For More Info Log on to www.rtigroup.org
|
Subscribe to RTI Group | |
| Browse Archives at groups.google.com | ||
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Information on PM’s health does not fall under RTI
‘Leader of Oppn comes under RTI’
New Delhi: After ruling that the office of Supreme Court of India comes under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) on Thursday said the office of Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha was also covered under the Act and should provide information as per its provisions.
Chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said “office of Leader of Opposition is a public authority” as it is created by a notification of the government but reserved his decision whether it was part of Lok Sabha secretariat or an independent office. TNN
Friday, September 18, 2009
CVC goes public with list of corrupt officials
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: Adopting a “name and shame” approach, Central Vigilance Commission has put public servants in the line of fire for corruption charges in the public gaze. The CVC has disclosed names of 188 such individuals in three different categories and will regularly update such lists.
The first such lists were put on CVC’s website (www.cvc.gov.in) and have names of officials against whom the anti-corruption body has either advised “suitable major penalty” or “issuance of sanction for prosecution” — a mandatory requirement to proceed against public servants — from concerned government departments.
One list has names of those against whom major penalty was advised, the second relates to prosecution sanction and the third those against whom concerned departments have already taken action as advised by the CVC.
Central vigilance commissioner Pratyush Sinha said: “It (disclosing names of corrupt public servants) is CVC’s pro-active move guided by the spirit of the RTI Act. The lists will now be updated regularly.” Though CVC earlier put up names of individuals against whom prosecution sanction was pending for long, the practice was discontinued after January 2007. In the case of other category of individuals including those against whom major penalty was invoked, the Commission earlier did not disclose names. Although it used to have the total number of such individuals representing different departments and PSUs under the list, their names were out on public domain. Sinha told TOI that the Commission has now disclosed such names as well because “some kind of criminality” was found in their cases during enquiries.
For complete news pl visit: http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:LowLevelEntityToPrint_TOINEW&Type=text/html&Locale=english-skin-custom&Path=CAP/2009/09/18&ID=Ar01600
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Suspension of RTI Activist Dr Tariq Islam: Teachers to intensify stir
Fri, Sep 11 03:34 PM
Aligarh, Sep 11 (PTI) The Aligarh Muslim University Teacher's Association has threatened to go on a strike if the suspension of a senior faculty member is not revoked. Traiq Islam, a senior Reader in the Philosophy department, was suspended last month for allegedly "tampering" with his marksheet while submitting job application here over 20 years ago. In a meeting held yesterday, the secretary of AMUTA said that a "unanimous" resolution was passed that the teachers will observe a token strike tomorrow and will protest in front of VC''s office on Monday. "If the University fails to reinstate Islam, we will intensify the stir when classes reopen after Eid vacations," spokesman Jamshed Siddiqui said. When contacted, the University spokesman said his suspension has "nothing to do with he being a RTI activist". He said the latest information from the London Metropolitan University, from where Islam has done his post graduation, shows that there is a "glaring" discrepancy in the marksheet submitted by him at the time of his appointment in AMU. Islam, however, contended that he was suspended by the university on similar charges 10 years ago and was cleared by the highest court of the country which later led to his reinstatement. "How can you punish a person twice for same crime," Islam said adding he is being punished for exposing "irregularities" in the university.
Token Strike Call in AMU over suspension of RTI activist Dr Tariq Islam
The General Body of the AMU Teachers’ Association viewed with great concern the continuing indifference of the University administration/Vice Chancellor towards the demand of the Executive Committee for the revocation of the suspension of Dr Tariq Islam and resolved:
1) The teachers shall be on a Token Strike on Saturday, September 12, 2009.
2) To stage a Dharna outside the AMU Staff Club on Monday, September 14, 2009 from 10.00AM to 1:00PM
3) The Dharna to be continued after EID, if the suspension is not revoked.
4) the Executive Committee of the AMUTA is authorized to form an Action Committee to take stock of the situation and to decide on the future course of action, including hunger strike and/or indefinite strike, as and when required in case the demand of the Association is not met.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Tariq Islam' RTI Reveals Ejaz Maqbool's Attempt to Mislead AMU FFIC
Tariq Islam' RTI Reveals Ejaz Maqbool's Attempt to Mislead AMU Fact Finding Inquiry Committee headed by Justice Fakhruddin
Aligarh Muslim University's reply to RTI query filed by Dr Tariq Islam has revaled that Mr Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate Supreme Court of India, University Representative, appointed by the Prof P K Abdul Azis, Vice Chancellor, AMU, has attempted to mislead the AMU Fact Finding Inquiry Committee (constituted by the Hon'ble Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil in her capacity as the Visitor) in his communication to it with regard to modalities.
“This Hon’ble Fact Finding Inquiry Committee also has to look into the illegality committed by the 8 members of the Executive Council particularly in the light that they are not performing their duties in attending the Executive Council’s meetings whenever the said meetings are being called by the University and also in the illegal activities of some of the 8 Complainants”.
Subsequently an RTI was filed on the issue by Dr Tariq Islam and the reply received from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of AMU, which is self explanatory, is given below.
------------------------------------------------------------
Text of the RTI filed by Dr Tariq Islam
------------------------------------------------------------
D. no. 348/RTIG August 24, 2009
Central Public Information Officer/VC Secretariat
Subject: Application for information under RTI
Please refer to the letter regarding modalities to be decided by the AMU Fact Finding Inquiry Committee of Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate Supreme Court of India, countersigned by the Registrar of the University.
Please also refer to the appointment of Mr. CL Kaul as the Secretary to the AMU Fact Finding Inquiry Committee.
Under Section 6(1) read with Section 7(1) of the RTI I may be informed on/supplied with the following:
1. Certified copy of the appointment order of Mr. Ejaz Maqbool as the University representative before the AMU Fact Finding Inquiry Committee together with the terms and conditions of appointment, including the payment to be made, mode of payment (specifying the name of the firm, names of the partners of the firm, registration number of the firm, the name in which the payment will be made, etc.), the name and designation of the officer who made the appointment and the jurisdiction of the said officer to make such an appointment specifying the rule from where such jurisdiction flows.
2. The name and designation of the officer whose opinion/recommendation prevailed in the appointment of Mr. Ejaz Maqbool.
3. The procedure adopted in selecting him over others together with the facts and reasons for his selection.
4. Separately the name and designation of the officer who decided on the quantum of total payment, the payment to be made per hearing and the amount of advance payment made together with facts and reasons for the same and the head of account from which the payment is to be made.
5. Certified copy of the appointment order of Mr. CL Kaul as the Secretary to the AMU Fact Finding Inquiry Committee together with the terms and conditions of appointment, including the payment to be made, working hours, place of work and controlling officer, the name and designation of the officer who made the appointment and the jurisdiction of the said officer to make such an appointment specifying the rule from where such jurisdiction flows.
6. Certified copy of the extract of the rules under which duties of the Executive Council members are prescribed as mentioned under second para of Section VIII on page 4 of the said letter.
7. Separately the names of some of the 8 complainants together with the illegal activities they were involved in as mentioned under second para of Section VIII on page 5 of the said letter.
Accompanying fee of Rs. 10/- is attached as postal order no. 79E – 748882.
Sd/-
Tariq Islam
General Secretary
RTI Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text of AMU's RTI reply sent to Dr Tariq Islam
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Registrar
(Councils Section)
Dated: Sept 1, 2009
LD No. ( C ) /2070
Dr Tariq Islam
General Secretary
RTI Group, Dil Kusha
Zohra Bagh,
Subject: Seeking information under RTI Act, 2005
Kindly refer to you letter dated August 24, 2009 received in the Councils Section through CAPIO/D. R. (Legal) vide R.No. 447/CAPIO/09-10 dated 26.8.2009 seeking information on point Nos. 6 and 7, under RTI Act, 2005.
In this connection, point wise reply is as follows:
| 6 | Certified copy of the extract of the rules under which duties of the Executive Council members are prescribed as mentioned under second para of Section VIII on page 4 of the said letter. | A certified photocopy of the Regulations of the Executive Council of the |
| 7 | Separately the names of some of the 8 complainants together with the illegal activities they were involved in as mentioned under second para of Section VIII on page 5 of the said letter. | Name of the 8 complainants which are as follows: 1. Mr Wasim Ahmad Visitors Nominee 2. Prof. Mansoor Hasan Visitor’s Nominee 3. Prof Habibur Rehman Chief Rector’s Nominee 4. Mr Zafaryab Jilani Representative of 5. Mr Khursheed A Khan Representative of 6. Mr Ehtesham Raheem Khan Representative of 7. Dr (Hafiz) M Ilyas Khan Teacher’s Representative 8. Dr Jamshed Siddiqui Teacher’s Representative No such illegal activity of the above is available on the records. The matter is sub-judice before the AMU Fact Finding Inquiry Committee. |
Sd/-
(Muzaffar Ali)
CPIO/Section Officer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scan of the RTI filed by Dr Tariq Islam is given below:
The scan of the AMU's RTI reply sent to Dr Tariq Islam is given below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The complete scan of the communication titled “Modalities To Be Decided By The Hon’ble Committee” signed by Mr Ejaz Maqbool and submitted before the AMU Fact Finding Inquiry Committee is given below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RTI Crusader Dr Tariq Islam Writes to AMU VC Prof P K Abdul Azis
The Vice Chancellor
Aligarh Muslim University
Aligarh
Subject: No communication by the Registrar’s Office with regard to any misconduct by me prior to serving of the notice of suspension
Dear Sir,
Everyone is shocked and dismayed with regard to the suspension order served on me vide No. D/DE/865/0270 dated August 26, 2009, alleging gross misconduct on my part. I have been a teacher in this University for nearly 22 years and have been an elected member of the Executive Council and an active member of the AMU Teachers Association. In my entire career I have never been accused of any misconduct and am known to be a polite and courteous person. The shock is even greater since there is no communication from the Registrar’s Office prior to the said notice of suspension with regard to any misconduct on my part.
I have filed 350 applications under Right to Information Act, 2005, since October 2005 seeking information on financial and administrative irregularities. It is a general feeling on the campus that the suspension notice can only be construed as malafides and with intention to harass in retaliation to the discomfiture felt by the University administration due to the applications under Right to Information Act, 2005. It is therefore also felt that since no communication has been made by the Registrar’s Office prior to serving the suspension notice there might be an effort to fabricate a case against me, which would be highly illegal and violative of human rights.
In view of the above it is requested that directives may be issued to immediately withdraw the said suspension notice being baseless and not in accordance with law and established procedure.
With regards,
Yours sincerely
Dr Tariq Islam
Department of Philosophy
Aligarh Muslim University
Advance copy to the Vice Chancellor
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
CJI comes under RTI ambit, says Delhi HC
Smriti Singh | TNN
New Delhi: Ruling in favour of transparency and accountability in higher judiciary, the Delhi high court on Wednesday ruled that the Chief Justice of India was a ‘‘public authority’’ under the Right to Information Act and had to make public the information on assets declared to him by judges.
The ruling by Justice Ravindra Bhat, which came on the Supreme Court’s appeal against an almost identical order from the Central Information Commissioner, ran counter to the consistent stand of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan that the CJI could not be termed as a public authority under RTI Act.
Though the SC is sure to appeal against the ruling, it is being seen as a moral victory for all those who want more accountability in the judiciary.
Open Assets
Nov 11, ’07: RTI activist Subhash C Aggarwal files a plea in SC seeking info on declaration of judges’ assets
Nov 30, ’07: Information denied in reply
Jan 6, ’09: CIC asks SC to disclose information
Jan 17, ’09: SC moves Delhi HC against CIC order
Sept 2, ’09: High Court upholds CIC’s order Info given by judges to CJI under RTI: HC
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will decide in the next couple of weeks whether to move a division bench of the high court or the apex court against Delhi HC’s verdict in the RTI case.
Upholding the CIC’s order directing the SC to disclose whether or not judges were declaring their assets to the CJI as per a 1997 inhouse SC resolution, Justice S Ravindra Bhatt said the information pertaining to declaration given to the CJI and the contents of such declaration were subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.
‘‘Declaration of assets by SC judges is information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act,’’ the high court said. Though the 72-page judgment defined what kind of information was in larger interest and could be made public from the CJI’s office, Justice Bhatt was firm in rejecting the Supreme Court’s stand that the CJI held the asset declarations in a fiduciary (held in trust) capacity and disclosing it would amount to breach of trust.
Stating that the argument was without substance, the high court said the Chief Justice of India does not hold such declarations in a fiduciary capacity or relationship.
Describing transparency as a ‘‘powerful beacon’’, Justice Bhat favoured evolving some uniform standards and modalities for declaration of assets by judges to bring in clarity.
‘‘The CJI, if he deems it appropriate, may in consultation with Supreme Court judges, evolve uniform standards, devising the nature of information, relevant formats, and if required, the periodicity of the declarations to be made,’’ Justice Bhatt said.
AMU VC Hits back: Reply of RTI Crusader Dr Tariq Islam
Without mentioning names I would like to point out that there have been letters in defence of the Vice Chancellor. The main line of defence in these letters is that the Vice Chancellor too is facing an Inquiry and in a similar manner I may also face one. The parallel drawn is somewhat misplaced which is the genesis of the entire controversy.
Eight members of the Executive Council of the University submitted a memorandum to the President of India, the appointing authority of the Vice Chancellor [whereas the Vice Chancellor is not the appointing authority of teachers of the University]. The President, Shrimati Pratibha Devisingh Patil, following the principles of natural justice, to provide an opportunity to be heard, issued a show cause notice on which the Vice Chancellor represented his case. The President of India, in her capacity as the Visitor of the University, stating the reason that she is dissatisfied with the reply, instituted a ‘Fact Finding Inquiry Committee’, that is a second opportunity to be heard to the Vice Chancellor. The Committee incidentally met for the first time on 20th of August 2009.
In my case no explanation letter, show cause or any opportunity to be heard was provided violating all principles of natural justice. Therefore it would be erroneous to draw a parallel between the two cases.
However, the reference to the Inquiry against the Vice Chancellor in the letters lets the cat out of the bag, for this clearly indicates a link between the Inquiry against the Vice Chancellor and my suspension.
However, if the Vice Chancellor is convinced that a person against whom an Inquiry is being contemplated [not yet instituted] should be placed under suspension then the same definitely holds for the Vice Chancellor whose actions of suspected financial and administrative irregularities are under the scanner of an ongoing Inquiry. This holds even more since the Vice Chancellor by virtue of his office is in a position to influence the Inquiry and I am not. It is being alleged from various quarters, including the AMU Teachers Association that my suspension amounts to influencing the course of Inquiry.
I joined the Aligarh Muslim University as an ad hoc Lecturer in the middle of August 1981 after returning from London with a BA(Hons) degree in Philosophy and engaged MA(Final) and BA(Final) classes. I applied for admission to MPhil leading to PhD, which was recommended by the Board of Studies and went through the Committee for Advanced Studies and Research of the Faculty of Arts, the Equivalence Committee comprising of all the Deans of the University and presided over by the Pro-Vice Chancellor, and finally approved by the Academic Council of the University.
My admission was cancelled in 1984, just before a Selection Committee was to be held for permanent appointment to the post of Lecturer in the Department. However, upon a representation against the decision of the Vice Chancellor by me the matter was again taken up by the Equivalence Committee, which again recommended that my degree was equivalent and the then Vice Chancellor approved the recommendation and the order cancelling my admission was revoked. Subsequently, the Academic Council approved the action of the Vice Chancellor.
I was then appointed a Lecturer in temporary capacity from 1987 to 1999. I was declared eligible and faced a Selection Committee for a permanent appointment in 1999. Despite the declaration of the eligibility by the then Vice Chancellor and the recommendation of my selection by the Committee the same Vice Chancellor preferred not to issue my appointment order on the grounds that I was not eligible. I approached the Allahabad High Court and the sought relief was not granted. A special appeal against the decision of the High Court was filed at the Supreme Court of India which directed that the issue be reviewed by the University. However, in the meantime a review petition was filed at the Supreme Court against its decision. In other words the Supreme Court looked at the matter afresh for the second time.
Finally the Supreme Court [Civil appeal no. 7076 of 2000, page 08 para 1 &2] decided that the clock cannot be turned back and my equivalence cannot now be nullified. Thus the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court, allowed my original writ and directed my appointment with all consequential benefits.
Meeting all the conditions of eligibility for the post of Professor I applied for it. I received a letter on the directives of the Vice Chancellor to get my mark-sheet authenticated from the institution that issued it. The London Metropolitan University through a letter by Mr. Peter Fischer, Records and Compliance Officer, dated 16th February 2009 not only authenticated but embossed my mark-sheet with the University seal. I submitted the same to the Vice Chancellor on 1st March 2009 after which I did not receive any communication from the Registrar’s Office for nearly 06 months, which was expected since I fulfilled the requirement of the University.
I was shocked to receive the suspension notice without specifying any reasons thereof on the 26th August 2009, that is only 06 days, after the Fact Finding Inquiry Committee met for the first time and only 01 day before the affidavits were to be submitted before the Committee, that is on the 27th August 2009. I have not till date received any communication from the Registrar’s Office providing any documents, etc., substantiating the wild allegations floated around in the media.
It appears that I am being subjected to a media trial whereas prevalent practice and rules of the University mandate the procedure to be strictly confidential. Therefore the whole issue can only be meaningfully understood in the context of my exercise of right to information under RTI, that is the Right to Information Act, 2005.
-----------------------------------
Comment left by Dr.Roby K.
-----------------------------------
Dr. Azis has no respect for Rules :
While Dr. Azis was at CUSAT, he conducted an enquiry on me in 2005. But he did not inform the constitution of the enquiry committee or the allegations against me, before the enquiry. It took another 3 weeks to get me the allegation list. It was totally vague. But I could make out that the mistake was not on my part. I asked for documents to prove their allegations, which was not given. Later there was another meeting jan 2006 which was in favour. But few months later, I was suspended april 2006 by the syndicate (obedient). Fault was not with me but with the controller of examinations who admitted students without marks into examinations and with Dr. Azis who never visited the department to take stock of the situation there. He was always looking at funds running into crores and spending them. I did one thing - that one thing was "nothing". no point in going to somebody who is not willing to hear or see. Then he set up a syndicate committee. The committee did not find any fault with me except that I was not present before them (to listen to their dirty talk) when they met. Without proving any alegations Dr.Azis (i mean syndicate) decided to initiate procedures to remove me from service. A notice was published in news papers beg 2007. I responded to that by writing directly to the syndicate. My response was kept in abeyance by Dr.Azis for two months and by his registrar (he is the controller mentioned above) for more than an year (by that time Dr. Azis left to AMU) and it was placed in the syndicate only after that registrar was shifted from the registrar post. Later, I was reinstated in sept 2008. But the harm was not completely redone since the enquiry was not done in a proper fashion because there were other factors with ill minds and supportive of Dr. Azis.
Dr.Roby K., D.Eng.
Reader, Ship Technology,
CUSAT, Kochi 682022
roby@cusat.ac.in