When monetary penalties and disciplinary actions appear likely, people offer bribes to escape. During casual chats, Maharashtra SIC staff talk about how PIOs and FAAs of slippery public authorities – especially those dealing with builders and land mafias -- offer hefty amounts. In return, Information Commissioners and their staff render “services” such as:
a) Giving orders favourable to PIO, ignoring facts
b) Condoning unjustified delays and denials
c) Not passing orders after the hearing
d) Passing vague, unreasoned and meaningless orders
e) SIC’s staff not issuing show-cause notice even after adverse order
f) Not posting adverse order and/or not putting it up on website
g) Posting hearing notice to appellant on or after hearing date, or close to hearing date, so that appellant cannot attend
h) Not calling appellant for hearing and passing ex-parte order
i) Ignoring incriminating evidence produced by appellant
j) Allowing PIO’s or FAA’s contentions unsupported by documents or evidence.
Sections 7 - 14 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA 88), describes various corrupt acts performed by public servants and their henchmen. Section 7 (“Public Servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act”) defines gratification thus: “The word ‘gratification’ is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.” For instance, if an Information Commissioner, or his wife or son, is rewarded with a plum post-retirement posting by Mantralaya, that is “gratification”. Or, if the State Information Commissioner’s wife or son gets a plum contract with a builder’s firm, that is “gratification”.
Thus, PCA 88 does not require evidence of money changing hands. If we can establish that “gratification” was given in respect of an official act, we should complain to Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and try to get an FIR registered under PCA 88 and Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In fact, even gratification need not be established by evidence under PCA 88. Abuse of public office is enough to get the ACB to register a complaint and investigate. Section 13(1) of PCA 88 says, “(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct (c) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be , or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or (d) If he - (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage ; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest”.
In Maharashtra, a very useful High Court order can directly lead to investigation and action by ACB.
Download this order: http://www.box.net/shared/ob4rq29v6f
There are at least a hundred activists and RTI appellants out there, who have direct first-hand knowledge of such activities happening in various State Information Commissions and their secretariats. I would urge them to use this format to file a complaint against their corrupt Information Commissioner and/or member of his staff.
Download format for Complaint to ACB: http://www.box.net/shared/l4jhdxs2t1
Other useful links: http://www.box.net/shared/9qz41qtdsx
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
For More Info Log on to www.rtigroup.org
|
Subscribe to RTI Group | |
| Browse Archives at groups.google.com | ||
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Is RTI activism succeeding? Nazar ko badal ke dekho, nazaare badal jaayenge!
Dear fellow activists,
Sometimes, realities change and we fail to notice. The ground-shift since the enactment of the Right to Information Act on 15 June 2005 has gone unnoticed. Absorbed as we are in the details, I think we missed seeing the big picture.
The RTI Act gave us a lot more than just access to information. It shifted the balance of power. By making the walls of government porous, it allowed citizens to enquire into governance. It made every common man a superintendent over the activities of the State.
We the people of India awakened to a sense of our real ownership of this nation. But we the activists of India continued to beat our breasts and lament, and exchange old tales of our powerlessness.
Look around you. Every week, in each state and at the centre, new tales of heroism are emerging. Half a dozen Information Commissioners are each presiding over scores of hearings where the administration is on trial, where ordinary citizens are knowingly or unknowingly playing the role of prosecutors. These are not high-profile heroes like Anna Hazare and Medha Patkar, these are not seasoned system fighters… yet they are engaging the administration in a blow-by-blow battle. Painfully aware that the battlefield is slanted in favour of the administration, they bash on nevertheless!
Every week, heads roll, sometimes on both sides. Ordinary men and women living in ordinary neighborhoods fight with extraordinary courage for justice and truth. Can there be a greater Satyagraha?
Observe another massive change. Remember when conferences and seminars used to be for the select few, and one could count them on the fingers of one hand? Today, the equivalent of a dozen state-level and national-level seminars happen on the internet every day, routinely. Several thousand citizens come together on email and on discussion forums, and have an informed discussion in many languages. New insights emerge, new courses of action are decided and executed. This is the new face of activism.
This ongoing revolution is our new reality. The heroes of this revolution are in offices, at street corners, on buses and trains, in suburbs and slums. They eat, breathe and dream their fundamental rights and duties. They daily sacrifice their meager salaries and pensions, and the peace of their families, for one obsessive vision: a cleaner, more transparent India.
STAND BEFORE THE MIRROR AND LOOK INTO YOUR OWN EYES, MY FRIEND, BECAUSE YOU ARE ONE OF THESE PEOPLE. RECOGNIZE YOURSELF. YOU ARE THIS REVOLUTION.
If this is true, then why are we stuck with our feelings of powerlessness and frustration? Because, locked into our own personal battles with the administration, we failed to see the larger picture of the revolution. We are victims of an outdated vision of victory that looks like the final scenes of a movie where villains fall into an abyss and their evil empires literally collapse. This, my friend, is an unrealistic fantasy. Such fantasies condemn people like you and me to remain frustrated and defeated, even though we are continually winning. Such unfulfilled fantasies are draining away our energy and self confidence.
Let us upgrade our vision. In the context of modern India, let us re-envision what victory means.
India is an aggregate of 1.2 billion lives and their dreams -- a massive nation with a huge momentum, moving like a mighty ship through the oceans. So victory cannot be your dream or mine alone. Victory cannot be a 180-degree U-turn by the administration; it can only be a gentle course correction of one or two degrees over some years. But take comfort: when a massive nation steers a couple of degrees, the effect is huge beyond our imagining. Everything changes.
Have faith, massive change will happen… but it will be so gradual and imperceptible that none of us will get any credit for it. There may be no thrilling historic moments. No evil empires will collapse dramatically, because they will dissolve and fade away over some years. There will be no dramatic surrender or laying down of arms, no Freedom at Midnight speeches. Victory will come as a gradual re-discovery of each citizen’s power to say NO to mundane evils in daily life. No glorious heroes will lead the “masses” into battle and emerge victorious; the masses – our countrymen -- will themselves regain a sense of individual and collective public morality, and fight a gradual war against injustice and untruth.
In this war, there may be no Bheeshma-pratigyas -- no grand acts of self-sacrifice or superhuman self-control, no fasts-unto-death, no spectacular Dandi March. There will only be the daily grind of several hundred RTI applications, appeals, hearings, complaints, representations, meetings and a general unwillingness to take the easy way out – an unstoppable nationwide grinding-down of indifference and corruption by small lawful and truthful acts.
So now the shift only needs to happen in our own hearts and minds -- a conscious shift in perspective that we activists need to make. We need to decide: are we investing our life’s energies on winning our own battles, and growing into tall and mighty trees on India’s skyline? Or are we investing in furthering the green growth of the shoots and saplings of “We the people of India”? The latter is a game at which we can never be beaten, regardless of the outcome of our individual battles.
Nazar ko badlo, nazaare badal jaayenge!
As an activist, I used to seek a kind of absolute and indisputable victory in our campaigns. But now I feel that winning is unimportant; what is crucial is that we do battle on a continuing basis, exerting broad moral and legal pressures on the system in the direction of the truth.
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Sometimes, realities change and we fail to notice. The ground-shift since the enactment of the Right to Information Act on 15 June 2005 has gone unnoticed. Absorbed as we are in the details, I think we missed seeing the big picture.
The RTI Act gave us a lot more than just access to information. It shifted the balance of power. By making the walls of government porous, it allowed citizens to enquire into governance. It made every common man a superintendent over the activities of the State.
We the people of India awakened to a sense of our real ownership of this nation. But we the activists of India continued to beat our breasts and lament, and exchange old tales of our powerlessness.
Look around you. Every week, in each state and at the centre, new tales of heroism are emerging. Half a dozen Information Commissioners are each presiding over scores of hearings where the administration is on trial, where ordinary citizens are knowingly or unknowingly playing the role of prosecutors. These are not high-profile heroes like Anna Hazare and Medha Patkar, these are not seasoned system fighters… yet they are engaging the administration in a blow-by-blow battle. Painfully aware that the battlefield is slanted in favour of the administration, they bash on nevertheless!
Every week, heads roll, sometimes on both sides. Ordinary men and women living in ordinary neighborhoods fight with extraordinary courage for justice and truth. Can there be a greater Satyagraha?
Observe another massive change. Remember when conferences and seminars used to be for the select few, and one could count them on the fingers of one hand? Today, the equivalent of a dozen state-level and national-level seminars happen on the internet every day, routinely. Several thousand citizens come together on email and on discussion forums, and have an informed discussion in many languages. New insights emerge, new courses of action are decided and executed. This is the new face of activism.
This ongoing revolution is our new reality. The heroes of this revolution are in offices, at street corners, on buses and trains, in suburbs and slums. They eat, breathe and dream their fundamental rights and duties. They daily sacrifice their meager salaries and pensions, and the peace of their families, for one obsessive vision: a cleaner, more transparent India.
STAND BEFORE THE MIRROR AND LOOK INTO YOUR OWN EYES, MY FRIEND, BECAUSE YOU ARE ONE OF THESE PEOPLE. RECOGNIZE YOURSELF. YOU ARE THIS REVOLUTION.
If this is true, then why are we stuck with our feelings of powerlessness and frustration? Because, locked into our own personal battles with the administration, we failed to see the larger picture of the revolution. We are victims of an outdated vision of victory that looks like the final scenes of a movie where villains fall into an abyss and their evil empires literally collapse. This, my friend, is an unrealistic fantasy. Such fantasies condemn people like you and me to remain frustrated and defeated, even though we are continually winning. Such unfulfilled fantasies are draining away our energy and self confidence.
Let us upgrade our vision. In the context of modern India, let us re-envision what victory means.
India is an aggregate of 1.2 billion lives and their dreams -- a massive nation with a huge momentum, moving like a mighty ship through the oceans. So victory cannot be your dream or mine alone. Victory cannot be a 180-degree U-turn by the administration; it can only be a gentle course correction of one or two degrees over some years. But take comfort: when a massive nation steers a couple of degrees, the effect is huge beyond our imagining. Everything changes.
Have faith, massive change will happen… but it will be so gradual and imperceptible that none of us will get any credit for it. There may be no thrilling historic moments. No evil empires will collapse dramatically, because they will dissolve and fade away over some years. There will be no dramatic surrender or laying down of arms, no Freedom at Midnight speeches. Victory will come as a gradual re-discovery of each citizen’s power to say NO to mundane evils in daily life. No glorious heroes will lead the “masses” into battle and emerge victorious; the masses – our countrymen -- will themselves regain a sense of individual and collective public morality, and fight a gradual war against injustice and untruth.
In this war, there may be no Bheeshma-pratigyas -- no grand acts of self-sacrifice or superhuman self-control, no fasts-unto-death, no spectacular Dandi March. There will only be the daily grind of several hundred RTI applications, appeals, hearings, complaints, representations, meetings and a general unwillingness to take the easy way out – an unstoppable nationwide grinding-down of indifference and corruption by small lawful and truthful acts.
So now the shift only needs to happen in our own hearts and minds -- a conscious shift in perspective that we activists need to make. We need to decide: are we investing our life’s energies on winning our own battles, and growing into tall and mighty trees on India’s skyline? Or are we investing in furthering the green growth of the shoots and saplings of “We the people of India”? The latter is a game at which we can never be beaten, regardless of the outcome of our individual battles.
Nazar ko badlo, nazaare badal jaayenge!
As an activist, I used to seek a kind of absolute and indisputable victory in our campaigns. But now I feel that winning is unimportant; what is crucial is that we do battle on a continuing basis, exerting broad moral and legal pressures on the system in the direction of the truth.
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Monday, July 5, 2010
Four golden rules for writing effective RTI Applications
Dear fellow Activists,
We often sit down to draft an RTI application in an angry and unrealistic mood. When we write RTI applications, our focus should be on getting information. Instead, we are thinking about stopping some wrongdoings, getting some officials and corrupt contractors penalized, making the authorities “answerable” for negligence etc, etc. At such times, we fail to think clearly about the items of information that we need.
Right to Information Act 2005 is a law, and effectiveness in legal work depends on using the law without anger, resentment and wishful thinking.
While asking for information, the 4 golden rules are:
1) Point to various specific documents. Your application should look like a shopping-list of documents.
2) Name documents using words from Sec 2(f) and Sec 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act – reports, logbooks, emails, advices, rules, regulations, manuals etc. Only after exhausting these should you use other similar documents e.g. quality audit reports, correspondence etc. In case this information is denied, the similarity of wordings will help you to convince appellate authorities that your requested information is “records” and “information” that must be mandatorily given.
3) Don’t ask questions, don’t demand explanations, and don’t make allegations. Don’t make your application sound like a letter of complaint or a letter-to-the-editor. Don’t preface it with a covering letter or an introductory paragraph. RTI applications should be emotionless and bland.
4) Avoid vague expressions and requests such as
(a) “What is the status of my complaint? What further action has been taken on my complaint/letter? Give me action-taken report.” Words like “status” and “action” are open to interpretation, and usually fail to point towards any particular document; they can mean different things to different persons like applicant, PIO, APIO and appellate authorities. In most cases, there is no such document called “action-taken report” in existence, and therefore, the PIO cannot be rightly asked under RTI to generate such a document in reply to your application; PIO can only be asked to give you copy of a document that exists. The right way is to ask for signed and stamped copy of all correspondence till date in the matter of your complaint, including memos, emails, covering letters for forwarding your complaint etc. Ask for copy of logbook or any other book where details of your complaint are entered, marked to specific officers for their investigation and action. Ask for a copy of all their remarks, feedback, reports etc. If the case on your complaint is closed, ask for the closing remarks of the officer concerned.
(b) “Give particulars of the project to build XYZ.” What “particulars” do you want? Engineering drawings? Budgets? Financial projections? Feasibility reports? Consultants’ studies? This is not clear. Don’t leave it to the PIO to decide what documents to include and what to leave out. Be specific and name the documents that you want copied. Make it difficult for the PIO to loosely interpret your request.
Also read:
B. Seven surprising tips for writing good RTI applications
C. Five psychological reasons for failure-prone RTI Applications
D. Examples of success-oriented and failure-prone RTI applications
Warm Regards,
Krish
098215 88114
We often sit down to draft an RTI application in an angry and unrealistic mood. When we write RTI applications, our focus should be on getting information. Instead, we are thinking about stopping some wrongdoings, getting some officials and corrupt contractors penalized, making the authorities “answerable” for negligence etc, etc. At such times, we fail to think clearly about the items of information that we need.
Right to Information Act 2005 is a law, and effectiveness in legal work depends on using the law without anger, resentment and wishful thinking.
While asking for information, the 4 golden rules are:
1) Point to various specific documents. Your application should look like a shopping-list of documents.
2) Name documents using words from Sec 2(f) and Sec 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act – reports, logbooks, emails, advices, rules, regulations, manuals etc. Only after exhausting these should you use other similar documents e.g. quality audit reports, correspondence etc. In case this information is denied, the similarity of wordings will help you to convince appellate authorities that your requested information is “records” and “information” that must be mandatorily given.
3) Don’t ask questions, don’t demand explanations, and don’t make allegations. Don’t make your application sound like a letter of complaint or a letter-to-the-editor. Don’t preface it with a covering letter or an introductory paragraph. RTI applications should be emotionless and bland.
4) Avoid vague expressions and requests such as
(a) “What is the status of my complaint? What further action has been taken on my complaint/letter? Give me action-taken report.” Words like “status” and “action” are open to interpretation, and usually fail to point towards any particular document; they can mean different things to different persons like applicant, PIO, APIO and appellate authorities. In most cases, there is no such document called “action-taken report” in existence, and therefore, the PIO cannot be rightly asked under RTI to generate such a document in reply to your application; PIO can only be asked to give you copy of a document that exists. The right way is to ask for signed and stamped copy of all correspondence till date in the matter of your complaint, including memos, emails, covering letters for forwarding your complaint etc. Ask for copy of logbook or any other book where details of your complaint are entered, marked to specific officers for their investigation and action. Ask for a copy of all their remarks, feedback, reports etc. If the case on your complaint is closed, ask for the closing remarks of the officer concerned.
(b) “Give particulars of the project to build XYZ.” What “particulars” do you want? Engineering drawings? Budgets? Financial projections? Feasibility reports? Consultants’ studies? This is not clear. Don’t leave it to the PIO to decide what documents to include and what to leave out. Be specific and name the documents that you want copied. Make it difficult for the PIO to loosely interpret your request.
Also read:
B. Seven surprising tips for writing good RTI applications
C. Five psychological reasons for failure-prone RTI Applications
D. Examples of success-oriented and failure-prone RTI applications
Warm Regards,
Krish
098215 88114
Tells RTI Applicant Data Could Affect Sovereignty
Himanshi Dhawan | TNN
New Delhi: If there was a mole in Indira Gandhi’s government, he will not be unmasked. The Cabinet Secretariat has denied disclosure of information related to crucial cabinet meetings during the 1971 war on grounds that revelations would prejudicially affect the “sovereignty and integrity” of India.
The 1971 case relates to an alleged mole in Indira Gandhi’s cabinet who was reported to have leaked information on cabinet meetings to the CIA. The leaks, it has been alleged, could have adversely impacted the India-Pakistan war.
For complete news visit:
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Daily/skins/TOINEW/navigator.asp?Daily=TOIBG&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI
New Delhi: If there was a mole in Indira Gandhi’s government, he will not be unmasked. The Cabinet Secretariat has denied disclosure of information related to crucial cabinet meetings during the 1971 war on grounds that revelations would prejudicially affect the “sovereignty and integrity” of India.
The 1971 case relates to an alleged mole in Indira Gandhi’s cabinet who was reported to have leaked information on cabinet meetings to the CIA. The leaks, it has been alleged, could have adversely impacted the India-Pakistan war.
For complete news visit:
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Daily/skins/TOINEW/navigator.asp?Daily=TOIBG&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI
Thursday, July 1, 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
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
No transparency in selection of information commissioners: Arvind Kejriwal
Names received by DoPT do not make it to the selection committee
Danish Raza | June 30 2010
The applications received by the department of personnel and training (DoPT) for the post of information commissioners (ICs) do not make it to the selection committee comprising of the prime minister, leader of the opposition and a cabinet minister. This, despite the fact that majority of the names received by the DoPT are duly recommended by the chief ministers, cabinet ministers and MPs. The names for selection are put before the selection committee through an agenda note prepared by the DoPT. Noted RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal obtained this information through RTI applications filed in the PMO and DoPT.
“What emerges is that the DoPT has become de facto selection or rejection committee.
For complete news please visit:
http://governancenow.com/gov-next/rti/no-transparency-selection-information-commissioners-rti-activists
Danish Raza | June 30 2010
The applications received by the department of personnel and training (DoPT) for the post of information commissioners (ICs) do not make it to the selection committee comprising of the prime minister, leader of the opposition and a cabinet minister. This, despite the fact that majority of the names received by the DoPT are duly recommended by the chief ministers, cabinet ministers and MPs. The names for selection are put before the selection committee through an agenda note prepared by the DoPT. Noted RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal obtained this information through RTI applications filed in the PMO and DoPT.
“What emerges is that the DoPT has become de facto selection or rejection committee.
For complete news please visit:
http://governancenow.com/gov-next/rti/no-transparency-selection-information-commissioners-rti-activists
Other action tools available to RTI activist
Sometimes, we start thinking that RTI is the only tool available to activist citizens. Then we start speaking of ourselves as “RTI activists”, as if RTI is the only thing that matters to us. We forget our larger objective i.e. improving the quality of governance and administration. We become over-focused on uncovering information, getting hearings, winning / losing appeals and cribbing about Information Commissioners.
Such tunnel-vision happens to everybody – including myself -- because the process of RTI application and appeals are so intensely discussed on various forums. There is a relative absence of thought and discussion on other tools available to public-spirited citizens.
Please remember RTI IS ONLY ONE OF THE MANY POTENT TOOLS for demanding implementation of laws or rules, for challenging established ways of doing things, for unleashing societal forces for change, for altering administration’s perception and behavior on issues etc. etc.
What are these tools? Download this document: http://www.box.net/shared/5tb27k13gr
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Such tunnel-vision happens to everybody – including myself -- because the process of RTI application and appeals are so intensely discussed on various forums. There is a relative absence of thought and discussion on other tools available to public-spirited citizens.
Please remember RTI IS ONLY ONE OF THE MANY POTENT TOOLS for demanding implementation of laws or rules, for challenging established ways of doing things, for unleashing societal forces for change, for altering administration’s perception and behavior on issues etc. etc.
What are these tools? Download this document: http://www.box.net/shared/5tb27k13gr
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)