Mumbai: Right to Information activists have kicked off a campaign to
bring transparency in the selection process of state and central
information commissioners that head the commissions dealing with
grievances related to the RTI Act.
Read full story here:
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/Default.aspx?Id=5077686A37663161322F4E46724F56514977736C7942346D435841795A735861664D382F62636D6447636B3D
For More Info Log on to www.rtigroup.org
|
Subscribe to RTI Group | |
| Browse Archives at groups.google.com | ||
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Activists, be confident. Apply for posts of SIC & CIC
Dear fellow citizens & activists,
To apply
· for the post of Central Info. Commissioner, go to http://tinyurl.com/applyforcic
· To apply for Maharashtra SIC, go to http://tinyurl.com/ApplyForMahaSIC
· To apply for Tamil Nadu SIC, go to www.tinyurl.com/applyforTNSIC
Karo zyaada ka iraada! Each of us may send applications for all of the above posts!
Why? Why now?
It is time for us in civil-society to confidently claim what belongs to us. RTI Act Section 12(5) and 15(5) make it clear that the post of Information Commissioner is primarily for us. This post is currently going to retired bureaucrats by default, as members of civil society are not applying at all! It is important for us as citizens to immediately shed our diffidence.
All the Chief Information Commissioners of States and Centre, and a large number of Information Commissioners, will retire in 2010, having completed their five-year term. Many vacancies will open up this year and next year. We must act now to ensure that members of civil society become Information Commissioners in the next round of appointments. It is equally important to ensure that appointments happen through a transparent procedure, and not according to the favours of ministers and top bureaucrats.
As part of a concerted civil society campaign, we all need to promptly apply in large numbers for the posts of State & Central Information Commissioners. Benefits:
* Firstly, there will be pressure on the system to appoint some good candidates from civil society as CICs or Chief CIC.
* Secondly, in order to cope with the large numbers of candidates from civil society, the government will be forced to introduce proper criteria and procedures for short-listing.
* Finally, if the government arbitrarily ignores our names and selects its own people without due procedure, eligibility criteria etc., we will have the locus standi to go to our High Courts with writ petitions against such appointments. There is a good chance of convincing the Court that this is violation of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Please note: Your applying for the post does not mean that you have to be part of the legal battle that may follow. You are free not to do so. So participate in this campaign without fear and anxiety!
Warm Regards,
Madhav Vishnubhatta , Chennai, 98403 27303
Krishnaraj Rao, Mumbai, 98215 88114
To apply
· for the post of Central Info. Commissioner, go to http://tinyurl.com/applyforcic
· To apply for Maharashtra SIC, go to http://tinyurl.com/ApplyForMahaSIC
· To apply for Tamil Nadu SIC, go to www.tinyurl.com/applyforTNSIC
Karo zyaada ka iraada! Each of us may send applications for all of the above posts!
Why? Why now?
It is time for us in civil-society to confidently claim what belongs to us. RTI Act Section 12(5) and 15(5) make it clear that the post of Information Commissioner is primarily for us. This post is currently going to retired bureaucrats by default, as members of civil society are not applying at all! It is important for us as citizens to immediately shed our diffidence.
All the Chief Information Commissioners of States and Centre, and a large number of Information Commissioners, will retire in 2010, having completed their five-year term. Many vacancies will open up this year and next year. We must act now to ensure that members of civil society become Information Commissioners in the next round of appointments. It is equally important to ensure that appointments happen through a transparent procedure, and not according to the favours of ministers and top bureaucrats.
As part of a concerted civil society campaign, we all need to promptly apply in large numbers for the posts of State & Central Information Commissioners. Benefits:
* Firstly, there will be pressure on the system to appoint some good candidates from civil society as CICs or Chief CIC.
* Secondly, in order to cope with the large numbers of candidates from civil society, the government will be forced to introduce proper criteria and procedures for short-listing.
* Finally, if the government arbitrarily ignores our names and selects its own people without due procedure, eligibility criteria etc., we will have the locus standi to go to our High Courts with writ petitions against such appointments. There is a good chance of convincing the Court that this is violation of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Please note: Your applying for the post does not mean that you have to be part of the legal battle that may follow. You are free not to do so. So participate in this campaign without fear and anxiety!
Warm Regards,
Madhav Vishnubhatta , Chennai, 98403 27303
Krishnaraj Rao, Mumbai, 98215 88114
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Denied entry in courtroom: Apex Court says wearing cap ‘against decorum’
Denied entry in courtroom: Apex Court says wearing cap ‘against decorum’
http://www.risingkashmir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22747&Itemid=1
Ishfaq Tantry
Srinagar, April 23: Spotting a skull cap in the Supreme Court is against the decorum and security guards at the entrance may stop entry of the visitor or an aspiring law graduate wearing it.
This was revealed in response to an RTI application filed by Mansoor Ahmad, a Kashmiri law student, who was recently barred from entering the courtrooms of the India’s Apex Court when he was wearing a black sherwani and a skull cap.
Mansoor, a final year law student at the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) had arrived at the Supreme Court with 82 other BA LLB final-year students for an internship programme that started March 10.
Confident that lawyers were allowed to wear caps as part of their Sherwani-pajama dress code, he arrived at the courtrooms of Supreme Court clad in the same dress. However, to his dismay and disbelief, security guards at the entrance stopped him several times saying “he cannot enter the court wearing a cap”.
In fact, the black Sherwani-Pajama along with the skull cap is the official dress at AMU, India’s only Muslim University and the faculty and varsity students wear the dress with pride.
Determined not to remove his cap, Mansoor took up the matter with the Supreme Court registry and subsequently filed an RTI application before Additional Registrar of the Supreme Court and CPIO, Rajpal Arora.
In his RTI application dated 23 March 2010, Mansoor sought information for his two queries under section 6 of RTI Act 2005.
“Please provide me information whether a visitor or an intern law student can enter court rooms of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India with cap on his head after due security check,” Mansoor sought information in the RTI application. “In case, he isn’t allowed to do so, please provide a copy of the law, regulation, notification or any other instruction in its support.”
Mansoor said that too his disbelief, the reply he got to the RTI application from the Additional Registrar was equally “astonishing”.
The reply from the CPIO Vide Dy No 1469/RTI/09-10/SCI dated 10 April 2010, the copy of which is with the Rising Kashmir read: “With reference to your application dated 23 March 2010, I write to inform you that the answer is in negative and decorum does not allow.”
In addition to making an RTI application, Mansoor also lodged his protest with the Registrar of the Supreme Court through a representation, a copy of which was addressed to Chief Justice of India.
In this representation, he sighted 1961 Advocates Act under which “Sherwani with a black cap is permissible in the courts”.
The representation further read: “The conduct of the security guards is highly unwarranted because there is no express bar in respect of wearing of the cap in the premises of the court and court rooms. This is personal harassment to me. You are humbly requested to look into the matter.”
Quoting the registrar, Mansoor said: “In reply, the registrar told me not to make an issue out of it saying, ‘You are here for the training. What will happen if you remove your cap while entering the court room’?”
http://www.risingkashmir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22747&Itemid=1
Ishfaq Tantry
Srinagar, April 23: Spotting a skull cap in the Supreme Court is against the decorum and security guards at the entrance may stop entry of the visitor or an aspiring law graduate wearing it.
This was revealed in response to an RTI application filed by Mansoor Ahmad, a Kashmiri law student, who was recently barred from entering the courtrooms of the India’s Apex Court when he was wearing a black sherwani and a skull cap.
Mansoor, a final year law student at the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) had arrived at the Supreme Court with 82 other BA LLB final-year students for an internship programme that started March 10.
Confident that lawyers were allowed to wear caps as part of their Sherwani-pajama dress code, he arrived at the courtrooms of Supreme Court clad in the same dress. However, to his dismay and disbelief, security guards at the entrance stopped him several times saying “he cannot enter the court wearing a cap”.
In fact, the black Sherwani-Pajama along with the skull cap is the official dress at AMU, India’s only Muslim University and the faculty and varsity students wear the dress with pride.
Determined not to remove his cap, Mansoor took up the matter with the Supreme Court registry and subsequently filed an RTI application before Additional Registrar of the Supreme Court and CPIO, Rajpal Arora.
In his RTI application dated 23 March 2010, Mansoor sought information for his two queries under section 6 of RTI Act 2005.
“Please provide me information whether a visitor or an intern law student can enter court rooms of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India with cap on his head after due security check,” Mansoor sought information in the RTI application. “In case, he isn’t allowed to do so, please provide a copy of the law, regulation, notification or any other instruction in its support.”
Mansoor said that too his disbelief, the reply he got to the RTI application from the Additional Registrar was equally “astonishing”.
The reply from the CPIO Vide Dy No 1469/RTI/09-10/SCI dated 10 April 2010, the copy of which is with the Rising Kashmir read: “With reference to your application dated 23 March 2010, I write to inform you that the answer is in negative and decorum does not allow.”
In addition to making an RTI application, Mansoor also lodged his protest with the Registrar of the Supreme Court through a representation, a copy of which was addressed to Chief Justice of India.
In this representation, he sighted 1961 Advocates Act under which “Sherwani with a black cap is permissible in the courts”.
The representation further read: “The conduct of the security guards is highly unwarranted because there is no express bar in respect of wearing of the cap in the premises of the court and court rooms. This is personal harassment to me. You are humbly requested to look into the matter.”
Quoting the registrar, Mansoor said: “In reply, the registrar told me not to make an issue out of it saying, ‘You are here for the training. What will happen if you remove your cap while entering the court room’?”
TAKING PLEA OF FILES MISSING WILL NOT BE EASY NOW
M K Gupta
Now, it will not be easy any more for a government office to take plea that the records/ files are not available. In a decision in the case of M K Gupta and All India Radio, New Delhi, the Hon’ble Information Commissioner, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit has invoked the provisions of the section 18 (2)) of the RTI Act and has passed. The extract from the operative part of the decision is as under:
6. “The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides, directs the PIO, with the power vested on it under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act to ensure into the matter of the missing file of the Appellant, fix the responsibility and take appropriate disciplinary action against the official responsible for the losing the file. A copy of the enquiry report may be provided to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission. In the event the file remains untraceable, an affidavit to be provided to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant affirming the loss of the file and giving reasons for its non-availability. In the event (sic. event) the file is located, complete information to be provided to the Appellant, free of cost.
7. “The entire exercise should be completed by 10.5.10 and the Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 15.5.10.”
Earlier, Central Information Commissioner Prof. M M Ansari in his decision in the case of Shri Raj Mangal Prasad v/s Deptt. of Women & Child Welfare has awarded a compensation of Rupees ten thousand to the appellant failing which a penal interest of 10% would be applicable. IC in his decision remarked
“The appellant is surely deprived of the opportunity to access the information contained in the file to expose the mal-practices in the purchase scam. ……. appellant’s right to seek information has not been duly honoured in the letter and spirit of the Act, for which he needs to be compensated under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act for all kind of detriment suffered by him.”
Recently, in the case of Sanjay Kumar of Kabir Basti, North Delhi against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi has in his order wrote:
“If the file is not located, he (PIO) will file a police complaint about theft giving the names of officers who last handled it and send a copy of it to the appellant and CIC before April, 20”. Now, citizens may hope that such decisions will bring accountability to an extent in the working of the bureaucracy.
----------------------------------
In a similar case CIC asked Registrar of RCS office file an FIR with
parliament street police, ND and give compliance report by Registrar
and to reconstitute file.
You may want to know whose file, it was related to alleged membership
violation of former CBI officers daughter in a society ,dwarka,nd.
There are many such file missing cases and am sure now babus will
littile carefull.
thanks once again
REJIMON C K
rejimonck.AT.gmail.com
Now, it will not be easy any more for a government office to take plea that the records/ files are not available. In a decision in the case of M K Gupta and All India Radio, New Delhi, the Hon’ble Information Commissioner, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit has invoked the provisions of the section 18 (2)) of the RTI Act and has passed. The extract from the operative part of the decision is as under:
6. “The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides, directs the PIO, with the power vested on it under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act to ensure into the matter of the missing file of the Appellant, fix the responsibility and take appropriate disciplinary action against the official responsible for the losing the file. A copy of the enquiry report may be provided to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission. In the event the file remains untraceable, an affidavit to be provided to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant affirming the loss of the file and giving reasons for its non-availability. In the event (sic. event) the file is located, complete information to be provided to the Appellant, free of cost.
7. “The entire exercise should be completed by 10.5.10 and the Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 15.5.10.”
Earlier, Central Information Commissioner Prof. M M Ansari in his decision in the case of Shri Raj Mangal Prasad v/s Deptt. of Women & Child Welfare has awarded a compensation of Rupees ten thousand to the appellant failing which a penal interest of 10% would be applicable. IC in his decision remarked
“The appellant is surely deprived of the opportunity to access the information contained in the file to expose the mal-practices in the purchase scam. ……. appellant’s right to seek information has not been duly honoured in the letter and spirit of the Act, for which he needs to be compensated under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act for all kind of detriment suffered by him.”
Recently, in the case of Sanjay Kumar of Kabir Basti, North Delhi against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi has in his order wrote:
“If the file is not located, he (PIO) will file a police complaint about theft giving the names of officers who last handled it and send a copy of it to the appellant and CIC before April, 20”. Now, citizens may hope that such decisions will bring accountability to an extent in the working of the bureaucracy.
----------------------------------
In a similar case CIC asked Registrar of RCS office file an FIR with
parliament street police, ND and give compliance report by Registrar
and to reconstitute file.
You may want to know whose file, it was related to alleged membership
violation of former CBI officers daughter in a society ,dwarka,nd.
There are many such file missing cases and am sure now babus will
littile carefull.
thanks once again
REJIMON C K
rejimonck.AT.gmail.com
Friday, April 23, 2010
Apply for the post of CIC / Chief CIC to ensure transparent appointments
Dear Fellow Citizens & Activists,
It is urgent for us to act now. The present Chief CIC will retire in September 2010. Other Commissioners appointed in 2005 will also retire in 2010, and hence there will be many vacancies opening up this year. Citizens must act now to ensure that the next round of appointments happen through a transparent procedure.
As part of a concerted civil society campaign, we all need to apply in large numbers for the post of CIC / Chief CIC. By doing so, we may derive three benefits:
* Firstly, there will be pressure on the system to appoint some good candidates from civil society as CICs or Chief CIC.
* Secondly, as there will be many candidates from civil society, the government may be compelled to introduce proper procedures to filter out and short-list candidates.
* Finally, if the government ignores all our names and selects its own people without any transparent procedure, we can move the courts and argue that the appointments are void as we were eliminated without a proper procedure, eligibility criteria etc. There is a good chance of convincing the Court that this is violation of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Please note: Your applying for the post does not mean that you have to be part of the legal exercise that might come later. So participating in this campaign does not commit you to anything.
How to participate in this campaign?
Go to http://tinyurl.com/applyforcic for detailed instructions.
Warm Regards,
Madhav 98403 27303
Krish 98215 88114
It is urgent for us to act now. The present Chief CIC will retire in September 2010. Other Commissioners appointed in 2005 will also retire in 2010, and hence there will be many vacancies opening up this year. Citizens must act now to ensure that the next round of appointments happen through a transparent procedure.
As part of a concerted civil society campaign, we all need to apply in large numbers for the post of CIC / Chief CIC. By doing so, we may derive three benefits:
* Firstly, there will be pressure on the system to appoint some good candidates from civil society as CICs or Chief CIC.
* Secondly, as there will be many candidates from civil society, the government may be compelled to introduce proper procedures to filter out and short-list candidates.
* Finally, if the government ignores all our names and selects its own people without any transparent procedure, we can move the courts and argue that the appointments are void as we were eliminated without a proper procedure, eligibility criteria etc. There is a good chance of convincing the Court that this is violation of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Please note: Your applying for the post does not mean that you have to be part of the legal exercise that might come later. So participating in this campaign does not commit you to anything.
How to participate in this campaign?
Go to http://tinyurl.com/applyforcic for detailed instructions.
Warm Regards,
Madhav 98403 27303
Krish 98215 88114
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
2 MCD officials held for threatening RTI applicant
Dwaipayan Ghosh, TNN, Apr 21, 2010, 01.20am IST
NEW DELHI:Two MCD engineers have been arrested in northeast district after they allegedly threatened an activist who had filed an RTI application seeking details of illegal construction in Shahdara (North).
"We have arrested the engineers — assistant engineer Umesh Singh and executive engineer B M N Rao. Our investigation revealed the two had gone to the house of the complainant in Dilshad Garden and threatened him. The third accused — junior engineer Hari Singh — is yet to be arrested. We have certain leads and will arrest him soon," said S S Yadav, DCP (northeast).
For complete news pl visit:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/2-MCD-officials-held-for-threatening-RTI-applicant/articleshow/5837950.cms
NEW DELHI:Two MCD engineers have been arrested in northeast district after they allegedly threatened an activist who had filed an RTI application seeking details of illegal construction in Shahdara (North).
"We have arrested the engineers — assistant engineer Umesh Singh and executive engineer B M N Rao. Our investigation revealed the two had gone to the house of the complainant in Dilshad Garden and threatened him. The third accused — junior engineer Hari Singh — is yet to be arrested. We have certain leads and will arrest him soon," said S S Yadav, DCP (northeast).
For complete news pl visit:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/2-MCD-officials-held-for-threatening-RTI-applicant/articleshow/5837950.cms
M K Gupta: mkgupta100.AT.yahoo.co.in
If you want to take some information by filing RTI application and working in the temporary capacity, be ready to lose your service also. This is the lesson an RTI applicant Mahendra Kumar Gupta had learnt and now running for the restoration of his service. He was working as casual (temporary) employee in News Services Division, All India Radio, New Delhi. He filed RTI applications to seek some information for declaring him fail twice in the interview of casual editor after he qualified the written test, to know the reasons of inordinate delay in releasing payment to temporary staff against the duties performed by them. He also asked information on the selection criteria adopted for the appointment of private placement agency for providing casual stenos on Commission basis to the News Services Division, All India Radio, New Delhi through separate RTI applications at different time. In the first case, he received information on the order of the CIC and in two other cases, vague information but he was consequently removed from his casual employment from April, 2008 from the post on which he worked for the last six years. In his reply, Mr. D.K. Das, CPIO said that “it is the prerogative of the office to assign casual job………. ” and as per requirement of job, he did not deserve for the same. Mr. Gupta has not given up and sought further information as to why he suddenly became undeserving overnight. On this, he was informed that he is seeking information, which we feel in, not needed by him. The went in appeal before the Central Information Commission and Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner ordered AIR to provide further information within 20 days to him. She also issued notice to the PIO asking him why a penalty should not be imposed on him. On the order of the CIC, while providing information, AIR informed that his “bonafide are doubtful” and he “does not operate computer properly”. When he sought copies of supporting papers on which Department arrived at the above conclusions, he was told that the record is not readily traceable. On the issue of bonafide are doubtful, On the order of the CIC, PIO has given an affidavit to M. K. Gupta informing that the papers are not available. His appeal against the information that he does not operate computer properly was heard on 5th of this month and during the hearing, Ms. Annapurna Dixit, IC ordered the PIO for give another affidavit to the her with a copy of the same to the applicant stating that record is not available. Applicant is waiting for the copy of the order from CIC. On being pointed out to the IC that how such affidavits are going to help the appellant, the Information Commissioner said that he can file his case in the Court of law where these affidavits will help him immensely. From this, it is clear that if somebody is removed from the service, the CIC, the watchdog agency, is unable to do anything and the victim will have to knock the door of the High Court. Shri Gupta has said that the CIC has wrongly dropped the penalty proceedings treating the case of denial of information as the case of delay in providing the information and he has now filed a review petition before the Information Commissioner, Ms. Annapurna Dixit.
If the RTI applicants will be removed from the service like this and CIC expresses its inability to help in the matter at his level, RTI act will come to a cropper, as every applicant does not have the resources, time and expertise to fight the case in the High Court wherein there is a long list of pending cases.
Prasar Bharati is one among the several organisations, which has been given the responsibility of promoting awareness among the public on Right to Information and for the thousands of temporary staff is working in the Prasar Bharati, RTI Act is becoming a dream. It is a moot question whether such officials with such an approach, Prasar Bharti will be able to do justice with this responsibility.
If you want to take some information by filing RTI application and working in the temporary capacity, be ready to lose your service also. This is the lesson an RTI applicant Mahendra Kumar Gupta had learnt and now running for the restoration of his service. He was working as casual (temporary) employee in News Services Division, All India Radio, New Delhi. He filed RTI applications to seek some information for declaring him fail twice in the interview of casual editor after he qualified the written test, to know the reasons of inordinate delay in releasing payment to temporary staff against the duties performed by them. He also asked information on the selection criteria adopted for the appointment of private placement agency for providing casual stenos on Commission basis to the News Services Division, All India Radio, New Delhi through separate RTI applications at different time. In the first case, he received information on the order of the CIC and in two other cases, vague information but he was consequently removed from his casual employment from April, 2008 from the post on which he worked for the last six years. In his reply, Mr. D.K. Das, CPIO said that “it is the prerogative of the office to assign casual job………. ” and as per requirement of job, he did not deserve for the same. Mr. Gupta has not given up and sought further information as to why he suddenly became undeserving overnight. On this, he was informed that he is seeking information, which we feel in, not needed by him. The went in appeal before the Central Information Commission and Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner ordered AIR to provide further information within 20 days to him. She also issued notice to the PIO asking him why a penalty should not be imposed on him. On the order of the CIC, while providing information, AIR informed that his “bonafide are doubtful” and he “does not operate computer properly”. When he sought copies of supporting papers on which Department arrived at the above conclusions, he was told that the record is not readily traceable. On the issue of bonafide are doubtful, On the order of the CIC, PIO has given an affidavit to M. K. Gupta informing that the papers are not available. His appeal against the information that he does not operate computer properly was heard on 5th of this month and during the hearing, Ms. Annapurna Dixit, IC ordered the PIO for give another affidavit to the her with a copy of the same to the applicant stating that record is not available. Applicant is waiting for the copy of the order from CIC. On being pointed out to the IC that how such affidavits are going to help the appellant, the Information Commissioner said that he can file his case in the Court of law where these affidavits will help him immensely. From this, it is clear that if somebody is removed from the service, the CIC, the watchdog agency, is unable to do anything and the victim will have to knock the door of the High Court. Shri Gupta has said that the CIC has wrongly dropped the penalty proceedings treating the case of denial of information as the case of delay in providing the information and he has now filed a review petition before the Information Commissioner, Ms. Annapurna Dixit.
If the RTI applicants will be removed from the service like this and CIC expresses its inability to help in the matter at his level, RTI act will come to a cropper, as every applicant does not have the resources, time and expertise to fight the case in the High Court wherein there is a long list of pending cases.
Prasar Bharati is one among the several organisations, which has been given the responsibility of promoting awareness among the public on Right to Information and for the thousands of temporary staff is working in the Prasar Bharati, RTI Act is becoming a dream. It is a moot question whether such officials with such an approach, Prasar Bharti will be able to do justice with this responsibility.
ALERT - SEEK INFN UNDER RTI ACT & LOSE JOB
M K Gupta: mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in
If you want to take some information by filing RTI application and working in the temporary capacity, be ready to lose your service also. This is the lesson an RTI applicant Mahendra Kumar Gupta had learnt and now running for the restoration of his service. He was working as casual (temporary) employee in News Services Division, All India Radio, New Delhi. He filed RTI applications to seek some information for declaring him fail twice in the interview of casual editor after he qualified the written test, to know the reasons of inordinate delay in releasing payment to temporary staff against the duties performed by them. He also asked information on the selection criteria adopted for the appointment of private placement agency for providing casual stenos on Commission basis to the News Services Division, All India Radio, New Delhi through separate RTI applications at different time. In the first case, he received information on the order of the CIC and in two other cases, vague information but he was consequently removed from his casual employment from April, 2008 from the post on which he worked for the last six years. In his reply, Mr. D.K. Das, CPIO said that “it is the prerogative of the office to assign casual job………. ” and as per requirement of job, he did not deserve for the same. Mr. Gupta has not given up and sought further information as to why he suddenly became undeserving overnight. On this, he was informed that he is seeking information, which we feel in, not needed by him. The went in appeal before the Central Information Commission and Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner ordered AIR to provide further information within 20 days to him. She also issued notice to the PIO asking him why a penalty should not be imposed on him. On the order of the CIC, while providing information, AIR informed that his “bonafide are doubtful” and he “does not operate computer properly”. When he sought copies of supporting papers on which Department arrived at the above conclusions, he was told that the record is not readily traceable. On the issue of bonafide are doubtful, On the order of the CIC, PIO has given an affidavit to M. K. Gupta informing that the papers are not available. His appeal against the information that he does not operate computer properly was heard on 5th of this month and during the hearing, Ms. Annapurna Dixit, IC ordered the PIO for give another affidavit to the her with a copy of the same to the applicant stating that record is not available. Applicant is waiting for the copy of the order from CIC. On being pointed out to the IC that how such affidavits are going to help the appellant, the Information Commissioner said that he can file his case in the Court of law where these affidavits will help him immensely. From this, it is clear that if somebody is removed from the service, the CIC, the watchdog agency, is unable to do anything and the victim will have to knock the door of the High Court. Shri Gupta has said that the CIC has wrongly dropped the penalty proceedings treating the case of denial of information as the case of delay in providing the information and he has now filed a review petition before the Information Commissioner, Ms. Annapurna Dixit.
If the RTI applicants will be removed from the service like this and CIC expresses its inability to help in the matter at his level, RTI act will come to a cropper, as every applicant does not have the resources, time and expertise to fight the case in the High Court wherein there is a long list of pending cases.
Prasar Bharati is one among the several organisations, which has been given the responsibility of promoting awareness among the public on Right to Information and for the thousands of temporary staff is working in the Prasar Bharati, RTI Act is becoming a dream. It is a moot question whether such officials with such an approach, Prasar Bharti will be able to do justice with this responsibility.
If you want to take some information by filing RTI application and working in the temporary capacity, be ready to lose your service also. This is the lesson an RTI applicant Mahendra Kumar Gupta had learnt and now running for the restoration of his service. He was working as casual (temporary) employee in News Services Division, All India Radio, New Delhi. He filed RTI applications to seek some information for declaring him fail twice in the interview of casual editor after he qualified the written test, to know the reasons of inordinate delay in releasing payment to temporary staff against the duties performed by them. He also asked information on the selection criteria adopted for the appointment of private placement agency for providing casual stenos on Commission basis to the News Services Division, All India Radio, New Delhi through separate RTI applications at different time. In the first case, he received information on the order of the CIC and in two other cases, vague information but he was consequently removed from his casual employment from April, 2008 from the post on which he worked for the last six years. In his reply, Mr. D.K. Das, CPIO said that “it is the prerogative of the office to assign casual job………. ” and as per requirement of job, he did not deserve for the same. Mr. Gupta has not given up and sought further information as to why he suddenly became undeserving overnight. On this, he was informed that he is seeking information, which we feel in, not needed by him. The went in appeal before the Central Information Commission and Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner ordered AIR to provide further information within 20 days to him. She also issued notice to the PIO asking him why a penalty should not be imposed on him. On the order of the CIC, while providing information, AIR informed that his “bonafide are doubtful” and he “does not operate computer properly”. When he sought copies of supporting papers on which Department arrived at the above conclusions, he was told that the record is not readily traceable. On the issue of bonafide are doubtful, On the order of the CIC, PIO has given an affidavit to M. K. Gupta informing that the papers are not available. His appeal against the information that he does not operate computer properly was heard on 5th of this month and during the hearing, Ms. Annapurna Dixit, IC ordered the PIO for give another affidavit to the her with a copy of the same to the applicant stating that record is not available. Applicant is waiting for the copy of the order from CIC. On being pointed out to the IC that how such affidavits are going to help the appellant, the Information Commissioner said that he can file his case in the Court of law where these affidavits will help him immensely. From this, it is clear that if somebody is removed from the service, the CIC, the watchdog agency, is unable to do anything and the victim will have to knock the door of the High Court. Shri Gupta has said that the CIC has wrongly dropped the penalty proceedings treating the case of denial of information as the case of delay in providing the information and he has now filed a review petition before the Information Commissioner, Ms. Annapurna Dixit.
If the RTI applicants will be removed from the service like this and CIC expresses its inability to help in the matter at his level, RTI act will come to a cropper, as every applicant does not have the resources, time and expertise to fight the case in the High Court wherein there is a long list of pending cases.
Prasar Bharati is one among the several organisations, which has been given the responsibility of promoting awareness among the public on Right to Information and for the thousands of temporary staff is working in the Prasar Bharati, RTI Act is becoming a dream. It is a moot question whether such officials with such an approach, Prasar Bharti will be able to do justice with this responsibility.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Press Release: Social Audit on State RTI Information Commissioners launched
19th April 2010: A group of RTI activists in Mumbai has launched a social audit or public hearing (Jan Sunwaiee) on the quality of service rendered by Maharashtra State Information Commissioners (MSICs), who are appointed under the Act as Second Appellate Authority, to facilitate and implement Citizens’ access to information. Information Commissioners are mandated by Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act to take various steps to help citizens procure information in a timely and accurate manner.
Says activist G R Vora, who is leading this initiative, “The information that we collect will be used for compiling statistics, making representations to the government (especially the Governor for representations and other necessary corrective actions) on behalf of the general public, and submitting reports to higher judiciary and media.”
“This Social Audit is a way to improve dialogue, improve the system for the good of the entire nation and send a message to Information Commissioners that they have to abide by the law and facilitate flow of information as mandated by the RTI Act 2005,” Vora asserts.
Activist Mohammed Afzal urges RTI users to participate on a massive scale. “If you or people known to you have had a personal experience with MSICs – whether positive or negative – please submit the relevant papers for this audit. All the files that you give us will be studied, compiled as data and submitted to the authorities for action. We commit to use your documents to try and improve the system,” he says.
Those who wish to participate may download forms in English, Hindi and Marathi from www.box.net/rti or email grvora.AT.gmail.com .
Krish
98215 88114
Says activist G R Vora, who is leading this initiative, “The information that we collect will be used for compiling statistics, making representations to the government (especially the Governor for representations and other necessary corrective actions) on behalf of the general public, and submitting reports to higher judiciary and media.”
“This Social Audit is a way to improve dialogue, improve the system for the good of the entire nation and send a message to Information Commissioners that they have to abide by the law and facilitate flow of information as mandated by the RTI Act 2005,” Vora asserts.
Activist Mohammed Afzal urges RTI users to participate on a massive scale. “If you or people known to you have had a personal experience with MSICs – whether positive or negative – please submit the relevant papers for this audit. All the files that you give us will be studied, compiled as data and submitted to the authorities for action. We commit to use your documents to try and improve the system,” he says.
Those who wish to participate may download forms in English, Hindi and Marathi from www.box.net/rti or email grvora.AT.gmail.com .
Krish
98215 88114
Saturday, April 17, 2010
GOT JUSTICE AT CIC? (Part 1)
Commissioner ignores Appellant’s written submissions before issuing orders.
By Mr M K Gupta (Email: mkgupta100.AT.yahoo.co.in)
When an appellant (include complainant) does not get information from a Public Authority, he approaches the CIC hoping to get the same. But whether all the applicants get justice in accordance with the RTI Act.
I, as an appellant, filed an RTI for getting some information from All India Radio and in return, Shri D.K. Das, PIO replied that I am seeking information, which he feels is not needed by me. On filing first appeal against this, the First Appellate Authority confirmed his decision. Appellant filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission and Ms. Annapurna Dixit, Hon’ble Information Commissioner heard the case on 27th April wherein the Appellant and Mr. Ashok Chaitanya, advocate, Delhi High Court were present. Information Commissioner directed the CPIO to provide the information and reply within 15 days why a penalty should not be imposed on him for not providing the information? In the meantime, Appellant obtained a copy of PIO’s reply to the CIC by filing an RTI with the PIO.
Finding that the reply of the PIO has grossly misrepresented and twisted the facts, Appellant filed a rejoinder to the reply of PIO to the Information Commissioner praying for considering his submissions while issuing order on the Show Cause Notice. The receipt of rejoinder to CIC was duly confirmed by Shri G. Subramanian, Asstt. Registrar, on deputation from the office of the Public Authority.
On receiving the copy of the order on the Show Cause Notice, the Appellant was surprised to note that the fact of submitting any rejoinder by the Applicant has not found any place in the order leave aside considering the submissions made therein.
The order issued by the Information Commissioner has some apparent mistakes on the face of the record. While the Appeal was against the denial of information and the “Show Cause Notice” was issued to explain the denial, the order has dropped the penalty proceeding condoning the delay in replying the RTI application, a non-existing issue. Not considering the rejoinder of the Appellant despite his unambiguous prayer is against the principal of natural justice and the order has become one-sided based on the distorted and incorrect facts provided by the PIO.
Now, the Appellant has prayed by filing a review application to issue fresh order after giving due consideration to the facts mentioned by him in his rejoinder and to ascertain whether the Appellant’s rejoinder was brought to the knowledge of the Information Commissioner by the staff.
Sub-section (xv) of Section 4 (Power and functions of the Registrar) states “The Registrar shall be responsible for ensuring compliance of the orders, directions or decisions passed by the Commission and to take all necessary steps in this regards, despite this, the Appellant had to meticulously follow for the reply of the Show Cause Notice and for knowing the status of the case by filing three-RTI applications before the CIC. “However, in the interest of justice, three extensions were granted” to the PIO for furnishing response by him and after this, the order on the Show Cause Notice was pronounced on 29th January, 2010 absolving him.
In the case of Mujibur Rehman V/s. CIC, Hon. Justice Ravindra Bhat of Delhi High Court ruled that once it is established that the Tribunal (read CIC) for no apparent reason, either exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in it, the High Court would be justified in interfering with its order. High Court is right in itself but the question is how many appellant have the time and resources to approach the High Court for challenging such erroneous orders?
(Next series, next week)
By Mr M K Gupta (Email: mkgupta100.AT.yahoo.co.in)
When an appellant (include complainant) does not get information from a Public Authority, he approaches the CIC hoping to get the same. But whether all the applicants get justice in accordance with the RTI Act.
I, as an appellant, filed an RTI for getting some information from All India Radio and in return, Shri D.K. Das, PIO replied that I am seeking information, which he feels is not needed by me. On filing first appeal against this, the First Appellate Authority confirmed his decision. Appellant filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission and Ms. Annapurna Dixit, Hon’ble Information Commissioner heard the case on 27th April wherein the Appellant and Mr. Ashok Chaitanya, advocate, Delhi High Court were present. Information Commissioner directed the CPIO to provide the information and reply within 15 days why a penalty should not be imposed on him for not providing the information? In the meantime, Appellant obtained a copy of PIO’s reply to the CIC by filing an RTI with the PIO.
Finding that the reply of the PIO has grossly misrepresented and twisted the facts, Appellant filed a rejoinder to the reply of PIO to the Information Commissioner praying for considering his submissions while issuing order on the Show Cause Notice. The receipt of rejoinder to CIC was duly confirmed by Shri G. Subramanian, Asstt. Registrar, on deputation from the office of the Public Authority.
On receiving the copy of the order on the Show Cause Notice, the Appellant was surprised to note that the fact of submitting any rejoinder by the Applicant has not found any place in the order leave aside considering the submissions made therein.
The order issued by the Information Commissioner has some apparent mistakes on the face of the record. While the Appeal was against the denial of information and the “Show Cause Notice” was issued to explain the denial, the order has dropped the penalty proceeding condoning the delay in replying the RTI application, a non-existing issue. Not considering the rejoinder of the Appellant despite his unambiguous prayer is against the principal of natural justice and the order has become one-sided based on the distorted and incorrect facts provided by the PIO.
Now, the Appellant has prayed by filing a review application to issue fresh order after giving due consideration to the facts mentioned by him in his rejoinder and to ascertain whether the Appellant’s rejoinder was brought to the knowledge of the Information Commissioner by the staff.
Sub-section (xv) of Section 4 (Power and functions of the Registrar) states “The Registrar shall be responsible for ensuring compliance of the orders, directions or decisions passed by the Commission and to take all necessary steps in this regards, despite this, the Appellant had to meticulously follow for the reply of the Show Cause Notice and for knowing the status of the case by filing three-RTI applications before the CIC. “However, in the interest of justice, three extensions were granted” to the PIO for furnishing response by him and after this, the order on the Show Cause Notice was pronounced on 29th January, 2010 absolving him.
In the case of Mujibur Rehman V/s. CIC, Hon. Justice Ravindra Bhat of Delhi High Court ruled that once it is established that the Tribunal (read CIC) for no apparent reason, either exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in it, the High Court would be justified in interfering with its order. High Court is right in itself but the question is how many appellant have the time and resources to approach the High Court for challenging such erroneous orders?
(Next series, next week)
DoPT CIRCULAR (REVISED) ON RTI ACT
From: Subhas Ch. Agrawal
Subject: (REVISED) DoPT CIRCULAR ON RTI ACT (SEE ATTACHMENT)
To: Date: Friday, April 16, 2010, 9:40 AM
(REVISED) DoPT CIRCULAR ON RTI ACT (SEE ATTACHMENT)
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) had put a ‘Questionnaire to facilitate strategy formulation on RTI under the Performance Management and Evaluation System for DoPT’ on its website through RTI circular number 1/2/2010-IR dated 01.04.2010 which invited feedback and suggestions towards RTI Act from ‘stake-holders’ including civil-society groups (NGOs), Information Commissioners and Public-Authorities with last date to submit completed questionnaires as 15.04.2010. Questionnaire along-with the circular was removed from DoPT website on 15.04.2010 after expiry of deadline to submit completed questionnaire.
Are normal citizens and other organisations not on DoPT invitation-list are not stake-holders on RTI Act when no mass publicity programme was launched by DoPT to invite suggestions towards RTI Act? DoPT has simply fulfilled formality of inviting public-comments on the important issue by not making normal citizens aware of the questionnaire. Is it a strategy-planning of DoPT to fulfil formality of consulting ‘all stake-holders’ before amending RTI Act as promised by Prime Minister to UPA Chairperson. Evidently only public-authorities will only be sending completed questionnaire in absence of public-comments because of DoPT not making public aware about the questionnaire.
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL
Subject: (REVISED) DoPT CIRCULAR ON RTI ACT (SEE ATTACHMENT)
To: Date: Friday, April 16, 2010, 9:40 AM
(REVISED) DoPT CIRCULAR ON RTI ACT (SEE ATTACHMENT)
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) had put a ‘Questionnaire to facilitate strategy formulation on RTI under the Performance Management and Evaluation System for DoPT’ on its website through RTI circular number 1/2/2010-IR dated 01.04.2010 which invited feedback and suggestions towards RTI Act from ‘stake-holders’ including civil-society groups (NGOs), Information Commissioners and Public-Authorities with last date to submit completed questionnaires as 15.04.2010. Questionnaire along-with the circular was removed from DoPT website on 15.04.2010 after expiry of deadline to submit completed questionnaire.
Are normal citizens and other organisations not on DoPT invitation-list are not stake-holders on RTI Act when no mass publicity programme was launched by DoPT to invite suggestions towards RTI Act? DoPT has simply fulfilled formality of inviting public-comments on the important issue by not making normal citizens aware of the questionnaire. Is it a strategy-planning of DoPT to fulfil formality of consulting ‘all stake-holders’ before amending RTI Act as promised by Prime Minister to UPA Chairperson. Evidently only public-authorities will only be sending completed questionnaire in absence of public-comments because of DoPT not making public aware about the questionnaire.
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)