Amendments to RTI Act on the anvil
New Delhi, November 14, 2009
Vidya Subrahmaniam
The Department of Personnel and Training (Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievance and Pensions) has admitted that the government is
considering amendments to the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The admission, which came at a meeting between RTI activists and DoPT
Secretary Shantanu Consul on Saturday, ended the suspense over whether
or not the government was contemplating amendments to the RTI.
For complete news visit:
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article48769.ece
For More Info Log on to www.rtigroup.org
|
Subscribe to RTI Group | |
| Browse Archives at groups.google.com | ||
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Bihar launches helpline to file RTI complaint
State launches helpline to file RTI complaint
Sanjeev Kumar Verma, TNN 13 November 2009, 07:43am IST
PATNA: Yet another first in India from Bihar has come to make the Right to Information (RTI), Act, people friendly. This pertains to launching of a
new helpline, by using which people can file complaints against the government officials who harass them for seeking information using the RTI tool.
CM Nitish Kumar dedicated the helpline (0612-2219435) for public use here on Thursday during a programme organised by state information commission (SIC), Bihar, to felicitate the performing public information officers (PIOs).
The CM himself made the first complaint using the helpline against Rajnagar block supply officer in Madhubani district.
For complete news pl visit:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/State-launches-helpline-to-file-RTI-complaint/articleshow/5224667.cms
Sanjeev Kumar Verma, TNN 13 November 2009, 07:43am IST
PATNA: Yet another first in India from Bihar has come to make the Right to Information (RTI), Act, people friendly. This pertains to launching of a
new helpline, by using which people can file complaints against the government officials who harass them for seeking information using the RTI tool.
CM Nitish Kumar dedicated the helpline (0612-2219435) for public use here on Thursday during a programme organised by state information commission (SIC), Bihar, to felicitate the performing public information officers (PIOs).
The CM himself made the first complaint using the helpline against Rajnagar block supply officer in Madhubani district.
For complete news pl visit:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/State-launches-helpline-to-file-RTI-complaint/articleshow/5224667.cms
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
CIC Selection PIL is not yet heard: TOI mis-reported Judges’ questions during hearing for admission
Dear fellow activists, Relax! Stop worrying! We haven’t lost our PIL against arbitrary selection of CICs. In fact, it hasn’t even begun. The report in Times of India wrongly suggests that the Chief Justice already gave an adverse order while dismissing our PIL. That is emphatically not the case!
The fact is that our PIL was very briefly heard for admission by Delhi High Court yesterday. In fact, it was not even properly heard; the main hearing is scheduled for 18th November, where we will be represented by well-known lawyer Prashant Bhushan.
Below is Advocate A Rasheed Qureshi’s detailed report of Chief Justice’s questions and his answers:
In the first call (10.45 AM), I mentioned that I was seeking a passover as Mr Prashant Bhushan was to appear in my matter. The Chief justice remarked that our matter was premature as the new CCIC had not yet been appointed. I said that our matter was not about canvassing for any particular person X,Y or Z to be made the CCIC. If that was the case it would surely be premature, because then we must wait to see who is made the CCIC, and then move the court. In the present case, we were saying that the 3-member selection group was acting without any guidelines, criteria, rules etc and hence was violative of the Constitution. Acting in a void, without administrative guidelines, meant that they could pick and choose any one of their choice to the detriment of the public at large.
I stressed that all that I was asking was that there must be administrative guidelines, some criteria and the process must be generally known through Rules under the RTI Act. In the absence of this, there was likelihood of persons being selected who had conflict of interest qua their duties under the Post held and the appointing class of persons i.e. politicians.
At this, the CJ asked, "Do you say that bureaucrats must not be appointed?" I said, No, I don’t say that either. All I say is that the Act contemplates that People of eminence in law, social activism etc. PLUS those in administration and governance. So people from other categories also must be considered for the post of CCIC. Also, this must be done keeping in mind that bureaucrats are likely to have a conflict of interest in discharge of duty. CIC’s work is a quasi judicial work which requires decision-making, and sometime hard decision need to be taken.
This Act is in a nascent stage in India while other countries like Australia, UK & Canada have already evolved Best Practices in this field which we need to incorporate. Advertising this post is one good way, though not the only way, to make it transparent.
The Court asked if I was challenging the RTI Act. I said, No.
The matter is adjourned to 18th November. That gives us 9 days to prepare with more case laws.
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Courtesy: [rti4empowerment]
The fact is that our PIL was very briefly heard for admission by Delhi High Court yesterday. In fact, it was not even properly heard; the main hearing is scheduled for 18th November, where we will be represented by well-known lawyer Prashant Bhushan.
Below is Advocate A Rasheed Qureshi’s detailed report of Chief Justice’s questions and his answers:
In the first call (10.45 AM), I mentioned that I was seeking a passover as Mr Prashant Bhushan was to appear in my matter. The Chief justice remarked that our matter was premature as the new CCIC had not yet been appointed. I said that our matter was not about canvassing for any particular person X,Y or Z to be made the CCIC. If that was the case it would surely be premature, because then we must wait to see who is made the CCIC, and then move the court. In the present case, we were saying that the 3-member selection group was acting without any guidelines, criteria, rules etc and hence was violative of the Constitution. Acting in a void, without administrative guidelines, meant that they could pick and choose any one of their choice to the detriment of the public at large.
I stressed that all that I was asking was that there must be administrative guidelines, some criteria and the process must be generally known through Rules under the RTI Act. In the absence of this, there was likelihood of persons being selected who had conflict of interest qua their duties under the Post held and the appointing class of persons i.e. politicians.
At this, the CJ asked, "Do you say that bureaucrats must not be appointed?" I said, No, I don’t say that either. All I say is that the Act contemplates that People of eminence in law, social activism etc. PLUS those in administration and governance. So people from other categories also must be considered for the post of CCIC. Also, this must be done keeping in mind that bureaucrats are likely to have a conflict of interest in discharge of duty. CIC’s work is a quasi judicial work which requires decision-making, and sometime hard decision need to be taken.
This Act is in a nascent stage in India while other countries like Australia, UK & Canada have already evolved Best Practices in this field which we need to incorporate. Advertising this post is one good way, though not the only way, to make it transparent.
The Court asked if I was challenging the RTI Act. I said, No.
The matter is adjourned to 18th November. That gives us 9 days to prepare with more case laws.
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Courtesy: [rti4empowerment]
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Officials implicating info seekers to be punished
Officials implicating info seekers to be punished
TNN 10 November 2009, 05:44am IST
PATNA: Taking serious note of the people being victimised by officials for seeking information under RTI Act, CM Nitish Kumar on Monday issued
instruction to top officials to take strict and quick action against the erring officials.
At a high-level meeting, Nitish directed the senior officials to identify the government servants accused of implicating information seekers in false cases and ensure that they are also penalized. He said for the information seekers who have been implicated in false cases a helpline should be started.
To begin with, this helpline will be started from the Jankari call centres and later on a separate telephone number be made available to the victims and this facility be publicised for the common people.
Those present at the meeting included chief secretary Anup Mukherjee, DGP Anand Shankar, principal secretary, home, Amir Subhani, principal secretary, personnel, Dipak Kumar, ADG (HQs) U S Dutt and CM's principal secretary R C P Singh.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Officials-implicating-info-seekers-to-be-punished/articleshow/5213721.cms
TNN 10 November 2009, 05:44am IST
PATNA: Taking serious note of the people being victimised by officials for seeking information under RTI Act, CM Nitish Kumar on Monday issued
instruction to top officials to take strict and quick action against the erring officials.
At a high-level meeting, Nitish directed the senior officials to identify the government servants accused of implicating information seekers in false cases and ensure that they are also penalized. He said for the information seekers who have been implicated in false cases a helpline should be started.
To begin with, this helpline will be started from the Jankari call centres and later on a separate telephone number be made available to the victims and this facility be publicised for the common people.
Those present at the meeting included chief secretary Anup Mukherjee, DGP Anand Shankar, principal secretary, home, Amir Subhani, principal secretary, personnel, Dipak Kumar, ADG (HQs) U S Dutt and CM's principal secretary R C P Singh.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Officials-implicating-info-seekers-to-be-punished/articleshow/5213721.cms
Friday, November 6, 2009
CIC Selection: How PMO and DOPT bulldozed 3 RTI Applicants
Central Information Commissioners are selected arbitrarily. You need proof? C J Karira -- a fellow petitioner in our PIL filed in Delhi High Court this week -- emailed me some classic second-appeal orders passed by Chief CIC Wajahat. Three different RTI applicants asked: “Yes, we understand about Prime Minister’s Recommendation Committee and the selection criteria outlined in RTI Act sec. 12(5) and 12(6), but tell us: By what process did biodatas of current CICs land up before the committee? On what grounds were the present CICs selected? And who were the candidates rejected by this committee? Or rejected by DOPT, which puts up candidates to this committee?”
In a nutshell, the reply of PMO and DOPT was: “We appoint CICs as per Section 12 of RTI Act. That is the answer to all your questions. Now mind your own business.” Three RTI applicants had three approaches. DOPT and PMO found many ways to evade them:
One asked pointwise questions, and was told in reply to different questions: “Refer to RTI Section 12, and bugger off!” Wajahat politely concurred.
One applied to PMO, and was directed to DOPT.
Another asked DOPT, and was told that DOPT could not possibly have the information; maybe PMO had the information. In an elaborately reasoned order, Wajahat upheld this dubious claim.
One asked for a true copy of files, and was told to take inspection.
Another went for inspection and saw PMO and DOPT perform three different tricks:
· shuttled the applicant between PMO and DOPT
· showed partial or no meaningful information.
· When she appealed, she was told that the information was classified as confidential, disclosing it was not in public interest, and it was denied under Official Secrets Act 1923 and also Manual of Departmental Security Instructions.
Turning a blind eye to all these self-contradictions, Wajahat opined that it was the discretion of PMO and DOPT whether or not to give this information.
Want the case-by-case details? Read this:
CASE NO. 1
Activist C J Karira, who happened to be present as an observer on 22-12-2008, vividly describes the proceedings: “The hearing lasted for about 22 minutes. The PIO did not utter one single word. She only used facial and body expressions: smile, nod, shaking of head, etc. All the talking was done by the Hon'ble CCIC himself who put up a very spirited defence on behalf of the CPIO.”
Below are highlights from Wajahat’s order dismissing Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01066 dated 14-11-2007.
[To read the full order, go to http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-22122008-01.pdf ]
By an application of 21-4-07, J S Bhattacharjee, a Delhi resident, asked DOPT:
Question: Government’s policy/ principle guidelines etc for the collection of names of expected CIC to be sent to the Recommendation Committee for selection.
The answer was: Clause (5) and (6) of Section 12 of RTI Act prescribe the conditions for appointment to the posts of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Central Information Commissioners (IC). There is no other laid down policy/principle/ guidelines on the subject.
Question: Whether names of CIC are collected on ‘pick & choose’ basis or on the basis of the recommendations of Ministers
Answer: Persons for the post of CIC are considered on the basis of conditions contained in above referred provisions of the Act. No other information in the matter is available.
Question: Whether there was a system of “Search Committee” for collecting probable names and how the five names for CIC
Answer: As per available information there was no search Committee to collect probable names. No further information in the matter is available.
Question: How the five names for CIC have been finally selected by the Government leaving hundreds of qualified officials
Answer: The selections were made by the Selection Committee. No other information is available in the matter.
Question: Whether the post of CIC is meant only for retired official
Answer: No.
Question: Whether the present CIC had applied for the post and if so, the source of his information of vacancy
Answer: Information in this regard is not available.
Question: Whether government advertised for the post of CIC and when? Answer: The post was not advertised.
Question: Government policy/ principle for the appointment of only five CIC/ICs and not the 10 CIC(s) as per provision of the Act
Answer: Section 12 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that the Central Government may appoint such number of Central Information Commissioner not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary. The Government had appointed four Information Commissioners in addition to the Chief Information Commissioner on the basis of the need felt by the Government.
Question: In total, how many candidates were in the race for the post of CIC/ICs. Names of all candidates and their present designation and address be sent to me for my information
Answer: the information is not available.
Question: Whether non selected candidates for the post of CIC have been duly intimated with the cause for their non selection
Answer: In view of the position given in respect of point No. 9 above, question does not arise.
Question: Certified copies of Government decision regarding the non-appointment of 5 CICs
Answer: No such documents are available.
Question: Certified copies of Recommendation Committee “file notings” for the final selection of 5 CICs
Answer: the appellant was requested by the CPIO to deposit an amount of Rs. 2/- by way of cash or bankers’ cheque of Indian Postal Order in favour of Account Officer, Department of Personnel and Training as required under the provisions of RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. The appellant has not deposited the requisite amount so far.
How did Wajahat uphold this? His order, dictated soon after the hearing, reasoned thus: “Appellant Shri Bhattacharjee contended that since the Committee appointing or recommending appointment of Information Commissioners to the President was a ‘Selection’ Committee of the DoPT as was clear from the answer received by him from 1st appellate authority to Q. 4, it was governed by the guidelines issued by the DoPT in regard to the procedure to be followed by a Selection Committee.
DECISION NOTICE
“The Committee set up u/s 12 (3) of the RTI Act cannot be deemed to be a Departmental Committee or Departmental Selection Committee. This is a Committee set up through the RTI Act 2005 not by Government but, through the very enactment of this law, by Parliament in order to make recommendations to the President of India on appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners of the Central Information Commission. The response of the DoPT in this regard is correct in that the Department is only a servicing instrument for this Committee. The reference to the Committee as a Selection Committee by Shri K.G. Verma, Director in disposing of the first appeal is not to place this Committee in the category of a Departmental Selection Committee but only with reference to its purpose, which is indeed the selection of individuals it considers to be of eminence, which it recommends to the President of India for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner /Information Commissioner.
“Seen in this context it is quite conceivable that the DoPT, which is the only the servicing organisation, maintains no records of deliberations of this Committee, which the group is not required to maintain if they do in fact exist, other than its recommendations, which CPIO Ms. Zoya agreed before us is a document held by the DoPT. In light of the above it is clear that all information sought by appellant has, in fact, been provided within the definition of Section 2 (j), to the extent that that information is held or under the control of the public authority, in this case the DOPT.
“If, as pleaded by appellant before us, Shri Bhattacharjee would wish to inspect the letter of recommendation received from the Committee by the Department as submitted to the President of India, this will have to be sought through an application for the purpose made u/s 6 (1) of the RTI Act to the CPIO in the DoPT, which appellant is free to do. The present appeal being without substance is hereby dismissed.”
CASE NO. 2
Ms Vishaish Uppal of Gulmohar Park applied to Kamal Dayani, CPIO, Prime Minister’s Office on 22.11.2005 seeking to inspect files, papers etc. relating to the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners. She subsequently received a copy of a letter from Kamal Dayani, CPIO indicating that the case had been transferred to DOPT Director Hari Kumar. In response Hari Kumar, Director in the Dept. of Personnel & Training invited Ms. Uppal to inspect the records.
However, on 13.1.06 Vishaish Uppal reverted to CPIO Kamal Dayani in PMO stating that she had been shown only one file and informed by PIO Hari Kumar that files pertaining to the entire selection process are with PMO and not with DoPT.
She, therefore, asked that she may be allowed to inspect the relevant files. In response Kamal Dayani held that it was not possible to allow inspection of the relevant records in PMO. Appellate Authority Jawed Usmani, Jt. Secy. in the PM’s Office, dismissed the appeal made to the Appellate Authority on 22.2.06. The Appellate Authority had held that the papers being classified confidential and no case having been made out for making any exception under sec. 8(2) of the Act, Vishaish Uppal could not be allowed to inspect the documents.
In his order, Wajahat went into a very lengthy legal reasoning, but in the end, left it to the public authority i.e. PMO, to decide. The last part of his reasoning went like this: “The Appellate Authority, therefore, cannot withhold this information either on the ground that the information is classified as “confidential” under the Official Secrets Act or under Section 8(2) alone. However, Sec 22 as described above only overrides anything inconsistent with the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Official Secrets Act, 1923 stands neither rescinded nor abrogated. While a public authority may only withhold such information as could be brought within any of the clauses of Section 8(1), it is open to that authority to classify any of these items of information as “Confidential”, thus limiting the discretion of any other authority in respect to these.
“In this particular case, denial of information is under the orders of the Public Authority and it is open to the Public Authority to deny the information provided such denial can be justified under Section 8(1) of the Act. The Prime Minister’s Office will, therefore, re-examine the matter in view of the observations made above within fifteen days of the date of issue of the Decision Notice and it may disclose the information to the appellant, unless of course, the disclosure of the information can be denied or withheld under any of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Public Authority shall take an appropriate reasoned decision.”
[To read the full order, go to http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_22092006_2.pdf ]
CASE NO. 3
Shri Milap Choraria of Rohini, Delhi made the following application to the CPIO, PMO on 11-9-06:
“I do hope that the selection of Prof. M.M. Ansari, for the appointment of the Office of Commissioner of CIC, was certainly in pursuance to and compliance of sub-Section (5) of Section 12 of the RTI Act 2005 and in conformity with aims and objectives as enumerated in the aforesaid Act.
However, under Section 6 of the RTI Act, I wanted certified copies of the file notings of the entire file with all other related documents referred in the file notings from the respective file relating to the selection process adopted through which the Appointment of Prof. M.M. Ansari, for the office of the Commissioner of the CIC was concluded.”
This was transferred to DOPT on 14-9-06. PIO P K Misra, Under Secretary, in a letter of 12-10-06 responded: “I am to say that the term “information” as defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act excludes `file noting’. You are advised to inspect the file and the related documents other than the file noting and, if required, obtain the copies of specific documents by paying the requisite fee.”
In his order, Wajahat reasoned that file notings should also be shown. This decision of the Commission was duly communicated to the DOPT vide letter dated 26.2.2006 which was followed by a reminder on 27.3.2006 and 8.5.2006.
Milap Choraria moved another application on 29.1.’06, asking for fair and true copy of all the documents from the respective file relating to appointment of Prof M M Ansari in the CIC. To this he received no reply.
In the end, did Wajahat direct PMO or DOPT to give him the info? No.
Wajahat literally copy-pasted the reasoning from Case no. 2: “In this particular case, denial of information is under the orders of the Public Authority and it is open to the Public Authority to deny the information provided such denial can be justified under Section 8(1) of the Act. The Prime Minister’s Office will, therefore, re-examine the matter in view of the observations made above within fifteen days of the date of issue of the Decision Notice and it may disclose the information to the appellant, unless of course, the disclosure of the information can be denied or withheld under any of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Public Authority shall take an appropriate reasoned decision.”
And then Wajahat said, “In light of the above CPIO DoPT may process the present application.”
[To read the full order, go to http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_16042007_09.pdf ]
CONCLUSION: What the CCIC meant to say in all the above-mentioned three RTI Orders was: “We understand that CPIOs are denying information because PMO and DOPT are instructing them to do so. We leave it to the discretion of PMO and DOPT to do so; We are not about to tell our bosses what to do, and we are not penalizing the PIOs. RTI Act jaye bhaad mein, aur tum activist log bhi tel laganey jao!”
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Courtesy: [rti4empowerment] CIC Selection: How PMO and DOPT bullshitted 3 RTI Applicants
In a nutshell, the reply of PMO and DOPT was: “We appoint CICs as per Section 12 of RTI Act. That is the answer to all your questions. Now mind your own business.” Three RTI applicants had three approaches. DOPT and PMO found many ways to evade them:
One asked pointwise questions, and was told in reply to different questions: “Refer to RTI Section 12, and bugger off!” Wajahat politely concurred.
One applied to PMO, and was directed to DOPT.
Another asked DOPT, and was told that DOPT could not possibly have the information; maybe PMO had the information. In an elaborately reasoned order, Wajahat upheld this dubious claim.
One asked for a true copy of files, and was told to take inspection.
Another went for inspection and saw PMO and DOPT perform three different tricks:
· shuttled the applicant between PMO and DOPT
· showed partial or no meaningful information.
· When she appealed, she was told that the information was classified as confidential, disclosing it was not in public interest, and it was denied under Official Secrets Act 1923 and also Manual of Departmental Security Instructions.
Turning a blind eye to all these self-contradictions, Wajahat opined that it was the discretion of PMO and DOPT whether or not to give this information.
Want the case-by-case details? Read this:
CASE NO. 1
Activist C J Karira, who happened to be present as an observer on 22-12-2008, vividly describes the proceedings: “The hearing lasted for about 22 minutes. The PIO did not utter one single word. She only used facial and body expressions: smile, nod, shaking of head, etc. All the talking was done by the Hon'ble CCIC himself who put up a very spirited defence on behalf of the CPIO.”
Below are highlights from Wajahat’s order dismissing Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01066 dated 14-11-2007.
[To read the full order, go to http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-22122008-01.pdf ]
By an application of 21-4-07, J S Bhattacharjee, a Delhi resident, asked DOPT:
Question: Government’s policy/ principle guidelines etc for the collection of names of expected CIC to be sent to the Recommendation Committee for selection.
The answer was: Clause (5) and (6) of Section 12 of RTI Act prescribe the conditions for appointment to the posts of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Central Information Commissioners (IC). There is no other laid down policy/principle/ guidelines on the subject.
Question: Whether names of CIC are collected on ‘pick & choose’ basis or on the basis of the recommendations of Ministers
Answer: Persons for the post of CIC are considered on the basis of conditions contained in above referred provisions of the Act. No other information in the matter is available.
Question: Whether there was a system of “Search Committee” for collecting probable names and how the five names for CIC
Answer: As per available information there was no search Committee to collect probable names. No further information in the matter is available.
Question: How the five names for CIC have been finally selected by the Government leaving hundreds of qualified officials
Answer: The selections were made by the Selection Committee. No other information is available in the matter.
Question: Whether the post of CIC is meant only for retired official
Answer: No.
Question: Whether the present CIC had applied for the post and if so, the source of his information of vacancy
Answer: Information in this regard is not available.
Question: Whether government advertised for the post of CIC and when? Answer: The post was not advertised.
Question: Government policy/ principle for the appointment of only five CIC/ICs and not the 10 CIC(s) as per provision of the Act
Answer: Section 12 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that the Central Government may appoint such number of Central Information Commissioner not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary. The Government had appointed four Information Commissioners in addition to the Chief Information Commissioner on the basis of the need felt by the Government.
Question: In total, how many candidates were in the race for the post of CIC/ICs. Names of all candidates and their present designation and address be sent to me for my information
Answer: the information is not available.
Question: Whether non selected candidates for the post of CIC have been duly intimated with the cause for their non selection
Answer: In view of the position given in respect of point No. 9 above, question does not arise.
Question: Certified copies of Government decision regarding the non-appointment of 5 CICs
Answer: No such documents are available.
Question: Certified copies of Recommendation Committee “file notings” for the final selection of 5 CICs
Answer: the appellant was requested by the CPIO to deposit an amount of Rs. 2/- by way of cash or bankers’ cheque of Indian Postal Order in favour of Account Officer, Department of Personnel and Training as required under the provisions of RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. The appellant has not deposited the requisite amount so far.
How did Wajahat uphold this? His order, dictated soon after the hearing, reasoned thus: “Appellant Shri Bhattacharjee contended that since the Committee appointing or recommending appointment of Information Commissioners to the President was a ‘Selection’ Committee of the DoPT as was clear from the answer received by him from 1st appellate authority to Q. 4, it was governed by the guidelines issued by the DoPT in regard to the procedure to be followed by a Selection Committee.
DECISION NOTICE
“The Committee set up u/s 12 (3) of the RTI Act cannot be deemed to be a Departmental Committee or Departmental Selection Committee. This is a Committee set up through the RTI Act 2005 not by Government but, through the very enactment of this law, by Parliament in order to make recommendations to the President of India on appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners of the Central Information Commission. The response of the DoPT in this regard is correct in that the Department is only a servicing instrument for this Committee. The reference to the Committee as a Selection Committee by Shri K.G. Verma, Director in disposing of the first appeal is not to place this Committee in the category of a Departmental Selection Committee but only with reference to its purpose, which is indeed the selection of individuals it considers to be of eminence, which it recommends to the President of India for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner /Information Commissioner.
“Seen in this context it is quite conceivable that the DoPT, which is the only the servicing organisation, maintains no records of deliberations of this Committee, which the group is not required to maintain if they do in fact exist, other than its recommendations, which CPIO Ms. Zoya agreed before us is a document held by the DoPT. In light of the above it is clear that all information sought by appellant has, in fact, been provided within the definition of Section 2 (j), to the extent that that information is held or under the control of the public authority, in this case the DOPT.
“If, as pleaded by appellant before us, Shri Bhattacharjee would wish to inspect the letter of recommendation received from the Committee by the Department as submitted to the President of India, this will have to be sought through an application for the purpose made u/s 6 (1) of the RTI Act to the CPIO in the DoPT, which appellant is free to do. The present appeal being without substance is hereby dismissed.”
CASE NO. 2
Ms Vishaish Uppal of Gulmohar Park applied to Kamal Dayani, CPIO, Prime Minister’s Office on 22.11.2005 seeking to inspect files, papers etc. relating to the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners. She subsequently received a copy of a letter from Kamal Dayani, CPIO indicating that the case had been transferred to DOPT Director Hari Kumar. In response Hari Kumar, Director in the Dept. of Personnel & Training invited Ms. Uppal to inspect the records.
However, on 13.1.06 Vishaish Uppal reverted to CPIO Kamal Dayani in PMO stating that she had been shown only one file and informed by PIO Hari Kumar that files pertaining to the entire selection process are with PMO and not with DoPT.
She, therefore, asked that she may be allowed to inspect the relevant files. In response Kamal Dayani held that it was not possible to allow inspection of the relevant records in PMO. Appellate Authority Jawed Usmani, Jt. Secy. in the PM’s Office, dismissed the appeal made to the Appellate Authority on 22.2.06. The Appellate Authority had held that the papers being classified confidential and no case having been made out for making any exception under sec. 8(2) of the Act, Vishaish Uppal could not be allowed to inspect the documents.
In his order, Wajahat went into a very lengthy legal reasoning, but in the end, left it to the public authority i.e. PMO, to decide. The last part of his reasoning went like this: “The Appellate Authority, therefore, cannot withhold this information either on the ground that the information is classified as “confidential” under the Official Secrets Act or under Section 8(2) alone. However, Sec 22 as described above only overrides anything inconsistent with the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Official Secrets Act, 1923 stands neither rescinded nor abrogated. While a public authority may only withhold such information as could be brought within any of the clauses of Section 8(1), it is open to that authority to classify any of these items of information as “Confidential”, thus limiting the discretion of any other authority in respect to these.
“In this particular case, denial of information is under the orders of the Public Authority and it is open to the Public Authority to deny the information provided such denial can be justified under Section 8(1) of the Act. The Prime Minister’s Office will, therefore, re-examine the matter in view of the observations made above within fifteen days of the date of issue of the Decision Notice and it may disclose the information to the appellant, unless of course, the disclosure of the information can be denied or withheld under any of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Public Authority shall take an appropriate reasoned decision.”
[To read the full order, go to http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_22092006_2.pdf ]
CASE NO. 3
Shri Milap Choraria of Rohini, Delhi made the following application to the CPIO, PMO on 11-9-06:
“I do hope that the selection of Prof. M.M. Ansari, for the appointment of the Office of Commissioner of CIC, was certainly in pursuance to and compliance of sub-Section (5) of Section 12 of the RTI Act 2005 and in conformity with aims and objectives as enumerated in the aforesaid Act.
However, under Section 6 of the RTI Act, I wanted certified copies of the file notings of the entire file with all other related documents referred in the file notings from the respective file relating to the selection process adopted through which the Appointment of Prof. M.M. Ansari, for the office of the Commissioner of the CIC was concluded.”
This was transferred to DOPT on 14-9-06. PIO P K Misra, Under Secretary, in a letter of 12-10-06 responded: “I am to say that the term “information” as defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act excludes `file noting’. You are advised to inspect the file and the related documents other than the file noting and, if required, obtain the copies of specific documents by paying the requisite fee.”
In his order, Wajahat reasoned that file notings should also be shown. This decision of the Commission was duly communicated to the DOPT vide letter dated 26.2.2006 which was followed by a reminder on 27.3.2006 and 8.5.2006.
Milap Choraria moved another application on 29.1.’06, asking for fair and true copy of all the documents from the respective file relating to appointment of Prof M M Ansari in the CIC. To this he received no reply.
In the end, did Wajahat direct PMO or DOPT to give him the info? No.
Wajahat literally copy-pasted the reasoning from Case no. 2: “In this particular case, denial of information is under the orders of the Public Authority and it is open to the Public Authority to deny the information provided such denial can be justified under Section 8(1) of the Act. The Prime Minister’s Office will, therefore, re-examine the matter in view of the observations made above within fifteen days of the date of issue of the Decision Notice and it may disclose the information to the appellant, unless of course, the disclosure of the information can be denied or withheld under any of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Public Authority shall take an appropriate reasoned decision.”
And then Wajahat said, “In light of the above CPIO DoPT may process the present application.”
[To read the full order, go to http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_16042007_09.pdf ]
CONCLUSION: What the CCIC meant to say in all the above-mentioned three RTI Orders was: “We understand that CPIOs are denying information because PMO and DOPT are instructing them to do so. We leave it to the discretion of PMO and DOPT to do so; We are not about to tell our bosses what to do, and we are not penalizing the PIOs. RTI Act jaye bhaad mein, aur tum activist log bhi tel laganey jao!”
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Courtesy: [rti4empowerment] CIC Selection: How PMO and DOPT bullshitted 3 RTI Applicants
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Bureaucrats’ assets aren’t confidential
Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, November 02, 2009
First Published: 00:31 IST(2/11/2009)
Last Updated: 00:33 IST(2/11/2009)
The Central Information Commission (CIC) may have lifted the veil of privacy over bureaucrats’ asset.
CIC, the country’s transparency watchdog, in an order has said that revealing assets of bureaucrats under Right to Information Act cannot be construed as “invasion of privacy”.
Every government official is supposed to submit a declaration about assets soon after joining service but getting this information under RTI had been tough.
Central Information Shailesh Gandhi said disclosure of assets of a public servant is not debarred under invasion of privacy clause of the RTI Act.
For complete news please visit:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/
Email Author
New Delhi, November 02, 2009
First Published: 00:31 IST(2/11/2009)
Last Updated: 00:33 IST(2/11/2009)
The Central Information Commission (CIC) may have lifted the veil of privacy over bureaucrats’ asset.
CIC, the country’s transparency watchdog, in an order has said that revealing assets of bureaucrats under Right to Information Act cannot be construed as “invasion of privacy”.
Every government official is supposed to submit a declaration about assets soon after joining service but getting this information under RTI had been tough.
Central Information Shailesh Gandhi said disclosure of assets of a public servant is not debarred under invasion of privacy clause of the RTI Act.
For complete news please visit:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/
Judges' assets disclosure: `too little, too late'
Nagendar Sharma (nagendar.sharma@hindustantimes.com)
NEWDELHI: Judicialactivists,including former judges and lawyers, are not impressed by the Supreme Court judges' decision to reveal details of their wealth.
All but one of the apex court's 22 judges posted the information on the court's official website on Monday.
Though supporting the step, Justice V. N. Khare, former chief justice of India, said, "We should be clearly told how often judges will declare their assets. How regularly will the information be updated?" The judges, initially reluctant, took the step only after prolonged public pressure.
"The details of the judges' wealth are not clear," said senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who led the campaign to get judges to declare their wealth.
"The date on which they bought the properties they have declared has not been given., nor the value of the properties then. The judges have just gone through a formality."
For complete news please visit:
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/Default.aspx?selpg=3101&BMode=100&selDt=11/04/2009
NEWDELHI: Judicialactivists,including former judges and lawyers, are not impressed by the Supreme Court judges' decision to reveal details of their wealth.
All but one of the apex court's 22 judges posted the information on the court's official website on Monday.
Though supporting the step, Justice V. N. Khare, former chief justice of India, said, "We should be clearly told how often judges will declare their assets. How regularly will the information be updated?" The judges, initially reluctant, took the step only after prolonged public pressure.
"The details of the judges' wealth are not clear," said senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who led the campaign to get judges to declare their wealth.
"The date on which they bought the properties they have declared has not been given., nor the value of the properties then. The judges have just gone through a formality."
For complete news please visit:
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/Default.aspx?selpg=3101&BMode=100&selDt=11/04/2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)