Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(activists module 02, §4 suo-motu disclosure compliance audit)&metatag-description=(RTI for Activists & NGOs — Module 02: §4 suo-motu disclosure compliance audit. Use §4 to expose what authorities should be publishing but arent.)}}
+====== Module 02 — §4 suo-motu disclosure compliance audit ======
+{{ :social:auto:activists-module-02.png?direct&1200 |RTI for Activists & NGOs Module 02}}
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**Quick Reply:** RTI for Activists & NGOs — Module 02: §4 suo-motu disclosure compliance audit. Use §4 to expose what authorities should be publishing but arent.
+</WRAP>
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**Goal:** Use §4 to expose what authorities should be publishing but aren't.
+</WRAP>
+===== What §4(1)(b) requires =====
+categories every public authority MUST publish suo motu (without an RTI request):
+  - (i) particulars of organisation
+  - (ii) powers + duties of officers + employees
+  - (iii) decision-making procedure
+  - (iv) norms for discharge of functions
+  - (v) rules + regulations + manuals
+  - (vi) categories of documents held
+  - (vii) particulars of consultative bodies
+  - (viii) directories of officers
+  - (ix) salary scales
+  - (x) budget
+  - (xi) subsidy programmes
+  - **(xii) beneficiary lists** [killer one]
+  - (xiii) concessions, permits granted
+  - (xiv) electronic records held
+  - (xv) facilities for citizen info
+  - (xvi) PIO names
+  - (xvii) any other
+===== §4(1)(b)(xii) — the beneficiary list =====
+Every public authority must publish lists of beneficiaries of programmes it administers. **Almost no authority complies.** That non-compliance is itself the story.
+Campaign template:
+  - File 1-question RTI: "Provide the §4(1)(b)(xii) beneficiary list for [scheme] for FY [year], as required by the RTI Act."
+  - PIO can't refuse — it's a mandatory disclosure.
+  - PIO either provides (publishable) or refuses (which is itself a §20 penalty motion).
+===== Compliance audit framework =====
+Build a §4 compliance scorecard for any authority:
+  - Visit the authority's website.
+  - For each of the 17 §4(1)(b) categories, mark: published / partial / missing / outdated.
+  - Score out of 17.
+  - Cross-link RTI for what's missing.
+NGO Centre for Civil Society + Transparent Chennai have done this for ULBs — typical score is 6-8/17.
+===== CIC complaints under §18 =====
+Distinct from §19 appeals — §18 is a **complaint** to the CIC/SIC about systemic non-compliance with §4 (or §6, §7). No fee. No 30-day limit.
+Use §18 when:
+  - Authority repeatedly fails to publish §4 disclosures
+  - PIO is unidentifiable
+  - There's no decision to appeal (because there's no acknowledged application)
+§18 can result in CIC penalty under §20 against the authority's chief.
+===== Public-interest petition follow-up =====
+After CIC issues directions on §4 non-compliance, file a **PIL** in the relevant HC if compliance still doesn't follow. Major precedent: *DAV College Trust v. Director of Public Instructions* — schools must publish under §4 even though they're aided NGOs.
+===== ✅ Quiz =====
+Quiz available from your [[:courses:activists:app|course dashboard]].
+===== Next =====
+  * [[:courses:activists:start|← Course overview]]
+  * Next: [[:courses:activists:final]]
+//Last reviewed: 24 April 2026.//
+{{tag>course activists module-02}}