PAC custodial killers get good conduct certificate: RTI reveals

By TwoCircles.net staff reporter
Lucknow: More than 40 Muslims were massacred by UP state paramilitary force PAC in Hashimpura. The survivors and relatives of victims are fighting a long battle for justice for 20 years. Recently on the 20th anniversary of this massacre, 615 Right To Information (RTI) applications were filed in Lucknow to find out what if any action was taken by the state against these PAC men.

613 applications filed by the survivors and families of the victims asked the State "why the accused PAC men charged by a Delhi Sessions Court for the murder of 42 Muslim men, continue to be in active service of the PAC? Was any departmental inquiry initiated against them? Was any disciplinary action taken against them? Or were they rewarded with promotions in rank and emoluments? Were the 19 accused PAC men ever suspended from service? What were the grounds on which they were reinstated?" They also asked for copies of the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of each of the accused persons to be made available.
The reply by Public Information Officer of UP reveals that custodial massacre of Muslims gets no mention on the ACRs of the accused PAC men. Instead of negative comment these accused get positive report. Of the 14 ACR that have been made available to the public, the year 1987 entry is "Kaam aur Aacharan Achha Hai. Satyanishtha Pramnit hai. Shreni Achha." (Work and conduct is good. Proven Honesty. Category Good). CID inquiry did not in any way hamper the career prospects of those accused of cold blooded murders of over 40 innocents.

A serious charge of custodial killing did not invite any Departmental Enquiry. None of the 19 accused PAC men faced and disciplinary action either.

In 1995 when Crime Branch of CID submitted charge sheets against the accused that they were suspended briefly the documents obtained through RTI reveals. But within a year most of the accused were reinstated on flimsy and untenable grounds. Reasons for their reinstatement were that PAC required their services or that these men were facing financial hardships. Advocate Vrinda Grover, who have been representing survivors and victims family in courts for their fight for justice asked "so are we to conclude that PAC requires the services of those men who have been charged with and are currently being prosecuted for the murder of over 42 innocent Muslim men." Similarly, no thought was spared for the families of Hashimpura victims and their hardships. .................

http://www.twocircles.net/2007sep04/pac_custodial_killers_get_good_conduct_certificate_rti_reveals.html

I-T dept puts RTI tasks in juniors’ hands

Manju Menon | TNN , Mumbai: The Right to Information (RTI) Act—perhaps one of the best tools in the hands of the common man—has become a pain to senior officers in the government. If they fail to respond to requests for information under the Act, they are compelled to pay a fine of Rs 25,000.
To get around the problem, the income-tax (I-T) department has started re-designating junior officers to perform the role. Until now, only the chief public information officer (CPIO) could respond to any request for information. In a recent circular, however, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), has said that junior officers at the level of assessing officers be assigned additional responsibilities as CPIOs. In the earlier dispensation, CPIOs had to be at least at the level of a commissioner, if not a chief commissioner.
‘It’s clearly a retrograde move. Senior officials should stay in-charge of passing information under an important Act like the RTI,’’ said Narayan Varma, a leading chartered accountant and an active member of the RTI cell run by the Bombay Chartered Accountants Society. Shailesh Gandhi, an RTI activist, agrees. ‘‘By redesignating juniors as CPIOs, the tax department is just passing the buck which in the long run will prove very expensive.’’
RTI experts say senior officials should continue to play a key role especially in departments like I-T that deal with sensitive information
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date:2007 Sep 01; Section:Times Business; Page Number 26

CIC notice to cops on child labour issue

The Central Information Commission has issued a showcause notice to Delhi Police for its alleged failure to provide information on the extent of child labour and its sensitisation programme, if any, to deal with the problem in the Capital. Raaj Mangal Prasad has filed an RTI application with the police, seeking details on whether identification of child labour had been undertaken by the Delhi Police. PTI
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date:2007 Sep 06; Section:Times City; Page Number 3

Complaints against cops: No data

New Delhi: The Delhi Police does not maintain data about complaints received against its own personnel — this surprising piece of information was provided by the public information officer of the vigilance branch in response to an application under RTI Act by Dev Ashish Bhattacharya. The rights activist had sought information from the Union home ministry about petitions filed against police personnel and the action taken on them. The ministry’s director and chief public information officer Labh Singh Chane said no data was maintained by the ministry about such petitions.PTI
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date:2007 Sep 05; Section:Times City; Page Number 6

CIC pulls up finmin, Sebi for aiding IFCI bid to beat RTI Act

UTI Claim Of Not Being Public Authority Also Draws Flak From Commission
Girish Kuber MUMBAI

THE Central Information Commission (CIC) has slammed the government and two public sector units, the Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) and the Unit Trust of India (UTI), for refusing to part information under the RTI Act. The CIC has not only rejected IFCI’s claim that it’s not a ‘public authority’ but has also slammed the Union finance ministry and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) for shielding it.
In an order on August 9, a copy of which is with ET, CIC has criticised the finance ministry for certifying that IFCI doesn’t come under the RTI Act. It also has criticised the market regulator Sebi for buying the finance ministry’s argument without examining it.
“It’s incorrect for the ministry to issue such certificates,” the CIC has said and asked the ministries and government departments to “refrain from such actions as they are not competent to do so”.
The issue pertains to bonds issued by the IFCI in the form of promissory notes worth Rs 800 crore way back in 1996. The IFCI decided to exercise the call option in 2003 and had asked bondholders to surrender their papers on or before November 6, 2003. The IFCI promised to issue cheques by the first week of December 2003.
But the payment did not reach to all investors promptly. VT Gokhale from Dombivli, just outside Mumbai, received the cheque after more than a few years and they were only paid after a prolonged battle with the concerned authorities.
Incensed by the treatment meted out to him, Mr Gokhale felt that many other bondholders would have also received similar treatment from IFCI. He decided to take up the issue with Sebi. “The bond issue yielded Rs 1,237.06 crore for IFCI. There must be a large number of investors with a substantial cumulative interest involved. I decided to fight for their cause,” Mr Gokhale said.
He sought information about the total number of bondholders, the total outgo on interest and datewise payment details. The market watchdog upheld the IFCI’s contention that it’s not a public authority and as such doesn’t come under the purview of the Right to Information Act 2005. To substantiate its claim, the IFCI also submitted a certificate from the ministry of finance.
“It was unfortunate that the market regulator didn’t stand by for the common investor and helped IFCI avoid giving information,” Mr Gokhale said and challenged the Sebi decision and the finance ministry’s act before the CIC. He pointed out to CIC that the IFCI is a listed body and comes under the Sebi jurisdiction. “The Sebi as a market regulator can access the information sought,” notes the petition.
The CIC in its order categorically stated that the IFCI is a public authority and as such comes under the purview of the RTI Act. The order notes that “the certificates given by government ministries and departments about an organisation being or not being a public authority have no validity”. The CIC also castigated Sebi for accepting the finance ministry’s version on IFCI’s status. Sebi was required to examine the IFCI’s claim thoroughly and should not have uncritically accepted its argument, the CIC opined.
The CIC also assailed a similar stance taken by UTI. The UTI claimed that UTI Mutual Fund, UTI Trustee Company and UTI Asset Management Company are not “public authority” and are not bound to give information under the RTI Act.

PUBLIC DEFENDER

CIC has criticised the ministry for certifying that IFCI doesn't come under the RTI Act

It has pulled up Sebi for buying the ministry's argument without examining it

UTI claimed that UTI Mutual Fund, UTI Trustee Company and UTI Asset Management Company are not public authority

CIC has said that certificates given by ministries and government departments about an organisation being or not being a public authority have no validity.
Publication: Economic Times Delhi; Date:2007 Sep 03; Section:Economy; Page Number 18

Call for separate RTI authority for Delhi

New Delhi: Right to information (RTI) activists, including Aruna Roy and Arvind Kejriwal, have called for a separate appellate authority for Delhi on the lines of the Central Information Commission (CIC). For all appeals against decisions of public authorities of the Delhi government under the Delhi RTI Act 2001 and the Central RTI Act 2005 go before Public Grievance Commission, which as the name suggests, is not meant to deal exclusively with Right to Information related cases. The demand for a separate RTI commission for Delhi was made at a meeting on transparent governance organised on June 16 and 17 by South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR).
OTHER RESOLUTIONS
The dept dealing with RTI at the Centre should not be department of personnel and training. Transparency in the method of appointing CIC commissioners. RTI Act be extended to J&K RTI training of personnel in public authorities be done with the help of RTI campaigners A process of public consultation of all laws and policies before being adopted
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date:2007 Jun 20; Section:Times City; Page Number 6

‘Corrective mechanism to deal with RTI info needed’

Regional information commissioner (Pune) Vijay Vishwanath Kuvalekar feels bureaucrats are not sensitive to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Kuvalekar spoke to Abhay Vaidya:

You have been a writerjournalist all your life. Now as information commissioner for Pune region, what is your perspective on the RTI Act, 2005? This is a new Act and it has not reached the rural areas to the extent that it should. In the government, the mindset is to find ways not to give information. Essentially, it is now about changing mindsets. In nearly 50 per cent of cases, the first appellate authority in public institutions has not heard appeals. As a result, people wait for 30-45 days to file a second appeal and appeals are pending with regional information commissioners. In Pune region alone, nearly 2,000 appeals are pending with me.

How has the bureaucracy taken to RTI?
I have been in this post for barely 3-4 months and what i see is the misuse of power by government officials on a large scale. There are cases where one person’s land has been transferred to someone else without the consent or knowledge of the owner. Such people are struggling for 12-14 years to get an explanation. The government machinery replies that the transfer was at the owner’s request and the papers are missing! What’s the use of getting this information after 10 years? The law needs to be given a human face because it is all about empowering the common man. The bureaucracy is not sensitive to human suffering.
The RTI Act was created to empower the common man and force public institutions to be transparent and accountable. Has that happened?
These objectives are being met to some extent, but it is too early to comment as only two years have passed since it came into force. In terms of modifications, i feel that the Act must insist that people give reasons for seeking information. In some cases you find that people have ulterior motives in demanding information. There must be compulsion or penalty provision on the first appellate authority if he does not act on an appeal. The government must compulsorily involve senior officials in RTI work and not allow heads of public institutions to shirk responsibility. There is no corrective mechanism to deal with information received through RTI. A number of public causes would be served better if we can ensure corrective action in a specific time frame.

Will the information officers, appellate authorities and commissioners become another paper-pushing bureaucracy?
This will not happen if the heads of public institutions become more sensitive and if the information commissioners are firm. Activists using RTI are quite vigilant today. The more public awareness is created, the more will the people ensure that the Act is not tampered with or diluted.
Times Of India Delhi; Date:2007 Jun 18; Section:Editorial; Page Number 20 Q& A