Maharashtra RTI Rules Amendment – The Process began in 2009, unknown to Civil Society

2 July 2012, Mumbai:  RTI activists of other states should take a lesson from the experience of Maharashtra RTI activists, and be very alert. Maybe they should all file RTI applications to their Law and Judiciary department and General Administration Department to find out what is going on. Because, by reading the documents procured under RTI from General Administration Department by RTI activist G R Vora (            9869195785      ,grvora1@gmail.com), we are surprised to find that the process of amendment was quietly going on for the past 2-3 years, unknown to all of us. See the dates circled on page 4 of part 1 of this RTI reply: http://tinyurl.com/GRV-Maha-RTI-Rules-Amndmnt-dox

[Note: GR Vora got 60 pages of government documents in English and Marathi, totaling about 45 mb. This is divided into two parts to facilitate download.]

Maharashtra activists were taken by surprise a couple of months earlier, when we learned about this amendment post-facto from an unofficial source – the March edition of a private publication sold outside Mumbai’s city civil court:http://tinyurl.com/Mrashtra-RTIRulesAmend-Jan2012   

The community of RTI activists and users of Maharashtra felt betrayed that the state government had not taken us into confidence by holding a public consultation. They reacted very strongly. Some activists have challenged this amendment in Bombay High Court.

We requests our fellow activists – especially those who are comfortable analyzing Marathi documents – to study these documents and share their understanding with all of us on internet. Quite probably, there will be lessons in it for RTI activists from all states on how to be more watchful, and not get taken by surprise in future.

Warm Regards,

Krish

            98215 88114      

thebravepedestrian?AT?gmail.com

Latest Info Commission​er Selection: PMO played fair, Oppn Leader played foul

15 May, 2012: There is good news: documents procured by activists GirishMittal and Lokesh Batra under RTI indicate that the latest batch of CentralInformation Commissioners (Rajiv Mathur, Vijai Sharma and Basant Seth) wereselected by a more transparent process than earlier. The central government hasdefinitely mended its ways and set a good precedent for state governments.  By calling for applications and having applicationsscreened by a Search Committee, the government has yielded to two long standingdemands of RTI activists.

However, Leader ofOpposition Sushma Swaraj short-circuited the process, it seems. She put up twonames that were not selected by the Search Committee, and one of them became aCIC. New CICs Rajiv Mathur and Vijai Sharma were on a shortlist of nine personsafter a screening process for 214 contenders. But new CIC Basant Seth waseliminated by the Search Committee, and re-entered the shortlist as SushmaSwaraj’s candidate, it appears from the below documents.

THE PROCESS FOLLOWED THISTIME:

1)      OnOct 29, 2011, DOPT issued this circular inviting applications from all eligiblepersons, including civil society: http://tinyurl.com/DOPT-Circular-Nov2011

2)      Fromthe applications received before the final date, a list of all 214 applicants wasdrawn up: http://tinyurl.com/List-CIC-Applicants-Apr2012

3)      TheSearch Committee seemingly evaluated 214 applicants “on the basis of width,diversity, relevance and length of experience of the applicants, with some preferencefor legal background and strategic exposure”. Also, inputs were sought fromIntelligence Bureau and Central Vigilance Commission. All this is stated in theminutes of the Selection Committee meeting on 23 February 2012: http://tinyurl.com/MOM-PMs-Selection-Cmte-Feb2012

IT WILL BE WORTH GETTING THESE DETAILS UNDER RTI:

a)     Copies of all correspondence betweenDOPT and PMO concerning constituting Search Committee, defining its terms ofreference, etc.

b)     Copies of documents showing the criteriaand procedure used by the Search Committee for screening the 214 names andarriving at the shortlist of nine names.

c)     What inputs were solicited and receivedby the PMO, Selection Committee and/or Screening Committee from IB and CVC?Copies of all correspondence, reports received etc.

d)     Copies of all correspondence by OppositionLeader Sushma Swaraj with PMO, Search Committee, Selection Committee andcandidates for the CIC’s post.

WHAT IS A SEARCHCOMMITTEE?

Search     Committees guidelines 1994: http://tinyurl.com/Search-Cmte-Circ-1994  

Search     Committee guidelines 2007: http://tinyurl.com/Search-Cmte-Circ-2007

IMPROVEMENT OVER EARLIER SELECTIONS:

Notwithstanding possible deficiencies of the process followed inthis round of selections, it is far better than earlier selections when A N Tiwari (now retired) and Satyananda Mishra (now the Chief CIC), whowere both DoPT Secretaries, selected themselves for the post of InformationCommissioner.   Tiwari and Mishra disregarded dozens of applicationsaddressed to them and made the shortlist list so short that it reduced thePrime Minister’s Selection Committee into a mere rubber stamp. Girish Mittal’sRTI findings revealed this shocking abuse of position:  http://tinyurl.com/ANT-SM-Self-Selection

To understandethical and legal issues in selecting CICs, read this: http://tinyurl.com/CIC-Selections-legal-issues

The present changes in selection procedure are the result of anongoing struggle since 2009. Background material: http://tinyurl.com/CIC-Selections-background

Warm Regards,
KrishnarajRao
98215 88114
thebravepedestrian@gmail.com

Shailesh Gandhi Writes to Chhatisgarh CM as Legislative Assembly Hikes RTI Fee to Rs 500

Text of the letter written by Shri Shailesh Gandhi, Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi, to Chief Minister, Chhattisgarh, and Shri Ravindra Choubey, Leader of Opposition, is reproduced below.

------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Raman Singh

Chief Minister

Chhattisgarh

Mantralaya

DKS Bhawan, Raipur- 492001

Chhattisgarh

Dear Dr. Raman Singh,

There is some disturbing news which has been received that the Chhatisgarh Legislative assembly has revised the fee payable for RTI applications and the fee chargeable for providing information to Citizens. All over the country all Public authorities have kept a fee of `10 as application fee and `2 per page for providing information. It has been reported that the Chhatisgarh Legislature has revised this to`500 for application fee and `15 per page for information to be provided.

This would be very unfortunate since Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens and Section 7(5) of the Act states that, “Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the Provisions sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed:

“Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-section (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.”

It has clearly been mentioned in the law that the application fee as well as the additional fee for providing information would be reasonable. Almost all Public Authorities in the Country have in the right spirit of the Act and recognizing that information should be available to citizens since they are the owners of the information, kept `10/- as application fee and `2/- per page as additional fee for providing the information. In this background the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly’s decision to start charging `500/- as application and `15/- per page as additional fee goes against the spirit and purpose of the RTI Act and would be unwarranted discrimination against citizens who seek information from the Legislative Assembly. This would give rise to suspicion and speculation that the legislative assembly wishes to discourage citizens from exercising their fundamental right. I am sure the Chhattisgarh Assembly will set a good example to promote citizen’s fundamental rights and reduce the application fee and the additional fee to `10/- and `2/- respectively at the earliest.

Best Regards,

Your’s Truly

(Shailesh Gandhi)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Shri Ravindra Choubey,

Leader of Opposition

Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha,

Baluda Bazar Road,

Raipur- Chhattisgarh

Dear Shri Ravindra Choubey,

There is some disturbing news which has been received that the Chhatisgarh Legislative assembly has revised the fee payable for RTI applications and the fee chargeable for providing information to Citizens. All over the country all Public authorities have kept a fee of `10 as application fee and `2 per page for providing information. It has been reported that the Chhatisgarh Legislature has revised this to`500 for application fee and `15 per page for information to be provided.

This would be very unfortunate since Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens and Section 7(5) of the Act states that, “Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the Provisions sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed:

“Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-section (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.”

It has clearly been mentioned in the law that the application fee as well as the additional fee for providing information would be reasonable. Almost all Public Authorities in the Country have in the right spirit of the Act and recognizing that information should be available to citizens since they are the owners of the information, kept `10/- as application fee and `2/- per page as additional fee for providing the information. In this background the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly’s decision to start charging `500/- as application and `15/- per page as additional fee goes against the spirit and purpose of the RTI Act and would be unwarranted discrimination against citizens who seek information from the Legislative Assembly. This would give rise to suspicion and speculation that the legislative assembly wishes to discourage citizens from exercising their fundamental right. I am sure the Chhattisgarh Assembly will set a good example to promote citizen’s fundamental rights and reduce the application fee and the additional fee to `10/- and `2/- respectively at the earliest.

Best Regards,

Your’s Truly

(Shailesh Gandhi)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Shri Dharamlal Kaushik

Speaker

Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha,

Baluda Bazar Road,

Raipur- Chhattisgarh

Dear Shri Dharamlal Kaushik,

There is some disturbing news which has been received that the Chhatisgarh Legislative assembly has revised the fee payable for RTI applications and the fee chargeable for providing information to Citizens. All over the country all Public authorities have kept a fee of `10 as application fee and `2 per page for providing information. It has been reported that the Chhatisgarh Legislature has revised this to`500 for application fee and `15 per page for information to be provided.

This would be very unfortunate since Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens and Section 7(5) of the Act states that, “Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the Provisions sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed:

“Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-section (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.”

It has clearly been mentioned in the law that the application fee as well as the additional fee for providing information would be reasonable. Almost all Public Authorities in the Country have in the right spirit of the Act and recognizing that information should be available to citizens since they are the owners of the information, kept `10/- as application fee and `2/- per page as additional fee for providing the information. In this background the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly’s decision to start charging `500/- as application and `15/- per page as additional fee goes against the spirit and purpose of the RTI Act and would be unwarranted discrimination against citizens who seek information from the Legislative Assembly. This would give rise to suspicion and speculation that the legislative assembly wishes to discourage citizens from exercising their fundamental right. I am sure the Chhattisgarh Assembly will set a good example to promote citizen’s fundamental rights and reduce the application fee and the additional fee to `10/- and `2/- respectively at the earliest.

Best Regards,

Your’s Truly

(Shailesh Gandhi)

CIC Shailesh Gandhi: “No Public Interest” in IDBI’s Rs 4200 Cr. Loan to Mumbai Airport

Monday, 9 January: Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi is the poster boy of RTI activists. But an order given by him on 30th December 2011 will surely tempt RTI activists to worry about his application of mind to the essential points.

Because, Mr Gandhi has told the average citizen of India that information about an infrastructure loan of Rs 4,200 crore given by a consortium of banks led by IDBI Bank Ltd. to Mumbai Airport Authority Ltd. (MIAL) is protected by their “fiduciary relationship” and therefore, it is none of the citizen’s business!

The appellant in this case, Pune-based RTI activist Sanjay Shirodkar is of course amazed to hear this from Mr Gandhi. But this order is likely to give RTI activists all over the country a serious case of heartburn.

Read Shailesh Gandhi’s Order: http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2011_002878_16667_M_73304.pdf

LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE CASE:

· Mumbai International Airport is a Public Private Partnership (PPP) project.

· MIAL is the PPP consortium in which Airport Authority of India (i.e. Govt of India) has a 26% shareholding. GVK Industries Ltd, and two rather dubious Mauritius-based khokhacompanies hold the remaining 74% shares.

· MIAL is a major beneficiary of public funds – 2000 acres of prime land in Mumbai, valued at Rs 50,000 crore, for which it is paying AAI the princely sum of Rs 100 per annum as lease rent.

· MIAL is playing a governmental role. It is in whole-and-sole control of Mumbai Airport.

[All of this is the official position, confirmed by two previous orders given by Central Information Commission. CIC MM Ansari’s order in 2008, and then again by CIC Sushma Singh’s order in 2011: http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_MA_C_2008_00195_SS_M_57922.pdf ]

· And now, on the other side of the transaction, you have IDBI Bank – India’s fourth-largest PUBLIC SECTOR BANK, which extends a huge loan consisting of RS 4,200 CRORE OF PUBLIC MONEY.

OUR QUESTIONS TO SHAILESH GANDHI:

1. CIC Shailesh Gandhi, Sir, a public sector bank extends a huge INFRASTRUCTURE LOAN (and not a personal loan for, say, GVK Reddy’s daughter’s wedding) to a dodgy consortium. And you say it is NOT public interest? You say that this information is exempted from information, given the “fiduciary relationship” between the lender and the borrower?

2. This loan is for a Public-Private Partnership project, presumably for the use of the good of the Indian citizen. And you say that it is none of our business? That the underlying documents and details of the transaction, which Sanjay Shirodkar asked for, is a private matter between the two transacting parties?

3. MIAL is a well-known fugitive or defaulter as far as the Sunshine Act is concerned. They are consistently stonewalling activists from every angle. No sooner CIC orders them to disclose information, than MIAL goes to Delhi High Court and gets a stay. The only way to get any information from them is to go to other entities like IDBI. Surely you, of all the people, know that?

4. Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects of various kinds are, as a group, fugitives from RTI Act. They are regularly stonewalling and defying orders of Information Commissions. Under the cover of this secrecy, they are looting public moneys from various government entities. Hence the urgent need for citizens to get information from other routes such as public sector banks lending to them. Surely, Sir, you are aware of this?

5. And last but not least, on a very personal note: Three years ago, you introduced the appellant Sanjay Shirodkar to me, specifically to assist him in getting information from MIAL. Sir, have you forgotten?

If seeking Public Private Partnerships’ information is not in public interest, then maybe the PPPs themselves are not in public interest; they only serve the interest of the private parties involved, and the ministers and officials who are in their pay. Maybe it is time for us to agitate for immediate closure of all PPP projects.

[If anybody should wish to contact RTI appellant Sanjay Shirodkar, his contact details aresanjay.shirodkar@gmail.com 097663 13997 .

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

PS: Read the background-story: Govt of India leased 2000 acres to GVK Ltd for Rs 100 p.a. Is this justified? http://tinyurl.com/MIAL-2000-acres-khokha-cos