Dwaipayan Ghosh & Abhinav Garg | TNN
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date: Jan 16, 2009; Section: Times City; Page: 3
New Delhi: In an unusual development, more than a dozen senior Delhi Police officials — joint commissioners, additional commissioners and deputy commissioners — landed up at the Central Information Commission office on Thursday after 22 senior police officers were summoned by chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah in reference to an appeal. The hearing was for a RTI filed by Ajit Kar, a resident of Satyaniketan. The RTI sought answers to 43 questions.
According to Kar, he had initially filed an RTI on various issues concerning ‘‘Delhi Police and the citizens’’ and wanted the seven joint commissioners of Delhi Police to answer them. ‘‘However, the answers I received were mostly vague. Some of the questions were partially or generally answered, while some others were misleading. Hence I appealed to the CIC to provide me relief in the manner that the respondents may be ordered to supply specific and accurate information,’’ Kar said.
While most of the officers turned up in person, a few sent their representatives.
However, a look at the RTI application, a copy of which is with Times City, raises questions about the nature of information demanded. While one question asked the police to give a complete list of heinous crimes and the sections of IPC that were pressed for them, another asked whether all telephone numbers provided in the citizen’s charter were still in working condition.
Habibullah defended the decision to summon the top cops, adding the officers were free to depute a common representative instead of appearing in person. ‘‘Since each one of them had been made a respondent in the RTI plea, summons were sent to each of them. It is the registry which sends these summons and it was open to the officers to send the PIO or intimate their non-availability. It is for them to decide whom to send or depute,’’ Habibullah said, admitting that even he was surprised to see the entire Delhi Police brass turn up in full force. ‘‘The applicant has a very long appeal which we will decide shortly. We told him how the entire force was present today because of his appeal. We have criticised him for that,’’ the CIC said.
A source said: ‘‘With almost all top cops attending the hearing, many important meetings had to be rescheduled. While we respect every CIC decision, we urge the RTI activists to ask more specific questions.’’
Sources said there were people who had been arrested for harassing people with RTI suites. ‘‘While one applicant has filed 270 RTIs in south and south-west districts, another person puts up atleast 90 questions,’’ claimed the source.
For More Info Log on to www.rtigroup.org
|
Subscribe to RTI Group | |
| Browse Archives at groups.google.com | ||
Monday, January 19, 2009
SC moves HC against CIC order on judges’ assets
Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN
January 17, 2009 (Times of India)
New Delhi: Worried about a recent Central Information Commission order on making assets of judges public, the Supreme Court registrar on Friday challenged it before the Delhi high court saying that this information, not being in public domain, could not be given to RTI applicants.
The high court is the appellate authority for challenging CIC’s decisions — a fact that led to this unusual situation of the apex court moving a lower court over a dispute.
The apex court said information relating to declaration of assets by Supreme Court judges to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) was not a mandatory exercise under law, but driven by an informal resolution of May 7, 1997 — implying that information on judges’ assets did not come under RTI’s purview.
The petitioner added that the CIC had committed an error by equating the Supreme Court and the CJI as one and the same authority whereas the CJI’s position was quite distinct from that of the Supreme Court in terms of the RTI Act.
‘‘CJI is not a public authority, as defined under the RTI Act, and therefore, is not required to designate a central public information officer (central PIO) for it, or to supply information held or maintained by it,’’ the appeal stated.
The CIC had on January 6 only directed the central PIO of the SC to furnish information as to whether any declaration of assets had been filed by SC judges or not.
But even this apparently innocuous order has led the Supreme Court to challenge the CIC order before the HC, saying that a public authority was bound to give information if these were available in public domain.
The SC registrar added that details of judges’ assets was not information which was held by or under control of a public authority, since it was voluntarily furnished to the CJI, who himself could not be included in the definition of ‘‘public authority’’. ‘‘There is nothing under the Constitution of India or under any other law which requires judges of the Supreme Court to declare their assets to the Chief Justice of India,’’ said the petition, which was drafted by advocate Devdatt Kamath and settled by Solicitor General G E Vahanvati.
Quoting section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which imposed a ban on furnishing of personal information, the SC Registrar said that any query relating to assets of judges voluntarily declared before the CJI squarely fell within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j).
CURIOUS CASE
Jan 6: Central Information Commission directs SC’s information officer to disclose whether or not SC judges were filing declarations on assets
Apex court goes to HC, a lower court. Says judges not mandated by law to disclose assets. Hence, this information cannot be shared under RTI
SC also says office of Chief Justice of India does not fall under RTI Act
January 17, 2009 (Times of India)
New Delhi: Worried about a recent Central Information Commission order on making assets of judges public, the Supreme Court registrar on Friday challenged it before the Delhi high court saying that this information, not being in public domain, could not be given to RTI applicants.
The high court is the appellate authority for challenging CIC’s decisions — a fact that led to this unusual situation of the apex court moving a lower court over a dispute.
The apex court said information relating to declaration of assets by Supreme Court judges to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) was not a mandatory exercise under law, but driven by an informal resolution of May 7, 1997 — implying that information on judges’ assets did not come under RTI’s purview.
The petitioner added that the CIC had committed an error by equating the Supreme Court and the CJI as one and the same authority whereas the CJI’s position was quite distinct from that of the Supreme Court in terms of the RTI Act.
‘‘CJI is not a public authority, as defined under the RTI Act, and therefore, is not required to designate a central public information officer (central PIO) for it, or to supply information held or maintained by it,’’ the appeal stated.
The CIC had on January 6 only directed the central PIO of the SC to furnish information as to whether any declaration of assets had been filed by SC judges or not.
But even this apparently innocuous order has led the Supreme Court to challenge the CIC order before the HC, saying that a public authority was bound to give information if these were available in public domain.
The SC registrar added that details of judges’ assets was not information which was held by or under control of a public authority, since it was voluntarily furnished to the CJI, who himself could not be included in the definition of ‘‘public authority’’. ‘‘There is nothing under the Constitution of India or under any other law which requires judges of the Supreme Court to declare their assets to the Chief Justice of India,’’ said the petition, which was drafted by advocate Devdatt Kamath and settled by Solicitor General G E Vahanvati.
Quoting section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which imposed a ban on furnishing of personal information, the SC Registrar said that any query relating to assets of judges voluntarily declared before the CJI squarely fell within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j).
CURIOUS CASE
Jan 6: Central Information Commission directs SC’s information officer to disclose whether or not SC judges were filing declarations on assets
Apex court goes to HC, a lower court. Says judges not mandated by law to disclose assets. Hence, this information cannot be shared under RTI
SC also says office of Chief Justice of India does not fall under RTI Act
Monday, December 22, 2008
Assets on Web: RTI officers say no
Chetan Chauhan
New Delhi
Hindustan Times: Metro; Dt. 22nd Dec 2008; pg 11
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Shailesh Gandhi's move to put his asset details in the public domain hasn’t found favour with his colleagues.
In an apparent rejection of Gandhi's proposal, the Central Information Commissioner has decided not to put his asset statement on the commission's website, for now.
Gandhi had in November submitted details of his assets, worth Rs 5.4 crore, to the Central Information Commissioner and had asked it be put on the commission's website. “I've requested CIC Wajahat Habibullah to post the list of assets of all information commissioners on the website,” Gandhi had told HT.
The Central Informa tion Commission, where majority of members are retired bureaucrats, however, opted for a longer route to decide the matter. “We've to take into account the procedure for submission of declaration of property by other such commissions before taking a final decision,” Habibullah told HT.
The rules don't require members of commissions set up by the Centre to declare assets.
Gandhi's proposal was discussed at a recent meeting, but most members weren't in favour of declaring as sets on the website.“There wasn't much opposition to declaration of assets. But, what the commission ers didn't like was providing the information on the website,” said a commission official, who didn't want to be named.
Magsaysay award winner Right To Information activist Arvind Kejriwal termed the move as a lost opportunity “If the as . sets' statements would have been put on the website, it would have put pressure on other government departments to do the same,” he said.
Vihar Dhurve, an RTI activist from Pune, had in a letter to information commissioners, asked how could the commission ask government officials to declare assets when they weren't doing the same. Responding to the letter, Gandhi had sent him his asset statement and forwarded the same to be put on the website.
chetan@hindustantimes.com
New Delhi
Hindustan Times: Metro; Dt. 22nd Dec 2008; pg 11
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Shailesh Gandhi's move to put his asset details in the public domain hasn’t found favour with his colleagues.
In an apparent rejection of Gandhi's proposal, the Central Information Commissioner has decided not to put his asset statement on the commission's website, for now.
Gandhi had in November submitted details of his assets, worth Rs 5.4 crore, to the Central Information Commissioner and had asked it be put on the commission's website. “I've requested CIC Wajahat Habibullah to post the list of assets of all information commissioners on the website,” Gandhi had told HT.
The Central Informa tion Commission, where majority of members are retired bureaucrats, however, opted for a longer route to decide the matter. “We've to take into account the procedure for submission of declaration of property by other such commissions before taking a final decision,” Habibullah told HT.
The rules don't require members of commissions set up by the Centre to declare assets.
Gandhi's proposal was discussed at a recent meeting, but most members weren't in favour of declaring as sets on the website.“There wasn't much opposition to declaration of assets. But, what the commission ers didn't like was providing the information on the website,” said a commission official, who didn't want to be named.
Magsaysay award winner Right To Information activist Arvind Kejriwal termed the move as a lost opportunity “If the as . sets' statements would have been put on the website, it would have put pressure on other government departments to do the same,” he said.
Vihar Dhurve, an RTI activist from Pune, had in a letter to information commissioners, asked how could the commission ask government officials to declare assets when they weren't doing the same. Responding to the letter, Gandhi had sent him his asset statement and forwarded the same to be put on the website.
chetan@hindustantimes.com
Sunday, December 21, 2008
From April, just call in to file your RTI application
Hindustan Times
New Delhi: Metro; pg 1
December 15, 2008
Chetan Chauhan
New Delhi
FROM NEXT April, you will be able to file a Right to Information (RTI) application from your MTNL phone. All you will need to do is call a number and place your request; you won’t have to go anywhere or fill forms.
The phone requests will be handled by a national call centre, which will be run jointly by the ministry of information technology and a non-governmental organisation, Kabir. They are in the last stages of setting up the place and equipping it.
The centre, which is Congress chief Sonia Gandhi’s idea, will take calls from across the country A regional call . centre has already been in operation in Bihar, and it has done well “despite low literacy and poor access to telephone”, said an official.
There will be no extra charge for processing your phone request. The fee will remain the same at Rs 10 — the amount charged for every RTI application — and will be added to your monthly phone bill. “Depending on the response to this pilot project, we’ll consider adding other service providers,” said a senior IT ministry official.
The official said there will be a dedicated RTI portal where all applications will be posted so that the public information officers can access them. “The portal will also help applicants check the status of their applications.” The portal is under construction, and the number you can call is being finalised. chetan@hindustantimes.com
New Delhi: Metro; pg 1
December 15, 2008
Chetan Chauhan
New Delhi
FROM NEXT April, you will be able to file a Right to Information (RTI) application from your MTNL phone. All you will need to do is call a number and place your request; you won’t have to go anywhere or fill forms.
The phone requests will be handled by a national call centre, which will be run jointly by the ministry of information technology and a non-governmental organisation, Kabir. They are in the last stages of setting up the place and equipping it.
The centre, which is Congress chief Sonia Gandhi’s idea, will take calls from across the country A regional call . centre has already been in operation in Bihar, and it has done well “despite low literacy and poor access to telephone”, said an official.
There will be no extra charge for processing your phone request. The fee will remain the same at Rs 10 — the amount charged for every RTI application — and will be added to your monthly phone bill. “Depending on the response to this pilot project, we’ll consider adding other service providers,” said a senior IT ministry official.
The official said there will be a dedicated RTI portal where all applications will be posted so that the public information officers can access them. “The portal will also help applicants check the status of their applications.” The portal is under construction, and the number you can call is being finalised. chetan@hindustantimes.com
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Relief for information seeker
New Delhi, December 13, 2008
First Published: 00:07 IST(13/12/2008)
Last Updated: 00:11 IST(13/12/2008)
Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi has asked the Uttar Pradesh police to book the person who had threatened an RTI activist for seeking information from Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) on alleged transfer of Rs 8 crore from the Provident Fund (PF) deposits. Gandhi on Friday directed the Aligarh SSP to investigate the matter.
Dr Mohammed Naved Khan, a senior lecturer with the Business Administration Department at AMU, had complained that the police had not taken action in a case lodged by him. He had lodged the case after he was threatened for filing the RTI application.
Khan had filed the application on October 11, 2008, seeking information about transfer of PF deposits. He then received a threatening call. The caller identified himself as an AMU student.
A day later, he reported the incident to the proctor and asked him to register a case. When no case was registered, he lodged a police complaint. He then received a letter from AMU informing that the call was made by an employee of the proctor’s office, but refuted claims that he was threatened. Khan wrote to the Central Information Commission (CIC), as the police were not pursuing the case.
© Copyright 2007 Hindustan Times
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
From now, CIC order review only in courts
New Delhi: In a move that smacks of bureaucratic red tapism, the Central Information Commission (CIC) will no longer allow review of its decisions. A recent change in the CIC (Management) Regulations, 2007, now makes it clear that CIC’s decision can only be reviewed through a writ filed in the high court and Supreme Court.
According to chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, the rules were not in consonance with law. ‘‘We have changed the rules as under law a court cannot review its own decisions. The CIC does not have the review power unless there is an error of law or facts.’’ Habibullah said that applicants had misunderstood the rules and so a correction had been made. Information commissioners admit privately that the number of review applications had begun to rise and this was becoming difficult to handle.
The rule had earlier said that an appellant can make an application to the chief information commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request. It was left on the discretion of the CIC to ‘‘consider and decide the matter as he thinks fit.’’ The decision has now been restricted to read — ‘‘A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final’’.
RTI activists, on the other hand, have cried foul over the changes. Col Lokesh Batra said, ‘‘Now a complainant can no longer ask for special leave to review a decision.’’ Said Subhash Chandra Agarwal who has filed two review petitions that the decision will impact RTI. ‘‘In my application regarding information on Padma awardees, I had asked how it was possible for a jury spread across India to shortlist 100 names from the thousands in just one or two meetings. I had five queries but only one was answered,’’ he said.
Agarwal said that there should be a provision within the rules for a review by a larger Bench. ‘‘This will cut down on litigation costs and also bring about a consistency in the performance of information commissioners,’’ he added.
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date: Oct 30, 2008; Section: Times Nation; Page: 13
Himanshi Dhawan | TNN
According to chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, the rules were not in consonance with law. ‘‘We have changed the rules as under law a court cannot review its own decisions. The CIC does not have the review power unless there is an error of law or facts.’’ Habibullah said that applicants had misunderstood the rules and so a correction had been made. Information commissioners admit privately that the number of review applications had begun to rise and this was becoming difficult to handle.
The rule had earlier said that an appellant can make an application to the chief information commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request. It was left on the discretion of the CIC to ‘‘consider and decide the matter as he thinks fit.’’ The decision has now been restricted to read — ‘‘A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final’’.
RTI activists, on the other hand, have cried foul over the changes. Col Lokesh Batra said, ‘‘Now a complainant can no longer ask for special leave to review a decision.’’ Said Subhash Chandra Agarwal who has filed two review petitions that the decision will impact RTI. ‘‘In my application regarding information on Padma awardees, I had asked how it was possible for a jury spread across India to shortlist 100 names from the thousands in just one or two meetings. I had five queries but only one was answered,’’ he said.
Agarwal said that there should be a provision within the rules for a review by a larger Bench. ‘‘This will cut down on litigation costs and also bring about a consistency in the performance of information commissioners,’’ he added.
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date: Oct 30, 2008; Section: Times Nation; Page: 13
Himanshi Dhawan | TNN
Friday, October 10, 2008
Cabinet secretariat get CIC rap over RTI
Himanshi Dhawan | TNN
New Delhi: The Central Information Commission, in a recent order, pulled up the cabinet secretariat for its casual attitude and demanded that the information that had been withheld regarding an appellant’s promotion should be disclosed within 10 days.
Terming the attitude of the cabinet secretariat as “flippant”, the CIC in a recent order observed that the department was making a “determined effort” not to provide information to the appellant.
While giving the order, chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said, “We are constrained to observe that the manner of disposal of the application... by so august a body as the cabinet secretariat, expected to be a model for public authorities, is nothing less than flippant.”
Appellant Sushma Jain had asked for information related to the search and selection committee that met on September 9, 2006 that had considered her case.
She was being considered for the position of additional secretary in the legislative department in the ministry of law and justice. She had applied to the ministry which asked her to address her query to the cabinet secretariat.
In his order, Habibullah noted that the commission had allowed proceedings of staff selection, promotion committees and even annual confidential reports — in certain cases — to be made public. The commission ordered that Jain be given records of the committee and any subsequent consideration of her promotion within 10 days.
The cabinet secretary had refused giving the information with the response that the application was non-specific and lacked clarity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)