F. No 14/9/2014 – IR (Vol.II)

Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Greivances and Pensions
(Department of Personnel and Training)
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Dated the $29^{\text {th }}$ October, 2015
Office Memorandum
Subject: Guidelines on Internship for Undergraduates pursuing five year integrated course in Law or graduates pursuing Bachelor’s degree in Law under the Centrally sponsored Scheme on “Improving Transparency and Accountability in government through effective implementation of Right to Information Act”

1.0 Introduction

The Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, is the nodal Ministry for the Right to Information Act. It is administering a Plan scheme titled ‘Improving Transparency and Accountability in Government through effective Implementation of the Right to Information Act’. The primary goal of the scheme is to contribute towards more accountable and transparent government and it has several components including programmes for awareness generation, training and e-governance initiatives for RTI for achieving the purpose.

Department of Personnel and Training has been conducting Internship Programme for the Ministries and Departments in the Government of India, which is beneficial both to the Departments and the interns. This will help the Ministry/ Department consolidate and document its experience in the implementation of RTI, its successes, constraints in implementation, identify the areas which need more attention, address the gap areas and suggest what more needs to be done to help achieve the objectives of the Act. The interns would be familiarized with the process of seeking information and enabling access to information under the RTI regime.

Under the scheme, DOPT is offering short-term internships to Undergraduates who are in the second year pursuing five year integrated course in Law or graduates in the first year pursuing three year graduation course in Law from a recognised and reputed University to conduct an analysis of RTI Applications in select public authorities.

2.0 Areas of Study and Research Output

The RTI Internship is being offered to analyze a sample of the RTI applications received in the calendar year 2014 by select public authorities. The analysis of the applications would aim to get an overall picture of the applications received and do an in-depth study of the information sought and the response by the CPIO/ Public Authority. Templates of the expected outputs are enclosed. Template I covers the preliminary analysis of the Public Authority while Template II covers the detailed analysis of the selected RTI applications. The interns would also study the status of suo motudisclosure of the Ministry/Department allotted to them for their internship and would submit a report in this regard, as per the guidelines mentioned at Annexure I.

3.0 Guidelines/ Salient Features of the Internship Programme

4.0 Methodology

a) The Department of Personnel and Training will coordinate with the selected Public Authorities for the internship programme. b) An initiation workshop will be held for the interns at the beginning of the internship. The work of the interns will be monitored through weekly interactions with the interns by the Department of Personnel and Training. c) The interns will be allotted to selected Public Authorities. The interns will report to a nodal officer of the selected Public Authority. The interns will spend 2(two) weeks to study and analyze the RTI applications and one week to study the status of suo motu disclosure of the Ministry/Department concerned. The last week would be devoted to writing the report. d) The interns are required to find out what are the major queries / complaints on policy initiative that the citizens are desiring to address. e) Based on the analyses of RTI applications made by them the interns have to make specific recommendations regarding the following points in their report: (i) Various kinds of information / documents of the Department that can be included in the suo-motu disclosures (ii) Major governance policy initiatives that can be taken to improve governance.f) The interns will be required to study the applications received by atleast 5 CPIOs within the public authority which receive the maximum applications. They will be required to select randomly 100 applications of last two years.
g) Copies of all RTI applications analysed will be submitted to DOPT alongwith the report. A soft copy of the templates and report on suo motu disclosure has to be submitted to the email id usir-dopt@nic.in by $28^{\text {th }}$ February, 2016. Non submission of either will be treated as an incomplete report.

(G. S Arora)

Deputy Secretary (IR)
Tel No. 23092755
e-mail osdrti-dopt@nic.in# ANNEXURE -I

REPORT ON SUO MOTU DISCLOSURE BY THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY

The interns should study the status of suo motu disclosure in detail and should also discuss about the same with the concerned officer(s) of the public authority. After detailed analysis and discussion, the interns should submit a report on the status of suo motu disclosure. The report should, inter-alia, cover the following points:
(i) The quantity of information displayed under suo motu disclosure viz. the number and details of items displayed, with regard to section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 and DoPT’s OM No.1/6/2011IR dated 15.04.2013;
(ii) The quality of such information displayed (against each item) viz. whether complete information has been displayed, whether the information displayed is easily understandable by any citizens, whether information displayed is easily searchable etc.;
(iii) Whether the information displayed is regularly updated, with dates of updation;
(iv) Problems being faced, if any, by the public authority in making suo motu disclosure;
(v) Additional resources required, if any, by the public authority for better suo motu disclosure;
(vi) Whether any officer(s)/section(s) has been given the responsibility of ensuring adequate quantity and quality of suo motu disclosure and details thereof;
(vii) Whether any audit of the suo motu disclosure has been made within the Department or by any independent agency and details thereof.
(viii) Various kinds of information / documents of the Department that can be included in the suo-motu disclosures| TEMPLATE I -Public Authority Level Analysis | | | |
| — | — | — | — |
| SI. No | | | |
| 1 | No of applications recieved by the PA in 2015 | | |
| 2 | No of CPIOs in the PA | | |
| 3 | Level of CPIOS | Section Officer | |
| | | Under Secretary | |
| | | Deputy Secretary/ | |
| 4 | No of CPIOs trained | $100 \%$ | |
| | | $50 \%$ | |
| 5 | No of CPIOs trained | | |
| 6 | RTI Cell | Yes | |
| | | No | |
| 7 | LOGO displayed on stationary | Yes | |
| | | No | |
| 8 | Logo displayed on the point of receiving applications | Yes | |
| | | No | |
| 9 | infrastructure availbility | photocopier | |
| | | scanner | |
| | | CD writer | |
| 10 | suo moto disclosure | 17 points | |
| | | 14-16 points | |
| | | 10-13 points | |
| | | $<10$ points | |
| 11 | Yearly updation of suo motu disclosure | Yes | |
| | | No | |
| 12 | Time Dating of suo motu disclosure | Yes | |
| | | No | |
| 13 | Responsibity of Suo motu disclosure | 1 Nodal officer | |
| | | Distributed | |
| 14 | RTI-MIS use | Yes | |
| | | No | |
| 15 | No of penalties imposed on the CPIOs of the Public Authority during 2014-15 | | |
| 16 | No of cases of disciplinary proceedings recommended by CIC during 2014-15 | | || Template II -Detailed Analysis of the RTI Applications | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Sl. No | | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| Basic Information | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1 | Applicant Government employee | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2 | Applicant from the same Public Authority | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 3 | Is the applicant a regular information seeker | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 4 | application received online thru web portal | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 5 | Application Date | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 6 | Date of receipt in Public Authority | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || Content of application | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 7 | No of questions asked | 1 to 5 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | 6 to 10 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | $>10$ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 8 | Approx no of words used in framing question | $<200$ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | 201 to 500 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | $>500$ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 9 | Application relates to | Information | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Clarification | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Grievance | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 10 | Information Sought on issues related to | Policy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Personnel | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Third Party | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | procurement related | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Public Grievance | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Without any apparent purpose | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | multiple issues | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 11 | Information on life and liberty | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 12 | Information sought relating to | Current Year | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Last 1 year | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Last 1 to 5 years | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | $>5$ years old | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 13 | Information sought relates to number of public authorities | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | 2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | $>2$ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 14 | Pages of information sought | 1 to 5 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | 6 to 10 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | 10 to 50 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | $>50$ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 15 | Application linked to an event or new poicy decision | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 16 | Information is available in Public Domain | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Information sought | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || 17 | under the purview of Suo Motu disclosure | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | Application transferred under section 6(3) | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 19 | Transferred in time | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Reply to Information | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 20 | Information sought given | complete | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | partial | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | rejected | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 21 | Reasons for rejection given | under section(s) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | NA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 22 | Reasons for partial information | records not available | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | partly transferred | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | partly rejected u/s | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | NA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 23 | Third party consulted | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | NA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 24 | exempt information disclosed due to public interest | yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 25 | assistance sought from other officers | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 26 | Information given but after due date | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 27 | Inspection sought | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 28 | Inspection given within 30 days | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 29 | Inspection time | <1 hour | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 to 4 hours | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 day | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | || | | | >1 day | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| | | | | Experience of CPIO | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 30 | Giving Reply is | | difficult | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | easy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 31 | Reply to RTI
aplications consume | | considerable time | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | not much of time | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 32 | Resources available
for RTI replies such as
scanner, printer etc. | | adequate | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | insufficient | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 33 | Inspection of
files/documents by
applicants –
diffficulties faced | | consume a lot of time | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | space constraint | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | A staff has to be spared for inspection | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | No such difficulty | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 34 | Online RTI portal has
made handling RTI
applications | | Easier | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | more difficult | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 35 | Requirement of CPIO | | additional manpower | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | training | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | Legal person to attend CIC hearings | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 36 | CIC hearings | | consume a lot of time | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | very few hearings | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 37 | Penalty imposed by
CIC | | yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | Only Show cause notice | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | Not even SCN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | Record Management | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 38 | Have the records been
indexed and
catalogued as
provided in section
4(1)(a) of RTI Act | | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | No | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 39 | Have the records been
digitised | | Yes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |