that the complainant sought to enter into "fishing inquiry" with the Respondent.

GC

We would request the Respondent to explain "fishing inquiry", the allegation appears false and baseless

v

The Respondent claims that the complainant visited the office of the Respondent and was given an opportunity to go through the available documents and has selected certain documents and the copies of the same were handed over to him.

GC

The claim of the Respondent does not reveal the complete truth. The complainant received the reply vide letter  dated 25.01.06 from Ms Madhu Gupta on 4.02.06, whereby he was told to deposit Rs 1,414/-@Rs 2 per page and collect the document related to Biosafety assessment in respect of Bt cotton. His request to inspect other information like file and file notings was however specifically denied on the ground that the RTI Act does not include such provision. When the complainant went to receive the documents, only pre-selected documents on biosafety assessment of Bt cotton were made available to him and he was asked to select the documents he required from the documents selected by the department, which he did accordingly.

v

The Respondent claims that the facts of the matter are of a very complex nature and providing the information for the same is a very lengthy and complicated process.

GC

The Government of India had started the process of computerizing government and public sector records way  back in early 1990s. It is approximately ten years since the process was started. It should not take that long for an IT enabled establishment like the government of India to digitalize the information it has and make it easily accessible. In any case, this is not an admissible reason for denying information.

v

The Respondent claims that it has been providing the information as and when it has been possible to do so.

GC

This argument is arbitrary and against the provisions of the RTI Act. The Act doesn't talk about providing the information as and when possible by the PIO, but requires the PIO to provide the information as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 30 days of the receipt of the request u/s 7(1).

v

The Respondent claims that it is nowhere required of a public authority to provide access to information over which the government itself has no control in the form of a documentary reply.

GC

This is a regretful statement. Since it is precisely to introduce good governance and transparency in the decision making that the RTI Act was introduced. A government department cannot take the plea that it has no control over information related to the decisions it takes. Biosafety is one of the most important concerns with respect to enetically engineered crops. In fact, that is the principal mandate of the GEAC. In response to Gene Campaign's request for information about the data obtained from toxicity and allergenicity tests conducted on genetically engineered crops, the response of the DBT was to deny the data, saying that toxicity and allergenicity data generated on transgenic crops that have yet to get approval for commercial cultivation, are the intellectual property of the applicant and cannot be provided. This is an absurd contention since data that relates to public safety cannot be considered  confidential and it cannot be withheld from the public. Such data is routinely available from regulatory agencies in other countries where transgenic crops are developed.

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. With the refusal to divulge safety data, the public has no way of finding out whether the crops that GEAC approves are dangerously poisonous, likely to provoke allergies, or safe to eat. I give below a tabulation showing several instances where the relevant departments of the government have refused to provide the information requested.

×Back                       ×GenenewsHomeØ                                                              NextØ