This response was clearly contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act. There is no provision requiring an applicant to give reasons why information is being sought or requiring the applicant to state what use he is going to make of it. There is certainly nothing that allows the public information officer anywhere, let alone a prison official, to summon the applicant before him. All this was put down in a letter to the jail authorities. A clear response was sought as to whether the information was going to be provided. If not, the applicant would go into appeal.

This worked. On August 8, the applicant heard from the Vadodara jail superintendent asking for fees to be deposited and the information to be collected. Though the letter was dated July 31, it was received only on August 8. On August 23, the applicant sent the fees by money order to the Vadodara Central Jail. There was no response, no receipt, no information. Several calls to the jail superintendent elicited no response. Inquiries at the post office met with the same fate. Finally a complaint to the post master confirmed that the money order had been received on September 14. This proof of payment was photocopied and sent off with yet another letter to the jail superintendent. On September 31, the applicant finally received the information. It had taken three and a half months.

The information revealed that parole is not easily given; that it is a privilege prisoners get under very restricted circumstances and in particular to attend to personal emergencies; that before parole is granted, the police are required to make on-the-ground inquiries and send their assessment back to the authorities; that the police almost routinely object to parole on the grounds that it may give rise to a law and order problem; that the entire process takes a long time, even when an application is successful.

... contd.