Under the proposed RTI Bill ( Clause 2 ), a citizen should have a right to information from the Judiciary also. But this right should not mean that we can ask about why a particular judgment has been made one way and not the other. It means, one can ask about why the date of hearing of his case has been delayed and the like.

Under the present dispensation, a citizen has no right to ask the Media Organizations for information on the source of the views they publish. As a result, a lot of rumour and trash are published daily in the newspapers. The Draft Bill ( Clause 2) should include a person's Right to Information from the Media.Speaking otherwise, the media should be declared as Competent Authorities for passing the desired information to a citizen.

Regarding the procedure of disposal of an Application on Information ( Clause 6), the Draft Bill provides for 30 days within which the concerned Competent Authority shall comply with or reject the application. But the common sense says that one should not take a long period of 30 days for rejection of an application. So my suggestion is that a Competent Authority should take a maximum of 7 days for letting the citizen know about the rejection of a case.

Under the Clause 7 ( Appeals), a provision is there for a second appeal to Lok Pal. But in Orissa's context, Lok Pal is a Retd. Judge appointed by the Government, who sits in the Capital as a one-man institution. If a man in Kalahandi district is wrongfully refused information by the Collector, is it possible for that man of Kalahandi to come to Bhubaneswar all the way to lodge a complaint with Lok Pal? So this provision of Lok Pal should be deleted and in it's place a more practicable and locally accessible authority or agency should be made as an appellate authority.

The Clause 10 ( State Council for Right to Information) should provide for a woman activist to be a member of the Council.