Module 02 — §4 suo-motu disclosure compliance audit

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 20:07:45 +0000

2026/05/03 12:08	current
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%>
	+	Goal: Use §4 to expose what authorities should be publishing but aren't.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== What §4(1)(b) requires =====
	+
	+	17 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	+	- For each of the 17 §4(1)(b) categories, mark: published / partial / missing / outdated.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}}

Right to Information Wiki

Module 02 — §4 suo-motu disclosure compliance audit