State launches helpline to file RTI complaint
Sanjeev Kumar Verma, TNN 13 November 2009, 07:43am IST
PATNA: Yet another first in India from Bihar has come to make the Right to Information (RTI), Act, people friendly. This pertains to launching of a
new helpline, by using which people can file complaints against the government officials who harass them for seeking information using the RTI tool.
CM Nitish Kumar dedicated the helpline (0612-2219435) for public use here on Thursday during a programme organised by state information commission (SIC), Bihar, to felicitate the performing public information officers (PIOs).
The CM himself made the first complaint using the helpline against Rajnagar block supply officer in Madhubani district.
For complete news pl visit:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/State-launches-helpline-to-file-RTI-complaint/articleshow/5224667.cms
For More Info Log on to www.rtigroup.org
|
Subscribe to RTI Group | |
| Browse Archives at groups.google.com | ||
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
CIC Selection PIL is not yet heard: TOI mis-reported Judges’ questions during hearing for admission
Dear fellow activists, Relax! Stop worrying! We haven’t lost our PIL against arbitrary selection of CICs. In fact, it hasn’t even begun. The report in Times of India wrongly suggests that the Chief Justice already gave an adverse order while dismissing our PIL. That is emphatically not the case!
The fact is that our PIL was very briefly heard for admission by Delhi High Court yesterday. In fact, it was not even properly heard; the main hearing is scheduled for 18th November, where we will be represented by well-known lawyer Prashant Bhushan.
Below is Advocate A Rasheed Qureshi’s detailed report of Chief Justice’s questions and his answers:
In the first call (10.45 AM), I mentioned that I was seeking a passover as Mr Prashant Bhushan was to appear in my matter. The Chief justice remarked that our matter was premature as the new CCIC had not yet been appointed. I said that our matter was not about canvassing for any particular person X,Y or Z to be made the CCIC. If that was the case it would surely be premature, because then we must wait to see who is made the CCIC, and then move the court. In the present case, we were saying that the 3-member selection group was acting without any guidelines, criteria, rules etc and hence was violative of the Constitution. Acting in a void, without administrative guidelines, meant that they could pick and choose any one of their choice to the detriment of the public at large.
I stressed that all that I was asking was that there must be administrative guidelines, some criteria and the process must be generally known through Rules under the RTI Act. In the absence of this, there was likelihood of persons being selected who had conflict of interest qua their duties under the Post held and the appointing class of persons i.e. politicians.
At this, the CJ asked, "Do you say that bureaucrats must not be appointed?" I said, No, I don’t say that either. All I say is that the Act contemplates that People of eminence in law, social activism etc. PLUS those in administration and governance. So people from other categories also must be considered for the post of CCIC. Also, this must be done keeping in mind that bureaucrats are likely to have a conflict of interest in discharge of duty. CIC’s work is a quasi judicial work which requires decision-making, and sometime hard decision need to be taken.
This Act is in a nascent stage in India while other countries like Australia, UK & Canada have already evolved Best Practices in this field which we need to incorporate. Advertising this post is one good way, though not the only way, to make it transparent.
The Court asked if I was challenging the RTI Act. I said, No.
The matter is adjourned to 18th November. That gives us 9 days to prepare with more case laws.
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Courtesy: [rti4empowerment]
The fact is that our PIL was very briefly heard for admission by Delhi High Court yesterday. In fact, it was not even properly heard; the main hearing is scheduled for 18th November, where we will be represented by well-known lawyer Prashant Bhushan.
Below is Advocate A Rasheed Qureshi’s detailed report of Chief Justice’s questions and his answers:
In the first call (10.45 AM), I mentioned that I was seeking a passover as Mr Prashant Bhushan was to appear in my matter. The Chief justice remarked that our matter was premature as the new CCIC had not yet been appointed. I said that our matter was not about canvassing for any particular person X,Y or Z to be made the CCIC. If that was the case it would surely be premature, because then we must wait to see who is made the CCIC, and then move the court. In the present case, we were saying that the 3-member selection group was acting without any guidelines, criteria, rules etc and hence was violative of the Constitution. Acting in a void, without administrative guidelines, meant that they could pick and choose any one of their choice to the detriment of the public at large.
I stressed that all that I was asking was that there must be administrative guidelines, some criteria and the process must be generally known through Rules under the RTI Act. In the absence of this, there was likelihood of persons being selected who had conflict of interest qua their duties under the Post held and the appointing class of persons i.e. politicians.
At this, the CJ asked, "Do you say that bureaucrats must not be appointed?" I said, No, I don’t say that either. All I say is that the Act contemplates that People of eminence in law, social activism etc. PLUS those in administration and governance. So people from other categories also must be considered for the post of CCIC. Also, this must be done keeping in mind that bureaucrats are likely to have a conflict of interest in discharge of duty. CIC’s work is a quasi judicial work which requires decision-making, and sometime hard decision need to be taken.
This Act is in a nascent stage in India while other countries like Australia, UK & Canada have already evolved Best Practices in this field which we need to incorporate. Advertising this post is one good way, though not the only way, to make it transparent.
The Court asked if I was challenging the RTI Act. I said, No.
The matter is adjourned to 18th November. That gives us 9 days to prepare with more case laws.
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Courtesy: [rti4empowerment]
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Officials implicating info seekers to be punished
Officials implicating info seekers to be punished
TNN 10 November 2009, 05:44am IST
PATNA: Taking serious note of the people being victimised by officials for seeking information under RTI Act, CM Nitish Kumar on Monday issued
instruction to top officials to take strict and quick action against the erring officials.
At a high-level meeting, Nitish directed the senior officials to identify the government servants accused of implicating information seekers in false cases and ensure that they are also penalized. He said for the information seekers who have been implicated in false cases a helpline should be started.
To begin with, this helpline will be started from the Jankari call centres and later on a separate telephone number be made available to the victims and this facility be publicised for the common people.
Those present at the meeting included chief secretary Anup Mukherjee, DGP Anand Shankar, principal secretary, home, Amir Subhani, principal secretary, personnel, Dipak Kumar, ADG (HQs) U S Dutt and CM's principal secretary R C P Singh.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Officials-implicating-info-seekers-to-be-punished/articleshow/5213721.cms
TNN 10 November 2009, 05:44am IST
PATNA: Taking serious note of the people being victimised by officials for seeking information under RTI Act, CM Nitish Kumar on Monday issued
instruction to top officials to take strict and quick action against the erring officials.
At a high-level meeting, Nitish directed the senior officials to identify the government servants accused of implicating information seekers in false cases and ensure that they are also penalized. He said for the information seekers who have been implicated in false cases a helpline should be started.
To begin with, this helpline will be started from the Jankari call centres and later on a separate telephone number be made available to the victims and this facility be publicised for the common people.
Those present at the meeting included chief secretary Anup Mukherjee, DGP Anand Shankar, principal secretary, home, Amir Subhani, principal secretary, personnel, Dipak Kumar, ADG (HQs) U S Dutt and CM's principal secretary R C P Singh.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Officials-implicating-info-seekers-to-be-punished/articleshow/5213721.cms
Friday, November 6, 2009
CIC Selection: How PMO and DOPT bulldozed 3 RTI Applicants
Central Information Commissioners are selected arbitrarily. You need proof? C J Karira -- a fellow petitioner in our PIL filed in Delhi High Court this week -- emailed me some classic second-appeal orders passed by Chief CIC Wajahat. Three different RTI applicants asked: “Yes, we understand about Prime Minister’s Recommendation Committee and the selection criteria outlined in RTI Act sec. 12(5) and 12(6), but tell us: By what process did biodatas of current CICs land up before the committee? On what grounds were the present CICs selected? And who were the candidates rejected by this committee? Or rejected by DOPT, which puts up candidates to this committee?”
In a nutshell, the reply of PMO and DOPT was: “We appoint CICs as per Section 12 of RTI Act. That is the answer to all your questions. Now mind your own business.” Three RTI applicants had three approaches. DOPT and PMO found many ways to evade them:
One asked pointwise questions, and was told in reply to different questions: “Refer to RTI Section 12, and bugger off!” Wajahat politely concurred.
One applied to PMO, and was directed to DOPT.
Another asked DOPT, and was told that DOPT could not possibly have the information; maybe PMO had the information. In an elaborately reasoned order, Wajahat upheld this dubious claim.
One asked for a true copy of files, and was told to take inspection.
Another went for inspection and saw PMO and DOPT perform three different tricks:
· shuttled the applicant between PMO and DOPT
· showed partial or no meaningful information.
· When she appealed, she was told that the information was classified as confidential, disclosing it was not in public interest, and it was denied under Official Secrets Act 1923 and also Manual of Departmental Security Instructions.
Turning a blind eye to all these self-contradictions, Wajahat opined that it was the discretion of PMO and DOPT whether or not to give this information.
Want the case-by-case details? Read this:
CASE NO. 1
Activist C J Karira, who happened to be present as an observer on 22-12-2008, vividly describes the proceedings: “The hearing lasted for about 22 minutes. The PIO did not utter one single word. She only used facial and body expressions: smile, nod, shaking of head, etc. All the talking was done by the Hon'ble CCIC himself who put up a very spirited defence on behalf of the CPIO.”
Below are highlights from Wajahat’s order dismissing Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01066 dated 14-11-2007.
[To read the full order, go to http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-22122008-01.pdf ]
By an application of 21-4-07, J S Bhattacharjee, a Delhi resident, asked DOPT:
Question: Government’s policy/ principle guidelines etc for the collection of names of expected CIC to be sent to the Recommendation Committee for selection.
The answer was: Clause (5) and (6) of Section 12 of RTI Act prescribe the conditions for appointment to the posts of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Central Information Commissioners (IC). There is no other laid down policy/principle/ guidelines on the subject.
Question: Whether names of CIC are collected on ‘pick & choose’ basis or on the basis of the recommendations of Ministers
Answer: Persons for the post of CIC are considered on the basis of conditions contained in above referred provisions of the Act. No other information in the matter is available.
Question: Whether there was a system of “Search Committee” for collecting probable names and how the five names for CIC
Answer: As per available information there was no search Committee to collect probable names. No further information in the matter is available.
Question: How the five names for CIC have been finally selected by the Government leaving hundreds of qualified officials
Answer: The selections were made by the Selection Committee. No other information is available in the matter.
Question: Whether the post of CIC is meant only for retired official
Answer: No.
Question: Whether the present CIC had applied for the post and if so, the source of his information of vacancy
Answer: Information in this regard is not available.
Question: Whether government advertised for the post of CIC and when? Answer: The post was not advertised.
Question: Government policy/ principle for the appointment of only five CIC/ICs and not the 10 CIC(s) as per provision of the Act
Answer: Section 12 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that the Central Government may appoint such number of Central Information Commissioner not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary. The Government had appointed four Information Commissioners in addition to the Chief Information Commissioner on the basis of the need felt by the Government.
Question: In total, how many candidates were in the race for the post of CIC/ICs. Names of all candidates and their present designation and address be sent to me for my information
Answer: the information is not available.
Question: Whether non selected candidates for the post of CIC have been duly intimated with the cause for their non selection
Answer: In view of the position given in respect of point No. 9 above, question does not arise.
Question: Certified copies of Government decision regarding the non-appointment of 5 CICs
Answer: No such documents are available.
Question: Certified copies of Recommendation Committee “file notings” for the final selection of 5 CICs
Answer: the appellant was requested by the CPIO to deposit an amount of Rs. 2/- by way of cash or bankers’ cheque of Indian Postal Order in favour of Account Officer, Department of Personnel and Training as required under the provisions of RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. The appellant has not deposited the requisite amount so far.
How did Wajahat uphold this? His order, dictated soon after the hearing, reasoned thus: “Appellant Shri Bhattacharjee contended that since the Committee appointing or recommending appointment of Information Commissioners to the President was a ‘Selection’ Committee of the DoPT as was clear from the answer received by him from 1st appellate authority to Q. 4, it was governed by the guidelines issued by the DoPT in regard to the procedure to be followed by a Selection Committee.
DECISION NOTICE
“The Committee set up u/s 12 (3) of the RTI Act cannot be deemed to be a Departmental Committee or Departmental Selection Committee. This is a Committee set up through the RTI Act 2005 not by Government but, through the very enactment of this law, by Parliament in order to make recommendations to the President of India on appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners of the Central Information Commission. The response of the DoPT in this regard is correct in that the Department is only a servicing instrument for this Committee. The reference to the Committee as a Selection Committee by Shri K.G. Verma, Director in disposing of the first appeal is not to place this Committee in the category of a Departmental Selection Committee but only with reference to its purpose, which is indeed the selection of individuals it considers to be of eminence, which it recommends to the President of India for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner /Information Commissioner.
“Seen in this context it is quite conceivable that the DoPT, which is the only the servicing organisation, maintains no records of deliberations of this Committee, which the group is not required to maintain if they do in fact exist, other than its recommendations, which CPIO Ms. Zoya agreed before us is a document held by the DoPT. In light of the above it is clear that all information sought by appellant has, in fact, been provided within the definition of Section 2 (j), to the extent that that information is held or under the control of the public authority, in this case the DOPT.
“If, as pleaded by appellant before us, Shri Bhattacharjee would wish to inspect the letter of recommendation received from the Committee by the Department as submitted to the President of India, this will have to be sought through an application for the purpose made u/s 6 (1) of the RTI Act to the CPIO in the DoPT, which appellant is free to do. The present appeal being without substance is hereby dismissed.”
CASE NO. 2
Ms Vishaish Uppal of Gulmohar Park applied to Kamal Dayani, CPIO, Prime Minister’s Office on 22.11.2005 seeking to inspect files, papers etc. relating to the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners. She subsequently received a copy of a letter from Kamal Dayani, CPIO indicating that the case had been transferred to DOPT Director Hari Kumar. In response Hari Kumar, Director in the Dept. of Personnel & Training invited Ms. Uppal to inspect the records.
However, on 13.1.06 Vishaish Uppal reverted to CPIO Kamal Dayani in PMO stating that she had been shown only one file and informed by PIO Hari Kumar that files pertaining to the entire selection process are with PMO and not with DoPT.
She, therefore, asked that she may be allowed to inspect the relevant files. In response Kamal Dayani held that it was not possible to allow inspection of the relevant records in PMO. Appellate Authority Jawed Usmani, Jt. Secy. in the PM’s Office, dismissed the appeal made to the Appellate Authority on 22.2.06. The Appellate Authority had held that the papers being classified confidential and no case having been made out for making any exception under sec. 8(2) of the Act, Vishaish Uppal could not be allowed to inspect the documents.
In his order, Wajahat went into a very lengthy legal reasoning, but in the end, left it to the public authority i.e. PMO, to decide. The last part of his reasoning went like this: “The Appellate Authority, therefore, cannot withhold this information either on the ground that the information is classified as “confidential” under the Official Secrets Act or under Section 8(2) alone. However, Sec 22 as described above only overrides anything inconsistent with the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Official Secrets Act, 1923 stands neither rescinded nor abrogated. While a public authority may only withhold such information as could be brought within any of the clauses of Section 8(1), it is open to that authority to classify any of these items of information as “Confidential”, thus limiting the discretion of any other authority in respect to these.
“In this particular case, denial of information is under the orders of the Public Authority and it is open to the Public Authority to deny the information provided such denial can be justified under Section 8(1) of the Act. The Prime Minister’s Office will, therefore, re-examine the matter in view of the observations made above within fifteen days of the date of issue of the Decision Notice and it may disclose the information to the appellant, unless of course, the disclosure of the information can be denied or withheld under any of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Public Authority shall take an appropriate reasoned decision.”
[To read the full order, go to http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_22092006_2.pdf ]
CASE NO. 3
Shri Milap Choraria of Rohini, Delhi made the following application to the CPIO, PMO on 11-9-06:
“I do hope that the selection of Prof. M.M. Ansari, for the appointment of the Office of Commissioner of CIC, was certainly in pursuance to and compliance of sub-Section (5) of Section 12 of the RTI Act 2005 and in conformity with aims and objectives as enumerated in the aforesaid Act.
However, under Section 6 of the RTI Act, I wanted certified copies of the file notings of the entire file with all other related documents referred in the file notings from the respective file relating to the selection process adopted through which the Appointment of Prof. M.M. Ansari, for the office of the Commissioner of the CIC was concluded.”
This was transferred to DOPT on 14-9-06. PIO P K Misra, Under Secretary, in a letter of 12-10-06 responded: “I am to say that the term “information” as defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act excludes `file noting’. You are advised to inspect the file and the related documents other than the file noting and, if required, obtain the copies of specific documents by paying the requisite fee.”
In his order, Wajahat reasoned that file notings should also be shown. This decision of the Commission was duly communicated to the DOPT vide letter dated 26.2.2006 which was followed by a reminder on 27.3.2006 and 8.5.2006.
Milap Choraria moved another application on 29.1.’06, asking for fair and true copy of all the documents from the respective file relating to appointment of Prof M M Ansari in the CIC. To this he received no reply.
In the end, did Wajahat direct PMO or DOPT to give him the info? No.
Wajahat literally copy-pasted the reasoning from Case no. 2: “In this particular case, denial of information is under the orders of the Public Authority and it is open to the Public Authority to deny the information provided such denial can be justified under Section 8(1) of the Act. The Prime Minister’s Office will, therefore, re-examine the matter in view of the observations made above within fifteen days of the date of issue of the Decision Notice and it may disclose the information to the appellant, unless of course, the disclosure of the information can be denied or withheld under any of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Public Authority shall take an appropriate reasoned decision.”
And then Wajahat said, “In light of the above CPIO DoPT may process the present application.”
[To read the full order, go to http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_16042007_09.pdf ]
CONCLUSION: What the CCIC meant to say in all the above-mentioned three RTI Orders was: “We understand that CPIOs are denying information because PMO and DOPT are instructing them to do so. We leave it to the discretion of PMO and DOPT to do so; We are not about to tell our bosses what to do, and we are not penalizing the PIOs. RTI Act jaye bhaad mein, aur tum activist log bhi tel laganey jao!”
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Courtesy: [rti4empowerment] CIC Selection: How PMO and DOPT bullshitted 3 RTI Applicants
In a nutshell, the reply of PMO and DOPT was: “We appoint CICs as per Section 12 of RTI Act. That is the answer to all your questions. Now mind your own business.” Three RTI applicants had three approaches. DOPT and PMO found many ways to evade them:
One asked pointwise questions, and was told in reply to different questions: “Refer to RTI Section 12, and bugger off!” Wajahat politely concurred.
One applied to PMO, and was directed to DOPT.
Another asked DOPT, and was told that DOPT could not possibly have the information; maybe PMO had the information. In an elaborately reasoned order, Wajahat upheld this dubious claim.
One asked for a true copy of files, and was told to take inspection.
Another went for inspection and saw PMO and DOPT perform three different tricks:
· shuttled the applicant between PMO and DOPT
· showed partial or no meaningful information.
· When she appealed, she was told that the information was classified as confidential, disclosing it was not in public interest, and it was denied under Official Secrets Act 1923 and also Manual of Departmental Security Instructions.
Turning a blind eye to all these self-contradictions, Wajahat opined that it was the discretion of PMO and DOPT whether or not to give this information.
Want the case-by-case details? Read this:
CASE NO. 1
Activist C J Karira, who happened to be present as an observer on 22-12-2008, vividly describes the proceedings: “The hearing lasted for about 22 minutes. The PIO did not utter one single word. She only used facial and body expressions: smile, nod, shaking of head, etc. All the talking was done by the Hon'ble CCIC himself who put up a very spirited defence on behalf of the CPIO.”
Below are highlights from Wajahat’s order dismissing Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01066 dated 14-11-2007.
[To read the full order, go to http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-22122008-01.pdf ]
By an application of 21-4-07, J S Bhattacharjee, a Delhi resident, asked DOPT:
Question: Government’s policy/ principle guidelines etc for the collection of names of expected CIC to be sent to the Recommendation Committee for selection.
The answer was: Clause (5) and (6) of Section 12 of RTI Act prescribe the conditions for appointment to the posts of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Central Information Commissioners (IC). There is no other laid down policy/principle/ guidelines on the subject.
Question: Whether names of CIC are collected on ‘pick & choose’ basis or on the basis of the recommendations of Ministers
Answer: Persons for the post of CIC are considered on the basis of conditions contained in above referred provisions of the Act. No other information in the matter is available.
Question: Whether there was a system of “Search Committee” for collecting probable names and how the five names for CIC
Answer: As per available information there was no search Committee to collect probable names. No further information in the matter is available.
Question: How the five names for CIC have been finally selected by the Government leaving hundreds of qualified officials
Answer: The selections were made by the Selection Committee. No other information is available in the matter.
Question: Whether the post of CIC is meant only for retired official
Answer: No.
Question: Whether the present CIC had applied for the post and if so, the source of his information of vacancy
Answer: Information in this regard is not available.
Question: Whether government advertised for the post of CIC and when? Answer: The post was not advertised.
Question: Government policy/ principle for the appointment of only five CIC/ICs and not the 10 CIC(s) as per provision of the Act
Answer: Section 12 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that the Central Government may appoint such number of Central Information Commissioner not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary. The Government had appointed four Information Commissioners in addition to the Chief Information Commissioner on the basis of the need felt by the Government.
Question: In total, how many candidates were in the race for the post of CIC/ICs. Names of all candidates and their present designation and address be sent to me for my information
Answer: the information is not available.
Question: Whether non selected candidates for the post of CIC have been duly intimated with the cause for their non selection
Answer: In view of the position given in respect of point No. 9 above, question does not arise.
Question: Certified copies of Government decision regarding the non-appointment of 5 CICs
Answer: No such documents are available.
Question: Certified copies of Recommendation Committee “file notings” for the final selection of 5 CICs
Answer: the appellant was requested by the CPIO to deposit an amount of Rs. 2/- by way of cash or bankers’ cheque of Indian Postal Order in favour of Account Officer, Department of Personnel and Training as required under the provisions of RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. The appellant has not deposited the requisite amount so far.
How did Wajahat uphold this? His order, dictated soon after the hearing, reasoned thus: “Appellant Shri Bhattacharjee contended that since the Committee appointing or recommending appointment of Information Commissioners to the President was a ‘Selection’ Committee of the DoPT as was clear from the answer received by him from 1st appellate authority to Q. 4, it was governed by the guidelines issued by the DoPT in regard to the procedure to be followed by a Selection Committee.
DECISION NOTICE
“The Committee set up u/s 12 (3) of the RTI Act cannot be deemed to be a Departmental Committee or Departmental Selection Committee. This is a Committee set up through the RTI Act 2005 not by Government but, through the very enactment of this law, by Parliament in order to make recommendations to the President of India on appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners of the Central Information Commission. The response of the DoPT in this regard is correct in that the Department is only a servicing instrument for this Committee. The reference to the Committee as a Selection Committee by Shri K.G. Verma, Director in disposing of the first appeal is not to place this Committee in the category of a Departmental Selection Committee but only with reference to its purpose, which is indeed the selection of individuals it considers to be of eminence, which it recommends to the President of India for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner /Information Commissioner.
“Seen in this context it is quite conceivable that the DoPT, which is the only the servicing organisation, maintains no records of deliberations of this Committee, which the group is not required to maintain if they do in fact exist, other than its recommendations, which CPIO Ms. Zoya agreed before us is a document held by the DoPT. In light of the above it is clear that all information sought by appellant has, in fact, been provided within the definition of Section 2 (j), to the extent that that information is held or under the control of the public authority, in this case the DOPT.
“If, as pleaded by appellant before us, Shri Bhattacharjee would wish to inspect the letter of recommendation received from the Committee by the Department as submitted to the President of India, this will have to be sought through an application for the purpose made u/s 6 (1) of the RTI Act to the CPIO in the DoPT, which appellant is free to do. The present appeal being without substance is hereby dismissed.”
CASE NO. 2
Ms Vishaish Uppal of Gulmohar Park applied to Kamal Dayani, CPIO, Prime Minister’s Office on 22.11.2005 seeking to inspect files, papers etc. relating to the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners. She subsequently received a copy of a letter from Kamal Dayani, CPIO indicating that the case had been transferred to DOPT Director Hari Kumar. In response Hari Kumar, Director in the Dept. of Personnel & Training invited Ms. Uppal to inspect the records.
However, on 13.1.06 Vishaish Uppal reverted to CPIO Kamal Dayani in PMO stating that she had been shown only one file and informed by PIO Hari Kumar that files pertaining to the entire selection process are with PMO and not with DoPT.
She, therefore, asked that she may be allowed to inspect the relevant files. In response Kamal Dayani held that it was not possible to allow inspection of the relevant records in PMO. Appellate Authority Jawed Usmani, Jt. Secy. in the PM’s Office, dismissed the appeal made to the Appellate Authority on 22.2.06. The Appellate Authority had held that the papers being classified confidential and no case having been made out for making any exception under sec. 8(2) of the Act, Vishaish Uppal could not be allowed to inspect the documents.
In his order, Wajahat went into a very lengthy legal reasoning, but in the end, left it to the public authority i.e. PMO, to decide. The last part of his reasoning went like this: “The Appellate Authority, therefore, cannot withhold this information either on the ground that the information is classified as “confidential” under the Official Secrets Act or under Section 8(2) alone. However, Sec 22 as described above only overrides anything inconsistent with the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Official Secrets Act, 1923 stands neither rescinded nor abrogated. While a public authority may only withhold such information as could be brought within any of the clauses of Section 8(1), it is open to that authority to classify any of these items of information as “Confidential”, thus limiting the discretion of any other authority in respect to these.
“In this particular case, denial of information is under the orders of the Public Authority and it is open to the Public Authority to deny the information provided such denial can be justified under Section 8(1) of the Act. The Prime Minister’s Office will, therefore, re-examine the matter in view of the observations made above within fifteen days of the date of issue of the Decision Notice and it may disclose the information to the appellant, unless of course, the disclosure of the information can be denied or withheld under any of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Public Authority shall take an appropriate reasoned decision.”
[To read the full order, go to http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_22092006_2.pdf ]
CASE NO. 3
Shri Milap Choraria of Rohini, Delhi made the following application to the CPIO, PMO on 11-9-06:
“I do hope that the selection of Prof. M.M. Ansari, for the appointment of the Office of Commissioner of CIC, was certainly in pursuance to and compliance of sub-Section (5) of Section 12 of the RTI Act 2005 and in conformity with aims and objectives as enumerated in the aforesaid Act.
However, under Section 6 of the RTI Act, I wanted certified copies of the file notings of the entire file with all other related documents referred in the file notings from the respective file relating to the selection process adopted through which the Appointment of Prof. M.M. Ansari, for the office of the Commissioner of the CIC was concluded.”
This was transferred to DOPT on 14-9-06. PIO P K Misra, Under Secretary, in a letter of 12-10-06 responded: “I am to say that the term “information” as defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act excludes `file noting’. You are advised to inspect the file and the related documents other than the file noting and, if required, obtain the copies of specific documents by paying the requisite fee.”
In his order, Wajahat reasoned that file notings should also be shown. This decision of the Commission was duly communicated to the DOPT vide letter dated 26.2.2006 which was followed by a reminder on 27.3.2006 and 8.5.2006.
Milap Choraria moved another application on 29.1.’06, asking for fair and true copy of all the documents from the respective file relating to appointment of Prof M M Ansari in the CIC. To this he received no reply.
In the end, did Wajahat direct PMO or DOPT to give him the info? No.
Wajahat literally copy-pasted the reasoning from Case no. 2: “In this particular case, denial of information is under the orders of the Public Authority and it is open to the Public Authority to deny the information provided such denial can be justified under Section 8(1) of the Act. The Prime Minister’s Office will, therefore, re-examine the matter in view of the observations made above within fifteen days of the date of issue of the Decision Notice and it may disclose the information to the appellant, unless of course, the disclosure of the information can be denied or withheld under any of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Public Authority shall take an appropriate reasoned decision.”
And then Wajahat said, “In light of the above CPIO DoPT may process the present application.”
[To read the full order, go to http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_16042007_09.pdf ]
CONCLUSION: What the CCIC meant to say in all the above-mentioned three RTI Orders was: “We understand that CPIOs are denying information because PMO and DOPT are instructing them to do so. We leave it to the discretion of PMO and DOPT to do so; We are not about to tell our bosses what to do, and we are not penalizing the PIOs. RTI Act jaye bhaad mein, aur tum activist log bhi tel laganey jao!”
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Courtesy: [rti4empowerment] CIC Selection: How PMO and DOPT bullshitted 3 RTI Applicants
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Bureaucrats’ assets aren’t confidential
Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, November 02, 2009
First Published: 00:31 IST(2/11/2009)
Last Updated: 00:33 IST(2/11/2009)
The Central Information Commission (CIC) may have lifted the veil of privacy over bureaucrats’ asset.
CIC, the country’s transparency watchdog, in an order has said that revealing assets of bureaucrats under Right to Information Act cannot be construed as “invasion of privacy”.
Every government official is supposed to submit a declaration about assets soon after joining service but getting this information under RTI had been tough.
Central Information Shailesh Gandhi said disclosure of assets of a public servant is not debarred under invasion of privacy clause of the RTI Act.
For complete news please visit:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/
Email Author
New Delhi, November 02, 2009
First Published: 00:31 IST(2/11/2009)
Last Updated: 00:33 IST(2/11/2009)
The Central Information Commission (CIC) may have lifted the veil of privacy over bureaucrats’ asset.
CIC, the country’s transparency watchdog, in an order has said that revealing assets of bureaucrats under Right to Information Act cannot be construed as “invasion of privacy”.
Every government official is supposed to submit a declaration about assets soon after joining service but getting this information under RTI had been tough.
Central Information Shailesh Gandhi said disclosure of assets of a public servant is not debarred under invasion of privacy clause of the RTI Act.
For complete news please visit:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/
Judges' assets disclosure: `too little, too late'
Nagendar Sharma (nagendar.sharma@hindustantimes.com)
NEWDELHI: Judicialactivists,including former judges and lawyers, are not impressed by the Supreme Court judges' decision to reveal details of their wealth.
All but one of the apex court's 22 judges posted the information on the court's official website on Monday.
Though supporting the step, Justice V. N. Khare, former chief justice of India, said, "We should be clearly told how often judges will declare their assets. How regularly will the information be updated?" The judges, initially reluctant, took the step only after prolonged public pressure.
"The details of the judges' wealth are not clear," said senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who led the campaign to get judges to declare their wealth.
"The date on which they bought the properties they have declared has not been given., nor the value of the properties then. The judges have just gone through a formality."
For complete news please visit:
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/Default.aspx?selpg=3101&BMode=100&selDt=11/04/2009
NEWDELHI: Judicialactivists,including former judges and lawyers, are not impressed by the Supreme Court judges' decision to reveal details of their wealth.
All but one of the apex court's 22 judges posted the information on the court's official website on Monday.
Though supporting the step, Justice V. N. Khare, former chief justice of India, said, "We should be clearly told how often judges will declare their assets. How regularly will the information be updated?" The judges, initially reluctant, took the step only after prolonged public pressure.
"The details of the judges' wealth are not clear," said senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who led the campaign to get judges to declare their wealth.
"The date on which they bought the properties they have declared has not been given., nor the value of the properties then. The judges have just gone through a formality."
For complete news please visit:
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/Default.aspx?selpg=3101&BMode=100&selDt=11/04/2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Amendment to RTI Act 'an obviously retrograde step'
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article38610.ece
Amendment to RTI Act 'an obviously retrograde step'
New Delhi, October 26, 2009
More than 200 eminent citizens have urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to abandon the “ill advised move to amend the RTI Act”. This is the full text of the letter signed by Aruna Roy, Magsaysay Award winner, and others.
25th October, 2009
Dear Dr. Manmohan Singh,
We are alarmed and distressed to learn from media reports that the Government of India proposes to introduce amendments to the RTI Act. This is despite categorical assurances by the Minister of State, DoPT that any amendments, if at all necessary, would only be decided upon after consultations with the public. We are further dismayed to read that far from strengthening the RTI Act, as stated by the Honourable President of India during her speech to the Parliament on 4th June 2009, the government's proposition would in fact emasculate the RTI Act. The proposed amendments include, introducing an exemption for so-called “vexatious and frivolous” applications, and by excluding from the purview of the RTI Act access to “file notings” and the decision making process, this time by excluding “discussion/consultations that take place before arriving at a decision”.
Two current nation-wide studies, one done under the aegis of the Government of India and the other by people’s organizations (RaaG and NCPRI), have both concluded, that the main constraints faced by the government in providing information is inadequate implementation, the lack of training of staff, and poor record management. They have also identified lack of awareness, along with harassment of the applicant, as two of the major constraints that prevent citizen from exercising their right to information. Neither of these studies, despite interviewing thousands of PIOs and officials, has concluded that the occurrence of frivolous or vexatious applications is frequent enough to pose either a threat to the government or to the RTI regime in general. Certainly no evidence has been forthcoming in either of these studies that access to “file notings” or other elements of the deliberative process, has posed a major problem for the nation. On the contrary, many of the officers interviewed have candidly stated that the opening up of the deliberative process has strengthened the hands of the honest and sincere official.
We strongly believe that it is impossible to come up with definitions of “vexatious” and “frivolous” that are not completely subjective and consequently prone to rampant misuse by officials. We also feel that it is a hollow promise to have legislation for ensuring “transparency” and encouraging “accountability” in governance which excludes the basis on which a decision is taken. Would it be fair to judge a decision (or the decision maker) without knowing why such a decision was taken, what facts and arguments were advanced in its favour, and what against? Can one hold a government (or an official) accountable, just on the basis of what they did (or did not do) without knowing the real reasons for their action or inaction? We, the people of India, already directly or indirectly know the decisions of the government, for we are the ones who bear the consequences. What the RTI Act facilitated was a right to know why those decisions were taken, by whom, and based on what advice. This right is the bedrock of democracy and the right to information, and cannot be separated or extinguished without denying this fundamental right.
In any case, in case the government has credible evidence, that despite the findings of the earlier mentioned studies, and despite the safeguards inherent in the RTI Act, “vexatious and frivolous” applications, and access to the deliberative process, are posing a great danger to the Indian nation, these should be placed in the public domain. We are confident that the involvement of the people of India will result in evolving solutions that do not threaten to destroy the RTI Act itself. For a government that has been repeatedly been appreciated for bringing about this progressive legislation, such a move would strengthen the spirit of transparency and public consultation. Surely that is the least that can be expected of a government that propagates the spirit of transparency.
It is significant that even among the collective of Information Commissioners from across the country, whom the government recently “consulted”, the overwhelming view was against making any amendments to the RTI Act at this stage of its implementation. These Commissioners, all appointed by the government, have a bird’s eye view of the implementation of the RTI Act. They have the statutory responsibility to monitor the implementation of the Act, and the moral authority to speak in its defence. Since the government works with the democratic mandate of the people, the collective wisdom, of people across the board who use and implement the law with an ethical base cannot be put aside. In any case we feel the advice of the information Commissioners should be taken into account.
We urge the government to therefore, abandon this ill advised move to amend the RTI Act. Instead, we request it to initiate a public debate of the problems that it might be facing in the implementing of the RTI Act and take on board the findings of the two national studies that have recently been completed. It is only through such a public debate that a lasting and credible way can be found to strengthen the RTI regime.
This government gave its citizens the RTI Act, and there has been no crisis in government as a result of its enactment. In fact the Indian state has, as a result greatly benefited, and the RTI Act and its use by ordinary people is helping change its image to that of an open and receptive democracy. An amendment in the Act would be an obviously retrograde step, at a time when there is a popular consensus to strengthen it through rules and better implementation and not introduce any amendments. We strongly urge that an unequivocal decision be taken to not amend the RTI Act.
With regards,
Aruna Roy, Shekhar Singh, Nikhil Dey
Justice P. B. Sawant - Signed
Anil B. Divan - Senior Advocate Supreme Court - Signed
Prashant Bhushan - Senior Advocate Supreme Court - Signed
Smita Divan - Signed
Dr. Azgar Ali Engineer - Writer & Activist, Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Swami Agnivesh - Social Activist
Sanjit Bunker Roy - Social Work Research Centre, Tilonia, Rajasthan
Tarun Tejpal - Editor-in-Chief, Tehelka
Arundhati Roy - Writer and Activist
Neelabh Mishra - Editor, Outlook (Hindi)
Ram Jethmalani - Senior Lawyer
Medha Patkar - Signed
Mallika Sarabhai - Cultural and Political Activist & Danseuse
Sandeep Pandey - Human Rights Activist & AASHA Parivar, UP
Arvind Kejriwal - Parivartan, Magsaysay Awardee
Muzaffar Bhatt - RTI Activist, J&K
Prabhash Joshi - Eminent Senior Journalist
Bharat Dogra - Freelance Journalist, New Delhi
Amitabh Behar - Director, NCAS
Prof. Jagdeep Chhokkar - IIM-Ahmedabad (rtd.)
Alok Mehta - Editor-in-Chief, Naiduniya
Binayak Sen - General Secretary, PUCL, Chattisgarh - Signed
Prof. Trilochan Sastry - IIM- Bangalore
Harsh Mander - Supreme Court commissioner, Right to Food
Kuldip Nayar - Eminent Senior Journalist
Soli Sorabjee - Former Attorney General of India
Nandita Das - Cultural and Political Activist & Film Maker & Actor
Ajit Bhattacharjea - Senior Journalist & National Campaign for People's Right to Information - Signed
Prof. Jayati Ghosh - Jawaharlal Nehru University
Dunu Roy - Director, Hazard Centre Delhi
Kamla Bhasin- SAHR
E.A.S. Sarma - Former Secretary, Ministry of Finance
Admiral Ramdas - Former Chief of Naval Staff
Venkatesh Nayak -Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
O. P. Jain - Signed
Lalita Ramdas - Social Activist
Sharda Jain - Educationist
Anand Patwardhan - Film Maker
Maja Daruwala - Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
Prof. Jagmohan - National Campaign for People's Right to Information
Anjali Bhardwaj - National Campaign for People's Right to Information
Teesta Setalvad - Lawyer and Human Rights Activist
Lalit Mathur - Former Director General NIRD
Jean Dreze - Visiting Professor G B Pant University, Allahabad
Admiral Tahiliani - Former Chief of Naval Staff
Leela Samson - Director Kalakshetra
Prof. J. G. Krishnayya - Director, Systems Research Institute, Pune
P.S. Appu - Former Director LBS National Academy for Administration
B. Yugandhar - Former Member Planning Commission
Vinita Deshmukh - Editor, Intelligent Pune
Arundhati Dhuru - Right to Food Campaign, UP
Sumit Chakravarty - Editor, Mainstream
Baba Adhav - Eminent Socialist ad Social Activist, Maharashtra
Romila Thapar - Historian
Julio Ribeiro - Retired I.P.S Officer and Civil Servant
Vrinda Grover - Lawyer and Human Rights Activist
Amar Kanwar - Film Maker
S. R. Sankarna - Former Secretary Rural Development & Human Rights Campaigner
Kavita Srivastav- General Secretary, PUCL
Pamela Philipose - Senior Journalist
Commodore Lokesh Batra - RTI Activist - Signed
Vinay Mahajan- Loknaad & National Campaign for People's Right to Information
Charul Bharwada - Loknaad & National Campaign for People's Right to Information
Kamini Jaiswal - Senior Advocate Supreme Court
Shanti Bhushan - Former Law Minister
Harsh Sethi - Editor, Seminar
Justice Dave - Supreme Court Justice (retd.)
K. S. Subramaniam - IPS (retd.) - Signed
Partho Kumar Dey - Air Marshall (rtd.), Indian Air Force
Dr. Amita Baviskar - Academic
Prof. Kamal Mitra Chenoy - Jawaharlal Nehru University
Madhu Bhaduri - Former Ambassador GoI
Shomi Das - Educationist
Sowmya Kidambi - RTI activist
Major General S.C.N. Jatar (retd)
Kamal Jaswal - Director, Common Cause, India
Suren Khirwadkar
Shahid Burney - RTI activist, Pune
Avinash Murkute- RTI activist, Pune
Roda Mehta
Sanjay Shirodkar - RTI activist, Pune
Yogendra Yadav - Fellow, Wissenschaftskolleg Zu Berlin (Institute for Advanced Study)
Annie Raja - General Secretary NFIW - Signed
Shyam Benegal - Film maker
Madhu Kishwar - Editor Manushi
Ashim Jain
S.R. Hiremath - NCPNR
Suman Sahai - Gene Campaign & NCPRI
Prof. Nandini Sundar - Delhi School of Economics
Justice J.S. Verma - Former Chief Justice of India
Sanjay Kak - Film Maker
Ashish Kothari - Kalpavriksh
Usha Rai - Journalist
Nitya Ramakrishnan - Senior Lawyer
Achin Vanayak
Devaki Jain - Economist
Vandana Shiva - Navadanya
Prof. Hargopal - University of Hyderabad - Signed
Harish Dhawan - Professor, Delhi University & People's Union for Democratic Rights - Signed
Prof. Randhir Singh - Professor (retd.), Delhi University - Signed
Manoranjan Mohanty - Professor (retd.), Delhi University - Signed
Pushkar Raj - General Secretary, PUCL - Signed
Ravi Hemadri -The Other Media - Signed
Suhas Borker - Convener, Working Group on Alternative Strategies - Signed
Mukul Mangalik - Professor, Delhi University - Signed
Apoorv Anand - Professor, Delhi University - Signed
Mukul Priyadarshini - Professor, Delhi University - Signed
Shashi Saxena - Professor, Delhi University - Signed
Moushumi Basu - Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University - Signed
Rajni Bakshi - Citizens for Peace - Signed
Deepika Tandon - People's Union for Democratic Rights - Signed
Ranjoy Kumar Reddy - Researcher, Delhi University - Signed
Shahana Bhattacharya - People's Union for Democratic Rights - Signed
Amrapali Basumatary - New Socialist Initiative - Signed
Madhu - Jagori - Signed
Mayil Samy- Advocate - Signed
Kalaiyarasan - JNU DSU
Deepti Bharti - NFIW - Signed
Surendra Mohan - Signed
Sudhir K. Sahu - Signed
Anil - PDFI, Delhi - Signed
Jeevan - PDFI - Signed
Mamata Dash - NFFPIW - Signed
Manas Ranjan - Journalist, The Tribune - Signed
Kiran Shaheen - Media Action Group - Signed
Sunita Kumari - Daanish Books - Signed
Ramchandra Prasad - ICAN INDIA - Signed
Bipin Chandra - Historian and Director, National Books Trust
Kiran Bhatty - UNICEF - Signed
V.M. H. Banna - Journalist, Madhyamam Daily - Signed
Surinder Singh
Shailesh Haribhakti - Signed
Sarwar Kashani
Madhav Godbole
Diwan Singh - Ridge Bachao Andolan
Yogendra Narain - ICAN INDIA
Arundhati Roy - Writer
Suma Josson - Film Maker
Ramaswami Iyer - Former Secretary, Water Resurces Ministry
Ramchandra Prasad - ICAN-India
Pradeep Ghosh - Ashoka Fellow & OASiS
Ashwani Goyal
Manish Jain
Siddhartha Basu
Dr. H. Sudarshan - Karuna Trust & VGKK, Bangalore
A.L. Ragarajan - Rejuvenate India Movement, Chennai
Vijayan Menon - Kormangla Initiative, Bangalore
Urvashi Sharma - Social Worker, RTI Mahila Manch UP
Prithvi Sharma - MD, FACC, USA
Surekha Sharma - MD, FAAP, USA
Prof. Mridula Mukherjee - Director NMML
Swapan Ganguly - PBKMS, West Bengal
Y. Singh N. Rajput - Gujarat
Nitin Sonawane - IFA
Sampad Zantye
Dr. Hari Dev Goyal - Indian Economic Service (Rtd.)
Ajay Pandey - Assc. Professor of Law, Jindal Global Law School
Chitrangada Choudhury - Journalist
Mahendra K. Gupta
Dr. Ashok Sharma
Gayatri Sahgal - Centre for Equity Studies
Chandra Krishnamurthy
Biswajit Mohanty - FCA
Vijay Kapoor
Paromita Vohra - Film Maker
Vijendra Singh - UP
Ravi Duggal - Research & Activist - International Budget Partnership
Joyjeet Pal - Academic
Ashok Gokhale
Tara Warrior - Pune
Damodar Warrior- Pune
Col Mohite (rtd.)
Dr. Anand Lakshmi
Geeta Mohite
Dr. Renu Singh - Save the Children, India
Alankrita Isha Mrigakshi - Institute of Aerospace Medicine, Koln, Germany
Himanshu Thakkar - South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, Delhi
Arindam Jit Singh - Tema Nishant
Prof. Rajinder Chaidhary - Dept. of Economics, University of Rohtak, Haryana
Sandeep Thakur
Dr. Kamla Ganesh - Prof. and Head of Department, Sociology, University of Mumbai
Sindhu - National Election Watch, Karnataka
Amit B. Jethava - President, Gir Nature Youth Club, Gujarat
Amman Madan - Assc. Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Kanpur
Malay Bhattacharyya - West Bengal RTI Manch
Rahul Varman - Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, IIT Kanpur
Ghyansham Shah
Hansabahen
Daniel Mazgaonkar
G.L.N. Reddy - Hyderabad
Girish Mahajan
Anil Taparia
Dr. Vednata Kabra
S. L. Chowdhury
Faisal Khan - NAPM, Asha Parivar
Saraswati Kavula - Film maker and activist
Somesh Bagchi - Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata
Pankaj Joshi - Executive Director, UDRI
Dr. Anil Joshi
Dhan Raj Bansal - Mumbai
Subodh Abhi - Jan Ekta Samiti, Ponta Sahib
Ramesh Agrawal - Jan Chetna, Chhattisgarh
Bardwaj Ananthem - Asha for Education, USA
Dr. J.N. Sharma - Advocate and RTI Activist, Lucknow
Amendment to RTI Act 'an obviously retrograde step'
New Delhi, October 26, 2009
More than 200 eminent citizens have urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to abandon the “ill advised move to amend the RTI Act”. This is the full text of the letter signed by Aruna Roy, Magsaysay Award winner, and others.
25th October, 2009
Dear Dr. Manmohan Singh,
We are alarmed and distressed to learn from media reports that the Government of India proposes to introduce amendments to the RTI Act. This is despite categorical assurances by the Minister of State, DoPT that any amendments, if at all necessary, would only be decided upon after consultations with the public. We are further dismayed to read that far from strengthening the RTI Act, as stated by the Honourable President of India during her speech to the Parliament on 4th June 2009, the government's proposition would in fact emasculate the RTI Act. The proposed amendments include, introducing an exemption for so-called “vexatious and frivolous” applications, and by excluding from the purview of the RTI Act access to “file notings” and the decision making process, this time by excluding “discussion/consultations that take place before arriving at a decision”.
Two current nation-wide studies, one done under the aegis of the Government of India and the other by people’s organizations (RaaG and NCPRI), have both concluded, that the main constraints faced by the government in providing information is inadequate implementation, the lack of training of staff, and poor record management. They have also identified lack of awareness, along with harassment of the applicant, as two of the major constraints that prevent citizen from exercising their right to information. Neither of these studies, despite interviewing thousands of PIOs and officials, has concluded that the occurrence of frivolous or vexatious applications is frequent enough to pose either a threat to the government or to the RTI regime in general. Certainly no evidence has been forthcoming in either of these studies that access to “file notings” or other elements of the deliberative process, has posed a major problem for the nation. On the contrary, many of the officers interviewed have candidly stated that the opening up of the deliberative process has strengthened the hands of the honest and sincere official.
We strongly believe that it is impossible to come up with definitions of “vexatious” and “frivolous” that are not completely subjective and consequently prone to rampant misuse by officials. We also feel that it is a hollow promise to have legislation for ensuring “transparency” and encouraging “accountability” in governance which excludes the basis on which a decision is taken. Would it be fair to judge a decision (or the decision maker) without knowing why such a decision was taken, what facts and arguments were advanced in its favour, and what against? Can one hold a government (or an official) accountable, just on the basis of what they did (or did not do) without knowing the real reasons for their action or inaction? We, the people of India, already directly or indirectly know the decisions of the government, for we are the ones who bear the consequences. What the RTI Act facilitated was a right to know why those decisions were taken, by whom, and based on what advice. This right is the bedrock of democracy and the right to information, and cannot be separated or extinguished without denying this fundamental right.
In any case, in case the government has credible evidence, that despite the findings of the earlier mentioned studies, and despite the safeguards inherent in the RTI Act, “vexatious and frivolous” applications, and access to the deliberative process, are posing a great danger to the Indian nation, these should be placed in the public domain. We are confident that the involvement of the people of India will result in evolving solutions that do not threaten to destroy the RTI Act itself. For a government that has been repeatedly been appreciated for bringing about this progressive legislation, such a move would strengthen the spirit of transparency and public consultation. Surely that is the least that can be expected of a government that propagates the spirit of transparency.
It is significant that even among the collective of Information Commissioners from across the country, whom the government recently “consulted”, the overwhelming view was against making any amendments to the RTI Act at this stage of its implementation. These Commissioners, all appointed by the government, have a bird’s eye view of the implementation of the RTI Act. They have the statutory responsibility to monitor the implementation of the Act, and the moral authority to speak in its defence. Since the government works with the democratic mandate of the people, the collective wisdom, of people across the board who use and implement the law with an ethical base cannot be put aside. In any case we feel the advice of the information Commissioners should be taken into account.
We urge the government to therefore, abandon this ill advised move to amend the RTI Act. Instead, we request it to initiate a public debate of the problems that it might be facing in the implementing of the RTI Act and take on board the findings of the two national studies that have recently been completed. It is only through such a public debate that a lasting and credible way can be found to strengthen the RTI regime.
This government gave its citizens the RTI Act, and there has been no crisis in government as a result of its enactment. In fact the Indian state has, as a result greatly benefited, and the RTI Act and its use by ordinary people is helping change its image to that of an open and receptive democracy. An amendment in the Act would be an obviously retrograde step, at a time when there is a popular consensus to strengthen it through rules and better implementation and not introduce any amendments. We strongly urge that an unequivocal decision be taken to not amend the RTI Act.
With regards,
Aruna Roy, Shekhar Singh, Nikhil Dey
Justice P. B. Sawant - Signed
Anil B. Divan - Senior Advocate Supreme Court - Signed
Prashant Bhushan - Senior Advocate Supreme Court - Signed
Smita Divan - Signed
Dr. Azgar Ali Engineer - Writer & Activist, Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Swami Agnivesh - Social Activist
Sanjit Bunker Roy - Social Work Research Centre, Tilonia, Rajasthan
Tarun Tejpal - Editor-in-Chief, Tehelka
Arundhati Roy - Writer and Activist
Neelabh Mishra - Editor, Outlook (Hindi)
Ram Jethmalani - Senior Lawyer
Medha Patkar - Signed
Mallika Sarabhai - Cultural and Political Activist & Danseuse
Sandeep Pandey - Human Rights Activist & AASHA Parivar, UP
Arvind Kejriwal - Parivartan, Magsaysay Awardee
Muzaffar Bhatt - RTI Activist, J&K
Prabhash Joshi - Eminent Senior Journalist
Bharat Dogra - Freelance Journalist, New Delhi
Amitabh Behar - Director, NCAS
Prof. Jagdeep Chhokkar - IIM-Ahmedabad (rtd.)
Alok Mehta - Editor-in-Chief, Naiduniya
Binayak Sen - General Secretary, PUCL, Chattisgarh - Signed
Prof. Trilochan Sastry - IIM- Bangalore
Harsh Mander - Supreme Court commissioner, Right to Food
Kuldip Nayar - Eminent Senior Journalist
Soli Sorabjee - Former Attorney General of India
Nandita Das - Cultural and Political Activist & Film Maker & Actor
Ajit Bhattacharjea - Senior Journalist & National Campaign for People's Right to Information - Signed
Prof. Jayati Ghosh - Jawaharlal Nehru University
Dunu Roy - Director, Hazard Centre Delhi
Kamla Bhasin- SAHR
E.A.S. Sarma - Former Secretary, Ministry of Finance
Admiral Ramdas - Former Chief of Naval Staff
Venkatesh Nayak -Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
O. P. Jain - Signed
Lalita Ramdas - Social Activist
Sharda Jain - Educationist
Anand Patwardhan - Film Maker
Maja Daruwala - Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
Prof. Jagmohan - National Campaign for People's Right to Information
Anjali Bhardwaj - National Campaign for People's Right to Information
Teesta Setalvad - Lawyer and Human Rights Activist
Lalit Mathur - Former Director General NIRD
Jean Dreze - Visiting Professor G B Pant University, Allahabad
Admiral Tahiliani - Former Chief of Naval Staff
Leela Samson - Director Kalakshetra
Prof. J. G. Krishnayya - Director, Systems Research Institute, Pune
P.S. Appu - Former Director LBS National Academy for Administration
B. Yugandhar - Former Member Planning Commission
Vinita Deshmukh - Editor, Intelligent Pune
Arundhati Dhuru - Right to Food Campaign, UP
Sumit Chakravarty - Editor, Mainstream
Baba Adhav - Eminent Socialist ad Social Activist, Maharashtra
Romila Thapar - Historian
Julio Ribeiro - Retired I.P.S Officer and Civil Servant
Vrinda Grover - Lawyer and Human Rights Activist
Amar Kanwar - Film Maker
S. R. Sankarna - Former Secretary Rural Development & Human Rights Campaigner
Kavita Srivastav- General Secretary, PUCL
Pamela Philipose - Senior Journalist
Commodore Lokesh Batra - RTI Activist - Signed
Vinay Mahajan- Loknaad & National Campaign for People's Right to Information
Charul Bharwada - Loknaad & National Campaign for People's Right to Information
Kamini Jaiswal - Senior Advocate Supreme Court
Shanti Bhushan - Former Law Minister
Harsh Sethi - Editor, Seminar
Justice Dave - Supreme Court Justice (retd.)
K. S. Subramaniam - IPS (retd.) - Signed
Partho Kumar Dey - Air Marshall (rtd.), Indian Air Force
Dr. Amita Baviskar - Academic
Prof. Kamal Mitra Chenoy - Jawaharlal Nehru University
Madhu Bhaduri - Former Ambassador GoI
Shomi Das - Educationist
Sowmya Kidambi - RTI activist
Major General S.C.N. Jatar (retd)
Kamal Jaswal - Director, Common Cause, India
Suren Khirwadkar
Shahid Burney - RTI activist, Pune
Avinash Murkute- RTI activist, Pune
Roda Mehta
Sanjay Shirodkar - RTI activist, Pune
Yogendra Yadav - Fellow, Wissenschaftskolleg Zu Berlin (Institute for Advanced Study)
Annie Raja - General Secretary NFIW - Signed
Shyam Benegal - Film maker
Madhu Kishwar - Editor Manushi
Ashim Jain
S.R. Hiremath - NCPNR
Suman Sahai - Gene Campaign & NCPRI
Prof. Nandini Sundar - Delhi School of Economics
Justice J.S. Verma - Former Chief Justice of India
Sanjay Kak - Film Maker
Ashish Kothari - Kalpavriksh
Usha Rai - Journalist
Nitya Ramakrishnan - Senior Lawyer
Achin Vanayak
Devaki Jain - Economist
Vandana Shiva - Navadanya
Prof. Hargopal - University of Hyderabad - Signed
Harish Dhawan - Professor, Delhi University & People's Union for Democratic Rights - Signed
Prof. Randhir Singh - Professor (retd.), Delhi University - Signed
Manoranjan Mohanty - Professor (retd.), Delhi University - Signed
Pushkar Raj - General Secretary, PUCL - Signed
Ravi Hemadri -The Other Media - Signed
Suhas Borker - Convener, Working Group on Alternative Strategies - Signed
Mukul Mangalik - Professor, Delhi University - Signed
Apoorv Anand - Professor, Delhi University - Signed
Mukul Priyadarshini - Professor, Delhi University - Signed
Shashi Saxena - Professor, Delhi University - Signed
Moushumi Basu - Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University - Signed
Rajni Bakshi - Citizens for Peace - Signed
Deepika Tandon - People's Union for Democratic Rights - Signed
Ranjoy Kumar Reddy - Researcher, Delhi University - Signed
Shahana Bhattacharya - People's Union for Democratic Rights - Signed
Amrapali Basumatary - New Socialist Initiative - Signed
Madhu - Jagori - Signed
Mayil Samy- Advocate - Signed
Kalaiyarasan - JNU DSU
Deepti Bharti - NFIW - Signed
Surendra Mohan - Signed
Sudhir K. Sahu - Signed
Anil - PDFI, Delhi - Signed
Jeevan - PDFI - Signed
Mamata Dash - NFFPIW - Signed
Manas Ranjan - Journalist, The Tribune - Signed
Kiran Shaheen - Media Action Group - Signed
Sunita Kumari - Daanish Books - Signed
Ramchandra Prasad - ICAN INDIA - Signed
Bipin Chandra - Historian and Director, National Books Trust
Kiran Bhatty - UNICEF - Signed
V.M. H. Banna - Journalist, Madhyamam Daily - Signed
Surinder Singh
Shailesh Haribhakti - Signed
Sarwar Kashani
Madhav Godbole
Diwan Singh - Ridge Bachao Andolan
Yogendra Narain - ICAN INDIA
Arundhati Roy - Writer
Suma Josson - Film Maker
Ramaswami Iyer - Former Secretary, Water Resurces Ministry
Ramchandra Prasad - ICAN-India
Pradeep Ghosh - Ashoka Fellow & OASiS
Ashwani Goyal
Manish Jain
Siddhartha Basu
Dr. H. Sudarshan - Karuna Trust & VGKK, Bangalore
A.L. Ragarajan - Rejuvenate India Movement, Chennai
Vijayan Menon - Kormangla Initiative, Bangalore
Urvashi Sharma - Social Worker, RTI Mahila Manch UP
Prithvi Sharma - MD, FACC, USA
Surekha Sharma - MD, FAAP, USA
Prof. Mridula Mukherjee - Director NMML
Swapan Ganguly - PBKMS, West Bengal
Y. Singh N. Rajput - Gujarat
Nitin Sonawane - IFA
Sampad Zantye
Dr. Hari Dev Goyal - Indian Economic Service (Rtd.)
Ajay Pandey - Assc. Professor of Law, Jindal Global Law School
Chitrangada Choudhury - Journalist
Mahendra K. Gupta
Dr. Ashok Sharma
Gayatri Sahgal - Centre for Equity Studies
Chandra Krishnamurthy
Biswajit Mohanty - FCA
Vijay Kapoor
Paromita Vohra - Film Maker
Vijendra Singh - UP
Ravi Duggal - Research & Activist - International Budget Partnership
Joyjeet Pal - Academic
Ashok Gokhale
Tara Warrior - Pune
Damodar Warrior- Pune
Col Mohite (rtd.)
Dr. Anand Lakshmi
Geeta Mohite
Dr. Renu Singh - Save the Children, India
Alankrita Isha Mrigakshi - Institute of Aerospace Medicine, Koln, Germany
Himanshu Thakkar - South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, Delhi
Arindam Jit Singh - Tema Nishant
Prof. Rajinder Chaidhary - Dept. of Economics, University of Rohtak, Haryana
Sandeep Thakur
Dr. Kamla Ganesh - Prof. and Head of Department, Sociology, University of Mumbai
Sindhu - National Election Watch, Karnataka
Amit B. Jethava - President, Gir Nature Youth Club, Gujarat
Amman Madan - Assc. Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Kanpur
Malay Bhattacharyya - West Bengal RTI Manch
Rahul Varman - Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, IIT Kanpur
Ghyansham Shah
Hansabahen
Daniel Mazgaonkar
G.L.N. Reddy - Hyderabad
Girish Mahajan
Anil Taparia
Dr. Vednata Kabra
S. L. Chowdhury
Faisal Khan - NAPM, Asha Parivar
Saraswati Kavula - Film maker and activist
Somesh Bagchi - Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata
Pankaj Joshi - Executive Director, UDRI
Dr. Anil Joshi
Dhan Raj Bansal - Mumbai
Subodh Abhi - Jan Ekta Samiti, Ponta Sahib
Ramesh Agrawal - Jan Chetna, Chhattisgarh
Bardwaj Ananthem - Asha for Education, USA
Dr. J.N. Sharma - Advocate and RTI Activist, Lucknow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)