The provided text highlights common shortcomings in the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. It points out that in many offices, the designation boards for Public Information Officers (PIOs) are not displayed. PIOs often avoid accepting applications from applicants. There’s a trend where Information Officers and Assistant Information Officers deliberately neglect their duties and roles as defined by the law. Other office staff mistakenly believe that providing information is solely the PIO’s responsibility, indicating a lack of seriousness about the law within the organization.

A significant number of applications are not answered within the stipulated thirty-day period, and applicants are frequently asked for extensions. Many citizens lack complete knowledge of the law, leading them to ask questions that are not in the form of specific information requests. Consequently, PIOs often fail to provide the relevant records containing the information sought, resulting in an increase in appeals.

Easily accessible information is also not provided within the prescribed time limits. Letters regarding fees are often sent towards the end of the month, and they frequently lack specific details about the charges. In many cases, complete information is not provided. Instead of just sending a rejection letter, a detailed order with reasons and information about the next appeal process, as mentioned in the Act’s provisions, is necessary.

Furthermore, the text discusses guidelines for inspecting public records. Items like blades, scissors, bags, cameras, and mobile phones are prohibited during inspections. Ideally, the public authority should provide pencils and blank paper; otherwise, applicants are only allowed to bring these items. These rules are deemed necessary due to various past experiences shared by both parties involved in record inspections.

Finally, the text suggests several measures for improvement: administrative heads of public authorities should review RTI-related work monthly; all employees should understand that the RTI Act is their responsibility, not just PIOs and appellate authorities, requiring training, incentives for good work, and action against improper conduct; observing an “RTI Day” monthly, similar to “Lokshahi Din,” would be beneficial for reviewing pending applications; and information published on a website under Section 4 of the Act is insufficient – citizens must also be provided with this information in written form upon request, as not everyone has access to computers.