On 8th Anniversary of RTI Act, we salute India’s defending champions

10th October, 2013: On the eve of the 8th anniversary of India’s Right to Information Act, it is worth remembering that this anniversary honours not just a popular legislation called RTI Act 2005, but also the legion of heroes of the RTI movement. Some heroes of this revolutionary movement are iconic. They earned recognition and love for their pioneering work, for kindling a vast grassroots movement by spreading awareness and detailed knowledge of the RTI Act and RTI rules. With zeal and foresight, they created the first generation of people who knew how to draft RTI applications and speak up at appeal hearings. These people in turn mentored thousands of others, and created a huge wave of RTI work for both administration and media. These thousands of nameless, faceless RTI applicants pursuing their lonely quest to hold the administration accountable in every city, town and village, are making government officials less arrogant. They are forcing the government to respect the might of the common man, more than they ever have since Independence.

However, it is worth remembering that the government, parliament and administration are not entirely villains – although sometimes, it may seem that way. Because, to cope with this flood of requests for information, this very government created, within a very short time after October 2005, a vast administrative machinery consisting of lakhs of Public Information Officers, First Appellate Authorities and Information Commissioners.

Remember, in the 55 preceding years of Independent India, most government organizations were represented before the public by one or two Public Relations Officer (PROs). The task of a PRO was largely to respond to the members of the public with a cup of tea and a friendly “no” to any request for information – or, at best, to grudgingly give some sketchy information.

Considering all this, the progress that has been made on both sides of the administrative table since 2005 is astonishing.

Paradoxically, our collective unhappiness with the implementation of Right to Information is largely because this legal right is being used by so many people! RTI Act is giving rise to literally tens of thousands of interactions with various organs of administration, which simply did not exist before 2005.

At first sight, it may seem as though the pent-up fury of 55 years of Independence has been released; there is a flood that is unstoppable. But wait, let us not get carried away by rhetoric. Consider these facts: 

·         GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Roughly half of these RTI interactions (applications and appeals) are of government employees (or former government employees) trying to get their service matters resolved – matters relating to transfers, promotions, selections, pensions etc.

·         AGGRIEVED CITIZENS: The other half of RTI interactions are primarily of private citizens seeking to resolve their own private grievances. Some of these RTI applications and appeals are oblique complaints – complaints ingeniously worded in the form of RTI applications. Other RTI applications are for follow-up of complaints or representations to various government departments, quasi-judicial or even judicial forums. RTI is enabling them to actively pursue their fundamental rights.

·         PUBLIC-INTEREST CAMPAIGNERS, ACADEMICS & WHISTLE-BLOWERS. A small but significant percentage of RTI interactions are concerning matters of public interest. Some people are using RTI systematically to focus on certain aspects of public policy, and they are putting out well-reasoned, thoroughly researched reports to the government. Simultaneously, knowledgeable citizens and political activists, angered by the bad quality of administration, are trying to enforce accountability and expose scams in order to make a point. They are filing complaints, public interest litigations (PILs), and potent media reports. This activity is both revolutionary and subversive. On the one hand, it is pushing the administration to self-correct. On the other hand, it is stoking anti-establishment sentiments by heaping shame on all government and administration authorities, by using its own laws, rules and mechanisms.

The government responds by studiously ignoring these modern-day revolutionaries, and reserving the Padma awards and state benefits for cricketers, bollywood actors and other celebrities. RTI activists are daily doing the thankless job of cleaning up the administration in their villages, talukas, district-headquarters and small towns. Unrecognized, unrewarded but struggling every day, these people are chipping away at bad governance. But we, as a nation, continue to ignore them and waste our admiration on trivial celebrities. Even the common man pays only token respect to RTI activists, often only after they have been assaulted or murdered.

On this anniversary, let us remember the heroic persons whom we may have the privilege of knowing. But more so, let us dedicate it to the nameless and faceless RTI Activist – that man or woman who walks or rides a scooter in sun and rain, and insistently goes to the offices of various public authorities, filing RTI applications, appeals, attending hearings, seeking justice from an unjust and insensitive system.

Every so often, someone raises the question of who is an “RTI activist”, as opposed to a mere “RTI applicant” or “aggrieved person” or “information seeker”. On this anniversary, let us remember that this is largely an imaginary distinction. Right to Information Act 2005 has empowered the common man to question government servants and hold them accountable by corresponding with lakhs of Public Information Officers (PIOs), thousands of First Appellate Authorities, and over a hundred Information Commissioners in various States. The term “RTI activist” generally encompasses the entire civil society movement consisting of lakhs of independent citizens, plus a few hundred NGOs, who are questioning the administration on various issues, public or private.

No two RTI activists are the same. Some are habituated to filing hundreds of RTI applications to a wide range of government authorities on a variety of issues. They unearth hundreds of documents and get them published by the media, throwing light on a wide variety of issues. Other activists drill deep into one or two issues for years. Some activists frequently file first and second appeals, doggedly attend hearings, try to get the PIO penalized, and even try to get thousands of pages of information free-of-charge if the PIO missed his deadlines. Others try to get their individual or collective grievances redressed by using RTI applications as a pressure tactic. Some are neighbourhood watchdogs, supervising the municipality’s garbage-disposal, encroachment-clearance, hawkers, roads etc. Others are RTI trainers, helpers, mentors, webmasters, journalists etc., who find fulfillment by helping other people file RTI applications and appeals.

A defining characteristic of RTI activists is that they are usually leaderless and cannot be tamed. They are fiercely independent and notoriously difficult to organize into hierarchical groups. Generally, they spend money from their own pockets. Unlike NGOs, RTI activists get no government funding or corporate sponsors. They are usually unable to conform to organizational norms of behavior, and hence, cannot form associations or political parties.

Possibly the only common factor that characterizes all RTI activists is that they seek RULE OF LAW – which clearly has been eroded by decades of party politics, influence-yielding, favour-seeking and quid-quo-pro deals. As a rule, RTI activists are trying to get various rules and laws implemented. The constant basis of their actions is to compare laws, rules, norms, manuals, guidelines, circulars and terms & conditions with the administration’s failure to perform on various fronts, especially service delivery, due diligence, vigilance and law & order enforcement.

The RTI movement is an ongoing revolution. It is a statement of the common man’s faith in the democratic system that, though corroded and crooked, still somehow works. It is an authentic grassroots-level Satyagraha movement, that consists of persistently doing the rounds of government offices, seeking information and justice. Despite suffering many defeats and insults from the administration and even the judiciary, RTI activists refuse to quit, refuse to yield to cynicism and pessimism. They refuse to accept the all-pervasive belief that this nation of ours cannot be fixed!

On 12th October, 2013, we will not only salute eight years of RTI Act 2005, but also bow our heads to this massive body of men and women in cities, towns and villages, whose faith in the system just keeps them marching, stumbling along year after year in the direction of good governance. They are the keepers of the sacred flame of India.

Warm Regards,

Krish

            98215 88114      

Mumbai

Jamia Millia Jamia sends Rs.50 lakh defamation notice to RTI activist

Association for Protection of Civil Rights has flayed Jamia Millia Islamia for sending defamation notice of Rs.50 lakh to RTI activist Afroz Alam Sahil – who was instrumental in bringing into the public domain the post-mortem report of Batla House encounter – and termed the move as an attempt to harass him. Jamia authorities were peeved at Afroz Alam Sahil constantly questioning the administration through RTI. Rights group alleged that it is an open attempt to suppress the voice of dissen

t as well as freedom of speech. Mr. Sahil has also been campaigning for restoration of democratic rights for students of Jamia where election for Students Union have not been held since 2006. Mr. Sahil is also credited for bringing into public domain post-mortem report into the Batla House encounter through his RTI application apart from raising issues pertaining to corruption, fellowships, hostel allotment, health services and security for women.

Several organizations have demanded that Jamia administration withdraw its legal notice with immediate effect to ensure freedom of speech and to encourage its own outstanding student.

Scan of the legal notice of defamation is attached.

RTI Task force for transparency in Banks & Financial Sector

Dear Friends,

A number of RTI activists are fighting for transparency in the banking sector, and their regulatory bodies. Whenever they have filed RTI applications for information from the banking sector – even where a large element of public interest is involved -- many activists have found that the banks are stonewalling and evading disclosures. RTI activists have many favourable orders from Central Information Commission to support them in their fight, but it is necessary for activists to come together on this issue and pool their energies.

In recent weeks, a number of activists have discussed with me about this area of need. (By a happy coincidence, I have been asked to address a meeting on this topic by Moneylife Foundation this week.)

So I am inviting you to not only participate in but spearhead a task force for transparency in this sector. If you have some experience with RTI on banks, or you are yourself a banker, we urge you to share your knowledge and insights with us.

WHY FOCUS ON BANKS? SOME SPECIFIC REASONS:

1. Banks play a key role in our lives. God forbid, if some major banks – or even relatively minor cooperative banks -- were to pack up tomorrow, we would be very badly hit. Therefore, their lending and investment policies are very much our concern. Banks – especially nationalized banks – cannot argue that what they do is their internal matter”, and of no concern to citizens!

2. Alarmingly, banks are increasingly acting like usurious money-lenders. Many of their loans – especially gold-loans and loans against property – are aimed at distressed borrowers who have been hit by recession and are struggling to maintain their lifestyle and business. A large proportion of such borrowers fail to repay their loans, and lose their assets. To promote borrowing in such an economic environment is exploitative: http://tinyurl.com/Bank-Loans-Aggressive-promos

3. Nationalized banks, private banks and cooperative banks have disproportionate clout. They are repositories of depositors’ moneys, and also retail as well as bulk lenders. Last but not least, they are investors participating in the equity markets and competing with small investors.

4. As bulk lenders and investors, they influence industrial growth. As retail lenders and savings banks, they determine consumer and investor behavior. By varying the interest rates on deposits and loans, they play a major role in determining whether the bulk of Indians invest in equity, put their money into fixed-income instruments, or use their money in buying consumer goods.

5. Banks and bankers actively shape the policies made by the Union Finance Ministry and Reserve Bank of India. The quality of their reporting to the government and regulatory bodies, and the pressures that they exert on governance, are key determinants on what happens to our nation. They actually have enough power to crash the economy singlehandedly!

6. Bad banks = costly bailouts using public moneys. Most banks are considered “too big to fail”. Government invariably steps in to rescue banks that are in trouble, using large amounts of public moneys for bailouts. This means that minding the business of banks is every citizen’s business!

7. Fuzzy lines in banking. The lines between non-banking finance companies and banks are blurred.

8. Conflicts of interest. With many banks like SBI becoming shareholders in loss-making companies like Kingfisher Airlines, and also project-finance to unscrupulous builders following bad and illegal practices, conflicts of interest are the norm rather than the exception.

I look forward to your early response.

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

thebravepedestrian.[AT].gmail.com

The Problem is Judiciary: Sign this letter for Chief Justice of India, High Courts & Others

Dear All,

For 99.99 percent Indians, seeking judicial remedies is impossible. Going to court is full of hurdles, such as:

Terribly expensive lawyers
Tareekh pe tareekh i.e. endless adjournments
Stay Orders for flimsy reasons
Difficult and time-consuming court procedures
Slavish court language from the colonial era
Frequent court vacations that breaks the flow of justice and adds to the delay

We all know how the judiciary nullifies many administrative and quasi-judicial processes. For example, civic bodies are almost helpless to demolish illegal structures and evict encroachers because courts routinely stay the demolition and eviction notices without applying their mind to the long-term consequences. Numerous well-reasoned orders of Information Commissioners are rendered ineffective by Stay Orders every month.

But we dare not give the judges any feedback. Why? Because we are afraid of being jailed for contempt of court. We fear the unquestioned authority of the judges and their power to harm us, either directly or through the cases we are involved in.

See the irony: We are not afraid of criticizing the Prime Minister and the President. But we tremble at the thought of speaking the indisputable truth to judges.

Friends, let us stop being afraid. Let us speak up and clearly state the inconvenient truth. Let us ask the judiciary to reform itself. Please remember the courts exist only to serve the common man; there is no other reason for their existence. As they are consistently failing to serve the common man, it is time for We The People to point out the areas of failure, and ask for immediate changes.

Eight of us, including five advocates practicing in the Supreme Court, Delhi and Bombay High Courts, have decided to speak out. On 25th December, we will dispatch hard copies of this letter to the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of each and every High Court, President of the Bar Association of all High Courts, the Union Law Minister, and the Law Commission of India.

The below letter draft has been settled after many revisions, with key inputs from Supreme Court advocate Abdul Rasheed Qureshi and Bombay High Court advocate Ameet Mehta.

We urge you to join us by being signatories to this letter. Please send your email address and contact number for inclusion as signatories to grvora1@gmail.com .

Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114

FINAL DRAFT OF LETTER

25th December 2011

To
Hon. Justice S H Kapadia
Chief Justice of India
c/o The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110 001

CC to:
Hon. Chief Justices of All High Courts
c/o The Registrar General

President, Bar Association
High Courts of all states

Shri Salman Khurshid
Union Minister for Law & Justice
South Block, New Delhi

Hon Justice P V Reddy
Chairman, 19th Law Commission
2nd floor, the Law Institute Building
Opposite Supreme Court
New Delhi 110 001.

You have placed Judiciary beyond the reach of the Common Man,
Especially Senior Citizens.
Please Remedy this Situation.

Dear Sir,

We The People of India are addressing ourselves to you as the administrative head of India’s Judiciary, and not in your judicial capacity. Sir, before you retire in a few months, we hope you will apply your wisdom as an enlightened administrative reformer and do away with some archaic judicial traditions that are harming our nation.

Sir, victims of the high-handed ways of the judiciary, such as defendants and petitioners, cannot speak out. They fear that your brother judges will harm their cause by issuing some arbitrary orders. We are speaking on their behalf.

India’s judicial machinery is no longer available to senior citizens. No senior citizen can file a case, as it is unlikely to reach final judgement stage before 15-20 years by when he/she will be senile or dead.

Common people – even reasonably wealthy ones -- cannot go to court because it requires uncontrollable expenses of lakhs of rupees, which drain away their life-savings.

Over the decades, there has been a gross failure in administration of the judicial machinery. Many judges are pointing this out in their speeches at various forums. These speeches only remain good to hear, as nothing gets done afterwards.

The zealously guarded doctrine of Independence of Judiciary has ensured inability of successive governments and parliament to reform our judiciary. Only the judiciary can reform itself. The Supreme Court is the overall court of superintendence. Sir, the administrative powers needed to pull up the socks of the judiciary which are centered on you and you alone. If you don’t do it, nobody can force you to do it. What is worse, nobody can even raise their voice, criticize you for your administrative failure, and threaten to replace you with a more competent administrator, because that would invite Contempt.

Only you, Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, can initiate reforms of our judiciary, and the first step will be for you to candidly admit the judiciary’s flaws, and set out a roadmap with a timetable for change.

Regardless of whether we are currently litigants before any court, all of us are suffering from severe handicaps and frustrations in our daily lives because of the judiciary’s unavailability to us, and lack of the judiciary’s protection. Please heed our voices, because we are aggrieved stakeholders.

Some Problems & Proposed Solutions:

Problem 1: Easy and indefinite Stay Orders. Sir, numerous well-reasoned judgments of lower courts, tribunals and quasi-judicial forums such as RTI Information Commissions are granted Stay for the asking. Various administrative orders and notices for demolition etc. issued by civic authorities, targeting unauthorized and illegal activity, are also indefinitely stayed. It requires great effort to get a Stay vacated. This nullifies various laws, creates a dead end for law enforcement agencies as well as law-abiding citizens, and creates widespread cynicism about lawful methods. Proposed Solution: Firstly, issue a directive that if a matter is stayed by any court, the case should automatically become fast-track. Please give short dates of maximum one-week intervals so that the party that has got a stay order does not enjoy undue benefit of judicial delay. The case should come to finality typically within three months, and in exceptional cases, six months. Secondly, make it mandatory that a stay order shall automatically lapse after six months have passed, so that the beneficiary of the stay does not seek refuge in delaying tactics.

Problem 2: Adjournments for the asking. The proceedings of High Court and all lower courts can be summed up in one Hindi movie phrase: tareekh pe tareekh (date after date). In Sessions and Magistrate’s Courts, the proceedings cannot even be understood. Undertrials and accused parties are summoned every 2-3 months, and sent back with a new date, clueless as to why their hearing did not happen. Their carefully submissions are not heard. Sometimes, if pressed, the court staff give flimsy explanations. Thousands of man-hours of the court, police and general public are being wasted, and as the years pass, memories fade, witnesses turn hostile, and justice becomes meaningless. Only lawyers gain from this ongoing delay. Proposed Solution: Please issue a directive mandating steeply rising penalty on both lawyers and parties for each successive adjournment sought e.g. first adjournment, Rs 2,000 penalty; second adjournment, Rs 5,000; and third and final adjournment, Rs 15,000.

Problem 3: Widely spaced dates. With dates that are sometimes six months apart, litigations drag on for years and decades – sometimes with the undertrial persons in judicial custody, denying them their fundamental right of life and liberty! Proposed Solution: Firstly, issue a directive mandating closely clustered dates of 15-30 days interval, and never more than a total of 10 dates. It is the studied opinion of many advocates that all cases in trial courts, High Courts and Supreme Court can easily be brought to finality in 7 to 10 dates. Secondly, make it mandatory to serve the opponents/respondents notice in advance, eliminating two dates at the outset.

Problem 4: Court of Surprises, not Court of Law. Hiding behind their ill-tempered behavior in court and their powers of Contempt, judges give utterly whimsical interim orders, reliefs and judgments that cannot be upheld by legal reasoning. Many well-reasoned orders and judgments of lower courts are struck down or re-opened by higher courts on flimsy grounds. Such judgments often favour influential or wealthy persons. Proposed Solution: Please set up a judicial audit mechanism to scrutinize suspicious judgments and their reasoning. Judges who do not reason well must be questioned and criticized by their own peers.

Problem 5: Astronomical charges of senior counsels, and network of kickbacks. Senior counsels are charging insane amounts, such as Rs 5-to-20 lakh per appearance. Even if they are merely required to stand up for a moment in court and request adjournment, they charge the full amount. They also charge several lakh rupees for a few minutes of consultation. If they appear in other courts, then the charges run into crores of rupees per appearance. Less-well-known advocates convince their clients to engage such senior counsels, in return of kickbacks. The clerks and juniors of such super-rich legal luminaries “manage” the courts, getting comfortable dates and bench re-assignments for getting “friendly” judges. Their face value and money power ensures even if the case has no merits, “strict” judges listen patiently to lengthy lectures from them before passing an order! Inspired by such senior counsels, lesser known lawyers hike their fees by leaps and bounds, taking justice out of the reach of the common man, and giving an undue advantage to the super-rich. Nowadays, only companies can afford lawyers. Proposed Solution: To make courts affordable to the common man, please impose a reasonable fee-structure on all lawyers practicing in every level of the judiciary, especially the higher judiciary. Those violating the mandatory fee-structure should be debarred from representing clients or appearing in court.

Problem 6: Culture of egotism and sycophancy. Lawyers continually pamper judges’ egos with servile colonial expressions like “Your Lordship”, “Milord”, “Prayers”, “We crave your leave,” “We humbly pray”, and “For this favour we will ever be ever in your debt”. Even court stationery comes with such slavish language, although the citizen is only asking for the rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution, and not begging for out-of-the-way favours. Judges deny justice to lawyers or citizens who resist this culture. Citizens who appear before court as Party-In-Person to represent their own cause are bullied and harried. This promotion of slavishness is a violation of fundamental rights of equality, life and liberty within the premises of the judiciary. Proposed Solution: Please ban such unwholesome language. Please ensure that henceforth, in speech and in writing, all judges are addressed only as ‘Sir’.

Problem 7: Civil contempt of court, giving false evidence, perjury etc. are taken lightly. Although the courts are quick to punish criminal contempt i.e. breach of court propriety, they are not offended when their judgments are disobeyed. Also, they wink at false documents, false evidence and outright lies in court. This gives crooks the upper hand over upright citizens. Proposed Solution: Please set aside a clear time-slot in every court for ensuring implementation of court orders, and taking up issues of false evidence etc.

Problem 8: Colonial practice of lengthy vacations & short working hours. Lower courts work for about 240 days in a year, High Courts for 210 days and Supreme Court for 188 days only i.e. 50% of the year. In summer, the entire judiciary – judges, lawyers, clerks and all – shuts down for 5 to 7 weeks of continuous holidays. The Supreme court goes on vacation from May 10th till June 30th. No other organ of administration takes such a luxury. The working hours per day are as little as 3-4 hours in many courts. In view of the rising pendency of cases, such luxurious working habits are not only unconscionable, but a waste of scarce national resources (the court infrastructure), and a criminal neglect of We The People! Proposed Solution: Firstly, please slash the number of holidays to 60 days, (which is still far more than anybody else takes nowadays, whether in government or in private sector). Secondly, let these vacations not be taken en masse, but in a staggered way so that the entire court does not shut down. Last but not least, please mandate that judges at every level must hear cases in court for at least six hours per day.


Sir, many citizens’ forums have patiently compiled and put across these points for several years, but the judiciary has been ignoring them. Everybody’s patience has reached a limit now.

We hope that before you retire, you will seize the opportunity given to you by your high office for implementing these urgently-needed reforms. And we hope you will frankly voice your intentions and enable right-minded citizens to strengthen your hands.

Yours Sincerely,

1.A Rasheed Qureshi, 7838408078 rasheed1357[at]yahoo.co.in, Advocate, Delhi

2.G R Vora, 9869195785, grvora1[at]gmail.com, Pathologist, Mumbai

3.Krishnaraj Rao, 9821588114, thebravepedestrian[at]gmail.com, Journalist, Mumbai

4.Aires Rodrigues, 9822684372, airesrodrigues1[at]gmail.com, Advocate, Goa

5. Ameet Mehta, 9821283232, ameetvmehta[at]gmail.com, Advocate, Mumbai

6.Aryan Yadav,9717468613, aryanscadvocate[at]gmail.com, Advocate, Delhi

7. Rameez Tauheed, 09891664368, tauheedrameez[at]gmail.com, Engineer, Delhi

8. Vinod Sampat, 9324038095, vinodsampat[at]gmail.com, Advocate, Mumbai

List of mailing addresses of Chief Justices etc. (work in progress): http://tinyurl.com/CourtsOfIndia

Supreme Court: Reveal Answer Sheets to Students

A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik delivered the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 [arising out of SLP ( C) No. 7526/2009 on August 9, 2011] while allowing disclosure of answer sheets of students in public examinations.

Acknowledging that Right to Information is a cherished right and a formidable tool in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring about transparency and accountability, the Supreme Court, said the RTI Act provisions should be enforced strictly and all efforts made to bring to light the necessary information under Section 4 (4) (b) which “relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.”

Dismissing the oft repeated alibi that the examining bodies held the answer books in their fiduciary capacity, the Bench observed that “Once the examiner has evaluated the answer books, he ceases to have any interest in the evaluation done by him. He does not have any copyright or proprietary right or confidentiality right in regard to the evaluation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the examining body holds the evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship, qua the examiner. As no other exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act is available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection.”

Justices Raveendran and Patnaik while upholding Calcutta High Court order gave the ruling which allows students to see their answer scripts of any professional or educational exam once the result has been declared. However, to protect the safety and identity of the examiners, their details would not be shared with the RTI applicant. The apex court judgment is expected to bring in much needed reforms and transparency in the examination system of the country.

YP Singh to expose SIC Ramanand Tiwari with documents

The fraud and corruption of Ramanand Tiwari – currently State Information Commissioner and formerly IAS officer in Maharashtra state administration – is a story in its own right. Eminent lawyer Y P Singh will tell Mr Tiwari’s story tomorrow to a gathering of activists and journalists, along with documentary evidence.

Venue: Press Club, Azad Maidan, Mahanagarpalika Marg

Date & Time: Tuesday, 9 November, 3 pm

Organizers: RTI Activists of Jana Gana Mana Group

You are cordially invited with friends.

Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

Adarsh: How to publicly show anger with stickers on footpaths

The Adarsh expose’ has had a double effect on me. On the one hand, I feel satisfied because the duplicity of CSIC Dr Suresh Joshi and SIC Ramanand Tiwari lies exposed before the entire nation. We RTI activists don’t need to prove that they are cheats, frauds and liars. Things are out in the open.

But another thought makes me disgusted: every time Joshi or Tiwari sat across the table with an appellant seeking information on building projects or public spaces, these SICs were conducting fake hearings. How many thousand appellants got fake hearings in this way? How many times did these SICs knowingly let the Building Proposal or Urban Development PIO get away with lies? How many Adarsh-type buildings did these two SICs protect from citizens? How many RTI appellants lost their faith in RTI due to these SICs’ slippery behaviour?

Even complainants who attended the Lokshahi Din hearings held by Municipal Commissioner Jairaj Phatak must be feeling betrayed, especially in matters concerning Building Proposal Dept. There are so many wrongdoings that he must have known about, but kept feigning ignorance of.

This thought of us all being daily decieved -- does it fill you with rage? Or am I the only angry one here?

AN UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTION TO MAHARASHTRA: Will only an insult to Chhatrapati Shivaji arouse anger in the people of Maharashtra? Otherwise, they can be safely molested everyday without becoming really angry? What sort of people are we collectively?

PAPER STICKERS TO EXPRESS RAGE WITH AUTHORITIES: I am looking for a way of non-violently expressing anger. Look at these stickers about Ramanand Tiwari, Suresh Joshi, Jairaj Phatak, Ashok Chavan and Vilasrao Deshmukh: http://tinyurl.com/Footpathstickers

It shows each person’s photo and says, “I stole your land in the name of war widows. Walk on my face. Spit on my face.”

Each sticker of about one-square-foot will cost five rupees apiece, I think.In a single day, one can unobtrusively stick hundreds of these in important pedestrian parts of the city, such as outside railway stations, pavements on Marine Drive, Chowpatty, Queen’s Road etc. And there they will stay for a week or two, making a constant statement.

What if one get picked up by the cops for doing this? What crime can one be charged with? It would be interesting to find out – certainly not obstructing pedestrians! After all, there are lakhs of hawkers and shopkeepers putting boxes etc. and occupying footpaths without inviting police action.

Still, police may eventually register an FIR somehow. If and when that happens, I think that we all will enjoy the irony: Mega-crore scamsters are still enjoying their positions, while a lone non-violent protestor is behind bars. Personally, I will happily allow that irony to emerge and become a reality. Who knows, I might not even seek bail.

What do you think? Do these stickers express what is in your mind? Would you like any changes? Would you like to join me?

Or does the sight of these stickers shock you and turn you off? And why is that? Is it that “woh bhi kissee ke baap aur patee hain?” And therefore, their good names should not be dishonoured on the street?

Come on, talk to me!

Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

Video: Mumbai Activists give Mock Sendoff to Chief Info Commissioner

Click on http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EA9ACD94B7D9C2F4

These are the proceedings of the Mock Sendoff to the Chief Information Commissioner held on Thursday, 9th September, 2010 at Marathi Patrakar Sangh, Mumbai. The sendoff was to show the government what RTI appellants feel about the current batch of Information Commissioners, both in Maharashtra and at the Centre. Despite concerns about propriety, it is necessary and urgent to organize such protests in all towns to give the government something to think about, before they non-transparently appoint the next batch of Information Commissioners.

The Sendoff was held after a press conference organized by G R Vora, Krishnaraj Rao & friends. The press conference was held to highlight the connection between
a) murderous attacks on RTI activists and whistleblowers
b) arbitrary and non-transparent appointment of political stooges as Information Commissioners & Vigilance Commissioners.

Fellow activists, it should be our utmost priority to organize many such sendoff parties for existing Information Commissioners in many towns and villages in Sept-October ’10. We must send a clear message to the government that the era of nepotistic appointments is over.

For organizing details, read: http://www.box.net/shared/r91tch0s3g

If you want to organize this, please call me.

Regards,
Krish
09821588114

Whistleblowers’ Bill aims to victimize activists and spare politicians & their kin

Dear fellow activists,

Yesterday, when I analyzed the above-named Bill (to which I refer to as Whistleblower’s Bill or Act, or WBA), I got lost in the legalities and missed seeing its biggest faults. After thinking about it all day, and hearing the views of my fellow-activists, I realize that the WBA has its heart in the wrong place! The proposed legislation shows that the government – specifically DOPT and PMO -- is intent on (a) turning a deaf ear to messengers who want to convey bad news, and (b) set up a system for exposing, discrediting and in fact, endangering their lives (c) setting up a sustainable and legal-sounding procedure for achieving aims (a) and (b).

If WBA is passed in its present form, then:

1. The Central or State Vigilance Commissions (CVC or SVC) that are currently supposed to only investigate instances of government corruption will now demand identity proof from people who submit complaints to it. No matter what may the threat to your life, you cannot conceal your own identity; otherwise, no matter how large the public interest involved or the compelling nature of the documentary evidence that you submit, the case will be closed.

2. Currently, people who approach CVC or SVC to make a “public interest disclosure” are seen as friendly citizens helping the Vigilance Commissioners to do the job they are paid for i.e. investigate government corruption. But the WBA will change this, because public spirited citizens will now be termed as “complainants”, be more-or-less ordered to do the dangerous job of an investigating agency at their own risk to collect evidence to support their “allegations”. If they fail to do this, they may be branded as mala fide persons, be imprisoned for two years and get fined Rs 30,000.

3. There is a large distinction between a person who makes a “disclosure” and one who makes a “complaint”. A person who makes a voluntarily disclosure – internationally known as a whistle-blower -- is usually a disinterested person who has nothing to gain from making the disclosure, and indeed may be doing so at great personal risk, purely because of the public interest involved. As opposed to this, a complainant is usually someone who has personal reasons to oppose the activity being complained against, and maybe something to gain from preventing it. The WBA completely ignores this clear distinction.

4. The WBA seeks to pit this public spirited person (who may be a government employee or an outsider) against the head of the department or government organization complained against, even if his complaint is against a lower officer. In the course of the investigation, his identity will become known to not only several employees of the Vigilance Commission, but can possibly also be also be revealed by these employees to the head of the department being investigated. As this departmental head will have to prove that the corruption is happening in spite of his exercising due diligence, he may feel that he is under direct attack from the whistle-blower, and he may act out of hostility.

5. In an indirect way, the WBA directs this public spirited person to bypass or avoid all other forums for seeking justice and action against the corrupt, and lodge a complaint only with the CVC or SVC. If it is felt that by approaching the State Information Commission, the police, the Court, the media etc, the whistle-blower has “blown his cover”, then he will lose whatever little protection and confidentiality he is being offered under this Act.

6. As every common citizen would have experienced, corruption is a nebulous thing, and is both difficult and dangerous to clearly point a finger at. Corruption usually involves multiple players acting together without a formal arrangement on paper. Therefore, it is the job of the CVC to play a proactive role as an investigating agency or information gatherer, and not to play a passive role as a court of law asking for conclusive evidence. The WBA proposes to turn the CVC and SVC into a sort of passive court where each whistle-blower must struggle to prove his point. This violates several fundamental rights of the whistle-blower as a citizen.

7. In most instances of corruption, ministers, elected representatives, leaders of political parties, their close family members, business associates and friends collude with influential and moneyed builders, contractors, land mafias etc. In many cases, pliable public servants are the instruments rather than the doers. But the WBA seems to look at public servants as the main subject of complaints, and ignore all other players. This sort of approach is discouraging to whistleblowers.

However, a positive feature is that complaints under WBA may be made for all offences under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (See main features of this Act: http://www.box.net/shared/crs4l5bz7m ), which is a particularly well-drafted legislation. The provisions of PCA 1988 are applicable to a very wide range of persons, including members of the executive, judiciary, election commission and private individuals who participate in acts of corruption.

Now let us analyze the Whistleblower’s Act from a technical and legal perspective. The name of this Act indicates that it is intended to, firstly, facilitate Public Interest Disclosures and secondly, extend protection to the persons making Public Interest Disclosures.

The preamble says that the objectives are:

1) to establish a mechanism to receive complaints relating to disclosure on any allegation of corruption or wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion against any public servant

2) to inquire or cause an inquiry into such disclosure and to provide adequate safeguards against victimization of the person making such complaint and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.

Individual sections that are problematic:

i) The two central things -- “public interest” and “protection” -- are not even defined in the definitions i.e. Section 2. So nobody knows what exactly constitutes a “public interest disclosure”, and nobody knows how exactly what “protection” a person making such a disclosure is supposed to receive under this Act. Other than a vague promise of confidentiality and a threat to punish those betraying the whistle-blower’s identity, the Act promises no protection.

ii) The “person making public disclosure” mentioned in the title is defined in the narrowest possible sense as a mere “complainant”. Section 2(c) defines him/her as a person “who makes a complaint relating to disclosure under this Act”. Thus, the “person making public disclosure” against a larger systemic malaise is methodically demeaned to a mere “complainant” who is pointing a finger at a public servant, and he can then be legally victimised. The duty of probing the motives and background of the “complainant” is then cast upon the “competent authority” i.e. CVC or SVC as the case may be. So the competent authority is empowered to: Firstly, put the complainant’s identity under a scanner to comply with Sec 4(1)(a): Secondly, demand supporting documents and use its civil-court like powers to summon his attendance at hearings as per Sec 6, Thirdly, threaten to dismiss his complaint as being “frivolous” or “vexatious” or otherwise not worth investigating as per sec u/s 4(6) OR Finally, find the complainant guilty of false and misleading disclosure, and award up to two years imprisonment and up to Rs 30,000 fine as per Sec 16. In other words, the whistle-blower who approaches the Vigilance Commissioners to help him do his job, namely, clean up the system, must do so at the risk of being branded as a criminal! This is on top of other practical risks that whistle-blowers already face.

iii) Section 2(d) then defines disclosure essentially as a “complaint” that pertains to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, willful misuse of discretion that causes loss to the government, and commission of a criminal offence by a public servant. The WB does not explicitly say in any section to whom this complaint should be addressed, in order to be considered as a “complaint under this Act”. However, the definition of “competent authority” in Sec. 2(b) suggests that only direct complaints to Central and State Vigilance Commissions (CVC/SVC) will qualify for this definition.

iv) For all the above reasons, the Bill perversely gives direct protection to corrupt persons. Section 3(6) expressly disallows anonymous complaints and tip-offs, no matter what evidence the anonymous complainant may be provide. By laying restrictive conditions for complaining and receiving protection and by specifying deterrent penalties and imprisonment to complainants in the event that their complaint “fails”, the proposed Act deters whistle-blowers from making a complaint to Central or State Vigilance Commission.

v) Section 3 (1)(b) excludes from the scope of such complaints the police force, where abuse of discretionary powers routinely happens.

vi) Sec. 4(4) allows the CVC or SVC to disclose the complainant’s identity to the head of the department or organization where he may be working, and Sec. 4(5) shifts the onus of protecting his identity to this head. Worse still, after doing so, if the CVC or SVC is “of the opinion” that there are no “sufficient grounds” for proceeding with the enquiry, then, as per Sec 4(6), it shall close the matter. In such an eventuality, the whistle blower will be left exposed and in a deadly situation with no protection!

For more, read my recent analysis, especially the colour-coded table: http://www.box.net/shared/355pdqp704

Also see official release of this Bill with DoPT’s covering letter: http://www.box.net/shared/suqa2l3n3y

Please email your views to responses to vkvkutty@nic.in
Address letters to:
Shri V.K. Velukutty,
Deputy Secretary (V-Ill),
Department of Personnel and Training,
Room No. 10-8/11, North Block,
New Delhi-110001.

What is a whistleblower? How is a whistleblower different from a complainant or an informer? What is the need for legislation to protect whistleblowers? For answers to such questions, download this international paper: http://www.box.net/shared/2s4hee9blc

Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Tuesday, September 7, 2010

RTI replies from PMO & DoPT betray rajneeti in Info. Commissioners’ selection

30th June 2010: 22 Information Commissioners from across the country will retire in the next few months. Out of them, 11 are Chief Information Commissioners.

So many posts will fall vacant. What should be the process of their appointment? The law is silent on that. Barring prescribing the composition of a selection committee (consisting of PM, Leader of Opposition and one Cabinet Minister), the law does not lay down the procedure that this committee should follow to invite names and process them.

Documents obtained under RTI from DOPT and PMO by Arvind Kejriwal reveal how intense lobbying takes place before every appointment to the posts of Central Information Commissioners.

Ravi Shankar Singh is a journalist with The Tribune. His name was recommended by none other than Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Chief Minister of Haryana himself through a personal letter written to the Prime Minister. Hooda writes – “He is well known to me for the last more than twenty years. … I would be highly obliged if you kindly consider his name for the post of Deputy Information Commission in the Central Information Commission.”

Ravi Shankar’s name was also recommended by Kumari Selja, Minister of State and two MPs namely Naveen Jindal and Dr Karan Singh.

Likewise, 7 MPs recommended the name of Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony.

Interestingly, neither Ravi Shankar nor Dr Anthony’s names were even put up to the selection committee, which comprises of Prime Minsiter, Leader of Opposition and a Cabinet Minister.

Before every set of appointments, the word spreads around. Several people either apply themselves or are recommended by others. Recommendations are found to have been made by very influential people including Chief Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Supreme Court Bar Council etc.

The names for selection are put up to selection committee through an agenda note. The agenda note is prepared by DOPT. However, none of these recommendations or applications was ever put up to the selection committee.

Interestingly, the names which made it to agenda note and who were finally selected, never applied nor were they ever recommended by anyone, according to records provided by DOPT and PMO.

For instance, in August 2008, the selection committee cleared the names of four people in its meeting on 27th August 2008, namely Annapurna Dixit, M L Sharma, S N Mishra and Shailesh Gandhi. Before this meeting, the following applications/recommendations were received by the PMO and DOPT:

· President of Bar Council of India recommended the name of Sudhanshu Ranjan (a journalist) to the Prime Minister and DOPT.
· 7 MPs names, Nakul Das Rai (MP), Shivanand Tiwari (MP), Sukhdeo Paswan (MP), Rajniti Prasad (MP), Ganesh Prasad Singh (MP), Lalhming Lian (MP) and Alok Kumar Mehta (MP) recommended the name of Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony.
· Bhupinder Singh Hooda, CM Haryana, Naveen Jindal (MP), Dr Karan Singh (MP) and Kumari Selja, MOS recommended the name of Ravi Shankar Singh, a journalist

However, the agenda note prepared by DOPT did not contain any of the above names. The agenda note was prepared by S K Sarkar, the then Joint Secretary in DOPT. He included the name of his own boss S N Mishra (the then DOPT Secretary), and the names of Mrs Annapurna Dixit, Ashok K Mohapatra, R B Shreekumar, M L Sharma and Shailesh Gandhi. Whereas Shailesh Gandhi’s name was proposed by several RTI activists through an open letter to the Government, but where did other names come from? According to records, none of them applied for these posts, nor were their names recommended by anyone. This means that something is happening outside the files. Who called up these people and asked them for their CVs? Why were only these people contacted?

Several questions arise. Firstly, how were the people like Ravi Shankar Singh, Sudhanshu Ranjan and Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony found unfit and not even put up to selection committee? Who did their assessment and on what basis? Who decided that these names should not be put up to the selection committee?

The agenda note is prepared by DOPT. Obviously someone in DOPT decided to reject these names. Does DOPT have these powers under RTI Act to reject names? No. DOPT merely acts as secretariat to the selection committee. It neither has the powers to reject anyone nor select anyone.

Next question is - how did the bio-datas of S N Mishra, Annapurna Dixit, Ashok Mohapatra, R B Shreekumar and M L Sharma make it to the file? How did these names make it to agenda note? How was it decided to include these names and not others?

It is surprising that the names recommended by MPs, Chief Ministers and Cabinet Ministers are not even put up to the selection committee. But some other names make it to agenda note.

Interestingly, S N Mishra was the then DOPT Secretary. All this was happening under his nose. He shamelessly includes his own name in the agenda note and excludes those of others.

It appears that the DOPT has become de-facto selection committee and selection committee provided in the law has been reduced to an endorsement committee. The selection committee merely endorses the names put up to it.

In its first meeting on 5th October 2005, 5 names were put up to selection committee and it cleared all the five names. In its next meeting on 27th August 2008, six names were put up and it cleared four of them. In the next meeting on 6th April 2009, only one name was put up and the same was cleared. In the meeting on 25th August 2009, four names were put up and it selected two of them. DOPT, by rejecting all names and presenting a very short list of names, creates a situation of fait accompli for the selection committee, wherein the committee almost endorses what is presented to them.

For instance, Omita Paul, who is known to be quite close to Pranab Mukherjee and has worked with him for many years, was working as Advisor to him before last Parliamentary elections. After the announcement of elections, the selection committee met specially on 6.4.09 to clear her name for the post of Information Commissioner. Only one name was presented to the selection committee and the committee cleared that name.

Interestingly, this was done in violation of model code of conduct. Though the Joint Secretary, in his notings, warned his seniors that model code of conduct was in operation and permission from Election Commission would be required, however, the permission was never sought. One wonders what was the hurry for appointing her? Omita joined on 13th May. Interestingly, as soon as UPA came to power, Omita resigned within a month on 26th June and went back and joined Pranab Mukherjee again.

What emerges from all this is that DOPT has become de facto selection or rejection committee. It rejects the names of all those who either apply or are recommended by others. It then prepares its own list of names (sources of which are unknown) and includes in this list, the names of its own bosses. The selection committee provided in RTI Act has been reduced to an endorsement committee of DOPT.

What does the law say? The law prescribes a selection committee consisting of the PM, Leader of Opposition and one Cabinet Minister. Then it says that the incumbent should be a person of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. He should not be a Member of Parliament or Member of any Legislature or hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.

The law does not provide for any procedure how nominations would be invited and how would they be processed. DOPT had a duty to make rules under section 27 of RTI Act to lay down procedures. However, DOPT has not made any rules so far.

Selection Committee meeting on 5th Oct 2005:

Who applied?

1. G C Srivastava, IAS (Retd) – he applied himself.
2. Shri Lakshmi Chand, IAS (Retd) - – he applied himself.
3. Shri R Ganesan, (IPoS:69), Secy & DG, Chairman, Postal Service Board, Department of Posts – he applied himself.
4. Shri G Mohal Kumar, (IPoS:69), Member (Personnel), Postal Service Board, Deptt of Posts – he applied himself.
5. Shri P R Devi Prasad (IES:82) – he applied himself.
6. Shri K Jaikumar, Dir (IT) in D/o AR&PG no specific post mentioned – he applied himself.
7. Rameshbhai’s name recommended by Nirmala Deshpande, MP to the PM
8. Smt Neena Ranjan, Secy, Ministry of Culture – she applied herself.
9. Prof Akhtarul Wasey (Dean, Jamia Milia Islamia)
10. Pradeep Kumar Balmuchu (trade union leader from Jharkhand)
11. Nripendra Mishra
12. Mohan Kanda (Chief Secretary to Government of AP)
13. Dinesh Chandra Gupta (former Finance Secretary)
14. Prof Dr B K Chandrashekhar (former Education Minister, Karnataka)
15. Akhtar Majeed (Dean, Hamdard University)

Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:

(None of the above names were put up)

1. Wajahat Habibullah
2. Dr O P Kejariwal
3. A N Tiwari
4. Prof M M Ansari
5. Padma Balasubramanian

Names selected by Selection committee:

All the above five names were selected.

Selection Committee meeting on 27th August 2008:

Who applied?

1. Sudhanshu Ranjan (a journalist) recommended by the President of Bar Council of India to PM and DOPT
2. Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony recommended by Nakul Das Rai (MP), Shivanand Tiwari (MP), Sukhdeo Paswan (MP), Rajniti Prasad (MP), Ganesh Prasad Singh (MP), Lalhming Lian (MP) and Alok Kumar Mehta (MP)
3. Ravi Shankar Singh (a journalist with The Tribune) recommended by Sh Bhupinder Singh Hooda , CM Haryana; Naveen Jindal (MP); Dr Karan Singh (MP) and Kumari Selja, MOS

Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:

(None of the above names were put up)

1. Mrs Annapurna Dixit
2. Ashok K Mohapatra
3. R B Shreekumar
4. M L Sharma
5. Shailesh Gandhi
6. S N Mishra

Names selected by Selection committee:

1. Shailesh Gandhi
2. S N Mishra
3. Annapurna Dixit
4. M L Sharma




Selection Committee meeting on 6th April 2009:

Who applied?

Meeting held suddenly. No one came to know about it. No names found on the file.

Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:

1. Omita Paul

Names selected by Selection committee:

1. Omita Paul

Selection Committee meeting on 25th August 2009:

Who applied?

1. Smt Sushma Singh, Secretary (I&B) recommended by her own Minister Anand Sharma, MOS (External Affairs and I&B) to the PM.
2. Dr C V Ananda Bose recommended by Vayalar Ravi, Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs.
3. Saroj Bala, Member (R), CBDT directly applies herself.
4. Mr Choubey recommended by M Veerappa Moily. Mr Moily also writes to Mrs Sonia Gandhi.
5. Adm Pradeep Kaushiva recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
6. Lt Gen Mahajan recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
7. Amitav Tripathi recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
8. Neelam Deo recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
9. Maja Daruwala recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
10. Krishan M Sahni recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
11. Chitra Chopra recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
12. Suman Dubey recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
13. Ishtiaq Hussain recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
14. Sudhanshu Ranjan, a journalist recommended by Sadanand Singh, former Chairperson, Bihar Legislative Assembly. He writes both to Mrs Sonia Gandhi and to the PM.

Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:

(Only Sushma Singh’s name was picked up from the above list. Why only Sushma Singh?)

1. Deepak Sandhu
2. Sushma Singh
3. Mahendra Kumavat
4. R P Agarwal

Names selected by Selection committee:

1. Deepak Sandhu
2. Sushma Singh
==================================

Krish
98215 88114