Proactive Disclosure — Ethical Framework

Ethical Framework

Section 4(1)(a) concerns organised records, including cataloguing, indexing and appropriate computerisation under the stated conditions. Clause (b) specifies institutional publication categories and annual updating. Its original 120-day requirement relates to enactment, not a fresh response deadline for each individual RTI request. Keep these statutory functions distinct.

Clause (c) concerns relevant facts in important policy formulation or decisions affecting the public. Clause (d) concerns reasons for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. A general organisational chart does not explain why one applicant's case was rejected, while giving that applicant reasons does not replace broader institutional publication.

Sections 4(2)–(4) address proactive provision, wide dissemination and accessible forms, including attention to local language and suitable communication methods. An unsearchable scan may technically be online while remaining difficult for intended users. A service-rule page should make the current criteria, process and responsible contact understandable.

Repeated requests for the same fee can reveal a gap. Verify the rule, publish it clearly and assign an update owner. Retain meaningful version information where needed; changing a displayed date without reviewing the content does not establish currency. Assess privacy and other applicable protections when releasing datasets. Aggregated performance information may support scrutiny without unnecessary personal exposure, but the suitable form depends on the actual record and law.