Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date:2008 Jul 02; Section:Times Nation; Page Number 19
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has slapped a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the School of Planning and Architecture’s public information officer for inaction on a Right to Information appeal for over three months.
In his order, information commissioner O P Kejriwal has directed the PIO, D R Bains, to pay Rs 25,000 for causing a delay of ‘‘more than 100 days in providing the required information to the appellant’’. He has ordered the SPA director in charge and appellate authority, K T Ravindran, to ensure compliance in recovery of the penalty by August 10.
The appellant had asked for information relating to the action taken against his daughter who was not permitted to sit for an exam due to shortage of attendance.
In his RTI filed on September 1, 2006, to the human resource development ministry, appellant Ramesh Chandra had sought to know what action was being taken against Prof Mahavir, head of the department of physical planning, and Prof Subir Saha, SPA director-in charge, for their ‘‘misconduct’’ in detaining his daughter and other students from appearing for an exam. Chandra also wanted to know whether his daughter Sudeepti Chandra would be permitted to attend classes of fourth year.
For More Info Log on to www.rtigroup.org
|
Subscribe to RTI Group | |
| Browse Archives at groups.google.com | ||
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Saturday, July 5, 2008
More Corrupt: India slips in Transparency International rankings
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date:2008 Jul 05; Section:Editorial; Page Number 18
Recently a raid on the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes in Bangalore revealed that he is the owner of 102 cars. That appears to confirm the common perception that corruption is an intrinsic part of Indian public life. This is validated by surveys too. Transparency International has placed India two notches lower on this year’s Corruption Perception Index than it had in 2007. The only saving grace is that compared to its neighbours, India seems to have done well. Pakistan, for instance, is at 140th position compared to India’s 74th. Nepal and Sri Lanka are ranked a lowly 135 and 96 respectively. China though is ranked one place above India. Another new study by Transparency International and the Centre for Media Studies found that Indians believed public services to be more corrupt than they actually are.
But can we take heart from that? Not really, as the 102 cars in the possession of Bangalore’s taxman show. India still has miles to go in rooting out corruption in public life. The introduction of Right to Information (RTI) legislation may have had an impact on making government more accountable. An independent media working as a watchdog also helps. But hush money, graft and bribes are rampant in public life. And this is true for all government offices that deal with the public.
What is worrying is that the Transparency International report on India found that about Rs 9,000 crore had been paid as bribes by the poor. Indeed, the poor are disproportionately affected by corruption since they depend more on public services. According to the report, one out of every three people living below the poverty line in India paid bribes to access basic public services such as education, health care and water. Corruption is proving to be the biggest hurdle in the way of poverty alleviation programmes. Leakages in government spending programmes mean that very little is actually reaching the poor.
However, all is not lost. The RTI and the media are contributing to efforts to tackle corruption in government and politics. That is a healthy sign. But much more needs to be done to fight corruption. After all, corruption is a key factor in keeping the benefits of India’s growth from trickling down, leading to inequality and political instability.
Recently a raid on the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes in Bangalore revealed that he is the owner of 102 cars. That appears to confirm the common perception that corruption is an intrinsic part of Indian public life. This is validated by surveys too. Transparency International has placed India two notches lower on this year’s Corruption Perception Index than it had in 2007. The only saving grace is that compared to its neighbours, India seems to have done well. Pakistan, for instance, is at 140th position compared to India’s 74th. Nepal and Sri Lanka are ranked a lowly 135 and 96 respectively. China though is ranked one place above India. Another new study by Transparency International and the Centre for Media Studies found that Indians believed public services to be more corrupt than they actually are.
But can we take heart from that? Not really, as the 102 cars in the possession of Bangalore’s taxman show. India still has miles to go in rooting out corruption in public life. The introduction of Right to Information (RTI) legislation may have had an impact on making government more accountable. An independent media working as a watchdog also helps. But hush money, graft and bribes are rampant in public life. And this is true for all government offices that deal with the public.
What is worrying is that the Transparency International report on India found that about Rs 9,000 crore had been paid as bribes by the poor. Indeed, the poor are disproportionately affected by corruption since they depend more on public services. According to the report, one out of every three people living below the poverty line in India paid bribes to access basic public services such as education, health care and water. Corruption is proving to be the biggest hurdle in the way of poverty alleviation programmes. Leakages in government spending programmes mean that very little is actually reaching the poor.
However, all is not lost. The RTI and the media are contributing to efforts to tackle corruption in government and politics. That is a healthy sign. But much more needs to be done to fight corruption. After all, corruption is a key factor in keeping the benefits of India’s growth from trickling down, leading to inequality and political instability.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
CIC takes on IAS lobby over appointment criteria
RIGHT TO KNOW, Manoj Mitta | TNN, Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date:2008 Jun 25; Section:Times Nation; Page Number 13
New Delhi: Thanks to judicial intervention, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has mustered the will to take on the powerful IAS lobby on an appeal filed by Magsaysay awardee Arvind Kejriwal.
The disclosures ordered by CIC on June 12 have opened up the possibility of finding out how many of the senior officers appointed to the levels of secretary and additional secretary in various ministries fulfiled the prescribed criterion of ‘‘specific suitability.’’
A three-member bench of CIC directed the government that it could not claim to have complied with its orders although it had disclosed details of the appointments made only up to the level of joint secretary. Since most of the posts above the level of joint secretary are held by IAS officers, Kejriwal had sought information on all senior bureaucratic appointees to ascertain whether they met the central staffing scheme’s stipulation of ‘‘specific suitability’’ despite being drawn mainly from the generalist stream.
The three-member bench’s decision overturns an April 2007 order in which CIC member M M Ansari had rejected Kejriwal’s complaint that, by denying him access to the files, the government had failed to comply with a July 2006 direction for transparency.
Curiously, Ansari was allowed to be part of the three-member bench constituted to reconsider his April 2007 order in the wake of a Delhi high court direction obtained by Kejriwal in September 2007. In the event, the fresh hearing held this year did bring about
a change in his view as Ansari went along with the other two members on the bench in acknowledging that the government could hardly claim to have complied with CIC’s order without showing Kejriwal a scrap of paper related to the appointments of secretaries and additional secretaries.
In its unanimous order of June 12, the bench comprising Ansari, O P Kejariwal and Padma Balasubramanian directed the department of personnel and training and cabinet secretariat to allow inspection of — and make copies of — the files related to the appointments to the levels of secretary and additional secretary to the government of India. CIC also got around RTI restrictions on disclosure of third party information. This is because Kejriwal conceded that he would not seek copies of the annual confidential report of each of the officers. CIC agreed with his suggestion that he could be shown the chart displaying the grading of the officers. ‘‘Since the charts as such would not contain any personal information, the commission saw no objection in providing these to the appellant,’’ it said.
Kejriwal, a former revenue service officer, has been seeking to uncover the nature of bureaucratic postings since November 2005. His RTI application raised the hackles of the IAS lobby which saw it as an attempt to expose their near-monopoly over top posts regardless of their suitability for the increasingly technical demands of those jobs. The information asked for may lay bare the manipulations that allow an officer to be posted as telecom secretary, for instance, without having any qualification or experience in that specialized field.
New Delhi: Thanks to judicial intervention, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has mustered the will to take on the powerful IAS lobby on an appeal filed by Magsaysay awardee Arvind Kejriwal.
The disclosures ordered by CIC on June 12 have opened up the possibility of finding out how many of the senior officers appointed to the levels of secretary and additional secretary in various ministries fulfiled the prescribed criterion of ‘‘specific suitability.’’
A three-member bench of CIC directed the government that it could not claim to have complied with its orders although it had disclosed details of the appointments made only up to the level of joint secretary. Since most of the posts above the level of joint secretary are held by IAS officers, Kejriwal had sought information on all senior bureaucratic appointees to ascertain whether they met the central staffing scheme’s stipulation of ‘‘specific suitability’’ despite being drawn mainly from the generalist stream.
The three-member bench’s decision overturns an April 2007 order in which CIC member M M Ansari had rejected Kejriwal’s complaint that, by denying him access to the files, the government had failed to comply with a July 2006 direction for transparency.
Curiously, Ansari was allowed to be part of the three-member bench constituted to reconsider his April 2007 order in the wake of a Delhi high court direction obtained by Kejriwal in September 2007. In the event, the fresh hearing held this year did bring about
a change in his view as Ansari went along with the other two members on the bench in acknowledging that the government could hardly claim to have complied with CIC’s order without showing Kejriwal a scrap of paper related to the appointments of secretaries and additional secretaries.
In its unanimous order of June 12, the bench comprising Ansari, O P Kejariwal and Padma Balasubramanian directed the department of personnel and training and cabinet secretariat to allow inspection of — and make copies of — the files related to the appointments to the levels of secretary and additional secretary to the government of India. CIC also got around RTI restrictions on disclosure of third party information. This is because Kejriwal conceded that he would not seek copies of the annual confidential report of each of the officers. CIC agreed with his suggestion that he could be shown the chart displaying the grading of the officers. ‘‘Since the charts as such would not contain any personal information, the commission saw no objection in providing these to the appellant,’’ it said.
Kejriwal, a former revenue service officer, has been seeking to uncover the nature of bureaucratic postings since November 2005. His RTI application raised the hackles of the IAS lobby which saw it as an attempt to expose their near-monopoly over top posts regardless of their suitability for the increasingly technical demands of those jobs. The information asked for may lay bare the manipulations that allow an officer to be posted as telecom secretary, for instance, without having any qualification or experience in that specialized field.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
RTI Act effective against graft: U.N. report
The Hindu (National), Special Correspondent
“India has implemented key options”
NEW DELHI: The Right to Information Act 2005 was “one of the most progressive legislations” in the developing world for tackling corruption, according to a United Nations report released on Thursday.
India was one of the eight countries in Asia and the Pacific to enact such a legislation, the United Nations Development Report on “Tackling Corruption, Transforming Lives – Accelerating Human Development in Asia and the Pacific” said, adding it was perhaps too soon to judge whether the legislation had worked throughout the region.
The process through which the Act was drafted and came into force in India illustrated the power of sustained pressure: when the government proposed to amend the law to exclude some administrative files and Cabinet papers from it, intense pressure from civil society organisations forced it to drop the plan, the report said.
India’s law was particularly effective, the report said, because it specified information that must be disclosed on a proactive basis, including some that would help expose corruption.
Precise information
The Act also allowed individuals and organisations investigating corruption to ask for precise information.
For example, while generally excluding information from the intelligence agencies, it specifically allowed for the disclosure of information “pertaining to allegations of corruption or human rights violations.”
According to the report, India had implemented a number of key options to combat corruption.
They included the progressive Right to Information Act, using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and e-governance to make the administration more transparent, encouraging media and citizen initiatives and becoming a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.
The report found that where democracy was most effective at checking corruption, it did not necessarily do so through the system-level “hardware” such as elections, but through the deeper ability to voice demands that were taken seriously by the government – that of the civil society organisation.
At the same time, there were many other ways individuals could act to combat corruption: asking questions, resisting demands for bribes, reporting the activities of corrupt officials and refusing to deal with corrupt businesses.
Role of media hailed
The report also appreciated the role of the media and investigative journalists against high-profile offenders leading to their resignations and prosecutions.
© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu
Date:13/06/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/06/13/stories/2008061351401300.htm Back
“India has implemented key options”
NEW DELHI: The Right to Information Act 2005 was “one of the most progressive legislations” in the developing world for tackling corruption, according to a United Nations report released on Thursday.
India was one of the eight countries in Asia and the Pacific to enact such a legislation, the United Nations Development Report on “Tackling Corruption, Transforming Lives – Accelerating Human Development in Asia and the Pacific” said, adding it was perhaps too soon to judge whether the legislation had worked throughout the region.
The process through which the Act was drafted and came into force in India illustrated the power of sustained pressure: when the government proposed to amend the law to exclude some administrative files and Cabinet papers from it, intense pressure from civil society organisations forced it to drop the plan, the report said.
India’s law was particularly effective, the report said, because it specified information that must be disclosed on a proactive basis, including some that would help expose corruption.
Precise information
The Act also allowed individuals and organisations investigating corruption to ask for precise information.
For example, while generally excluding information from the intelligence agencies, it specifically allowed for the disclosure of information “pertaining to allegations of corruption or human rights violations.”
According to the report, India had implemented a number of key options to combat corruption.
They included the progressive Right to Information Act, using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and e-governance to make the administration more transparent, encouraging media and citizen initiatives and becoming a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.
The report found that where democracy was most effective at checking corruption, it did not necessarily do so through the system-level “hardware” such as elections, but through the deeper ability to voice demands that were taken seriously by the government – that of the civil society organisation.
At the same time, there were many other ways individuals could act to combat corruption: asking questions, resisting demands for bribes, reporting the activities of corrupt officials and refusing to deal with corrupt businesses.
Role of media hailed
The report also appreciated the role of the media and investigative journalists against high-profile offenders leading to their resignations and prosecutions.
© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu
Date:13/06/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/06/13/stories/2008061351401300.htm Back
Sunday, June 15, 2008
UP Govt GO for making RTI effective
Lucknow: The Right to Information Act may yet catch a road to effective implementation. Chief secretary Atul Kumar Gupta has, in government order dated June 6, laid down guidelines to be mandatorily followed by public authority vis-a-vis RTI Act.
Addressed to all principal secretaries, heads of departments, divisional commissioners and district magistrates, the order has asked authorities to get PAs follow RTI norms. Compiled information from PAs is to be submitted to administrative reforms department by June 30. The order has defined PAs as bodies owned, controlled and funded by Central and state governments. PAs also include nongovernment bodies, directly or indirectly funded by government. The most important requirement is maintaining of records, indexing and sequencing of documents.
The order has pointed out that computerised records could make the job of providing timely information all the more easy, as these records would have better accessibility. The section 4(1)(B) of the Act entails 16 categories of information all PAs are expected to upload on their website. PAs will have to provide information like names and designations of public information officers (PIOs), their PAs specialities, work, powers and duties of officers and staff, documents held by them and directions issued to them.
Publication of all categories of information is a must. PAs can also list information other than categories defined under the section. PAs will have to update information every year and publicise information through newspapers, announcements, information boards and internet. PAs will have to suo moto disclose information to public through various media so that lesser number of people resort to RTI Act.
Publication: Times Of India Lucknow; Date:2008 Jun 15; Section:Times City; Page Number 3
Addressed to all principal secretaries, heads of departments, divisional commissioners and district magistrates, the order has asked authorities to get PAs follow RTI norms. Compiled information from PAs is to be submitted to administrative reforms department by June 30. The order has defined PAs as bodies owned, controlled and funded by Central and state governments. PAs also include nongovernment bodies, directly or indirectly funded by government. The most important requirement is maintaining of records, indexing and sequencing of documents.
The order has pointed out that computerised records could make the job of providing timely information all the more easy, as these records would have better accessibility. The section 4(1)(B) of the Act entails 16 categories of information all PAs are expected to upload on their website. PAs will have to provide information like names and designations of public information officers (PIOs), their PAs specialities, work, powers and duties of officers and staff, documents held by them and directions issued to them.
Publication of all categories of information is a must. PAs can also list information other than categories defined under the section. PAs will have to update information every year and publicise information through newspapers, announcements, information boards and internet. PAs will have to suo moto disclose information to public through various media so that lesser number of people resort to RTI Act.
Publication: Times Of India Lucknow; Date:2008 Jun 15; Section:Times City; Page Number 3
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Secrecy is dead, long live secrecy
Vidya Subrahmaniam, In the nine months since the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Government's Ministries have done much to undermine the Central Information Commission and, by implication, the Act itself.
THE PROPOSED amendments to the Right to Information Act, 2005, including an amendment to keep file notings secret, have been called off — at least for now. So what are the chances that they will return in one form or another? Indeed, how strong is the official resistance to the RTI Act as it exists?
The RTI story on the ground is the story of small successes. It is about men and women who got their entitlements by filing or just threatening to file an application under the Act. It is about Bihar's Mazloom Nadaf, a rickshaw-puller, who got the usual run-around on his plea for a home under the Indira Awas Yojana, but who was treated like a king once he had filed an application under the RTI Act: Could he please come to the Block Development Office and collect his cheque? While at it, could he also be so kind as to drop his complaint? It is about Nannu, the East Delhi mazdoor, who having done the rounds for a duplicate ration card, filed a complaint under the RTI Act seeking the names of officers who drove him round the bend. Nannu might have waved a magic wand judging by the swift invite from the Food and Civil Supplies office, where officers fussed over him, gave him tea — and his ration card. As a beaming Nannu departed, his new friends called after him: Would he please drop his complaint?
The moral of all this: Don't ask us questions. Don't ask which officer did what. Just take your ration card, telephone connection, passport, and so forth. Indeed, the larger battle for file notings must be viewed against these smaller victories. Babudom would rather redress your complaint in double quick time than have you track the inside story. And file notings take you precisely where you are not meant to go — into the forbidding and shadowy world of governmental decision-making.
A visit to the website of the Central Information Commission — the final authority under the RTI Act on disclosure of official information — is revealing. The Commission first allowed access to file notings on January 31, 2006, in the Satyapal case. Its reasoning was impeccable. Firstly, that file notings were essential to understand why the Government came to a particular decision: "...[Governmental] decisions are mostly based on the recording in notesheets and even decisions are recorded on the notesheets. No file would be complete without notesheets having `file notings'..." And secondly, that the Act as it stood permitted access to file notings: "... a combined reading of Sections 2(f), (i) and (j) would indicate that a citizen has the right of access to a file of which file notings are an integral part..."
In the seven months since the Satyapal case, the CIC has ruled in favour of file notings in more than 40 cases. The appellants knocked on the Commission's doors because one or another Ministry or Department had refused to part with file notings. This raises the obvious question. Why was the Commission enjoined to decide again and again on file notings when it had already settled the issue in January 2006?
Consider the big guns that turned away applicants seeking file notings under the RTI Act: Ministry of Railways, Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Company Affairs, Department of Consumer Affairs, Central Board of Excise and Customs, not to mention the Department of Personnel and Training — on paper the nodal agency for facilitating information under the RTI Act but in practice the most reluctant to parcel out information. The DoPT's response to the CIC's Satyapal ruling was to put up a website posting unilaterally declaring file notings out of bounds for RTI applicants, refusing to take it off to this day. It is this posting that the Ministries and Departments cited when they refused disclosure of file notings to RTI applicants.
The Commission's word on file notings ought to have been treated as final by the Government and its Departments. After all, the Commission's status as the final appellate body under the RTI Act would be sustainable only if it had the freedom to enforce the Act as it understood it. It can hardly have been the Act's intention that its provisions must be interpreted by the government of the day. If that were the case, then it could be left to the government to decide when, how much and to whom information could be given without the need for an appellate body — indeed without the need for a Right to Information Act.
Curiously, it is this situation that prevails today. On paper, the Government has withdrawn the proposed amendments to the RTI Act, including the amendment to disallow file notings. That it was considering an amendment to prohibit file notings is in itself admission that the Act permits them. It also means that the CIC's interpretation of the Act on file notings was correct. Yet the DoPT, whose Minister paradoxically announced that the amendments had been shelved, remains unyielding on the issue. Thus, the CIC might cry itself hoarse on the validity of file notings, the Government might say it has backed off on the amendment on file notings, but the Government's Ministries and Departments will behave as if the amendment was in place.
The CIC gave vent to its exasperation in its June 23, 2006, decision allowing file notings in a case filed by Mahendra Gaur against the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). Mr. Gaur, who alleged malpractice in the sale of 2T oil in Rajasthan, took recourse to the RTI Act after he failed to get a hearing. The DCA's Chief Public Information Officer, C.S. Khurana, refused him access to file notings; so in his appeal to Rinchen Tempo, the designated Appellate Authority, Mr. Gaur appended the CIC's Satyapal decision on file notings. Ms. Tempo dismissed the appeal, citing the DoPT's website posting on file notings. Said the Commission: "The question whether file notings are exempt or not has been put to rest by this Commission in Satyapal versus TCIL ... and this decision is in the website of this Commission. In terms of Section 19 (7) of the said (RTI) Act, while the decision of this Commission is final and binding on the parties in that case, in the matter of interpretation of the provisions of the Act, the said interpretation is binding on all the public authorities. Curiously in her decision, she [the Appellate Authority] has ignored to refer to the decision of the Commission even though the appellant has referred to the same in his appeal."
Three days later, it was the Railway Ministry's turn to get an earful from the CIC. Noting that the PIO concerned had denied access to file notings to the applicant only because of the DoPT's website instructions, the Commission said: "... clarifications by the Department of Personnel and Training ... cannot override the statutory provisions of the RTI Act of 2005." Finally, in sheer helplessness and faced with mounting and completely unnecessary appeals against non-disclosure of file notings by various Ministries and Departments, the CIC ordered the DoPT to remove its website posting, which was creating "unnecessary and avoidable confusion in the minds of Public Authorities" who were denying access to file notings even though the RTI Act "does not exempt file notings from disclosure."
Clearly, information is power for the Government — RTI Act or no RTI Act. There can be two sides to the grand battle being fought on the sanctity or otherwise of file notings. It is possible that the Government genuinely fears that access to file notings will, to quote the Prime Minister's Office, "inhibit the expression of frank views by officers ... place him [an officer] under threat or danger." It is a disputable position but not a dishonest position. What is unacceptable is that the Government should repeatedly override the CIC and the RTI Act — in this and other matters. Forget file notings, Government Ministries and Departments have so far shown no inclination to file the mandatory annual reports on the implementation of the Act. The DoPT leads the pack of rebels: It has misinterpreted the Act, encouraged other Ministries to follow this misinterpretation, slighted the CIC over and over, refused to hand over papers to it even though the Act requires it do so and done everything to preserve the regime of secrecy that arms the Government but disarms the people.
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2006083007361100.htm&date=2006/08/30/&prd=th&
THE PROPOSED amendments to the Right to Information Act, 2005, including an amendment to keep file notings secret, have been called off — at least for now. So what are the chances that they will return in one form or another? Indeed, how strong is the official resistance to the RTI Act as it exists?
The RTI story on the ground is the story of small successes. It is about men and women who got their entitlements by filing or just threatening to file an application under the Act. It is about Bihar's Mazloom Nadaf, a rickshaw-puller, who got the usual run-around on his plea for a home under the Indira Awas Yojana, but who was treated like a king once he had filed an application under the RTI Act: Could he please come to the Block Development Office and collect his cheque? While at it, could he also be so kind as to drop his complaint? It is about Nannu, the East Delhi mazdoor, who having done the rounds for a duplicate ration card, filed a complaint under the RTI Act seeking the names of officers who drove him round the bend. Nannu might have waved a magic wand judging by the swift invite from the Food and Civil Supplies office, where officers fussed over him, gave him tea — and his ration card. As a beaming Nannu departed, his new friends called after him: Would he please drop his complaint?
The moral of all this: Don't ask us questions. Don't ask which officer did what. Just take your ration card, telephone connection, passport, and so forth. Indeed, the larger battle for file notings must be viewed against these smaller victories. Babudom would rather redress your complaint in double quick time than have you track the inside story. And file notings take you precisely where you are not meant to go — into the forbidding and shadowy world of governmental decision-making.
A visit to the website of the Central Information Commission — the final authority under the RTI Act on disclosure of official information — is revealing. The Commission first allowed access to file notings on January 31, 2006, in the Satyapal case. Its reasoning was impeccable. Firstly, that file notings were essential to understand why the Government came to a particular decision: "...[Governmental] decisions are mostly based on the recording in notesheets and even decisions are recorded on the notesheets. No file would be complete without notesheets having `file notings'..." And secondly, that the Act as it stood permitted access to file notings: "... a combined reading of Sections 2(f), (i) and (j) would indicate that a citizen has the right of access to a file of which file notings are an integral part..."
In the seven months since the Satyapal case, the CIC has ruled in favour of file notings in more than 40 cases. The appellants knocked on the Commission's doors because one or another Ministry or Department had refused to part with file notings. This raises the obvious question. Why was the Commission enjoined to decide again and again on file notings when it had already settled the issue in January 2006?
Consider the big guns that turned away applicants seeking file notings under the RTI Act: Ministry of Railways, Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Company Affairs, Department of Consumer Affairs, Central Board of Excise and Customs, not to mention the Department of Personnel and Training — on paper the nodal agency for facilitating information under the RTI Act but in practice the most reluctant to parcel out information. The DoPT's response to the CIC's Satyapal ruling was to put up a website posting unilaterally declaring file notings out of bounds for RTI applicants, refusing to take it off to this day. It is this posting that the Ministries and Departments cited when they refused disclosure of file notings to RTI applicants.
The Commission's word on file notings ought to have been treated as final by the Government and its Departments. After all, the Commission's status as the final appellate body under the RTI Act would be sustainable only if it had the freedom to enforce the Act as it understood it. It can hardly have been the Act's intention that its provisions must be interpreted by the government of the day. If that were the case, then it could be left to the government to decide when, how much and to whom information could be given without the need for an appellate body — indeed without the need for a Right to Information Act.
Curiously, it is this situation that prevails today. On paper, the Government has withdrawn the proposed amendments to the RTI Act, including the amendment to disallow file notings. That it was considering an amendment to prohibit file notings is in itself admission that the Act permits them. It also means that the CIC's interpretation of the Act on file notings was correct. Yet the DoPT, whose Minister paradoxically announced that the amendments had been shelved, remains unyielding on the issue. Thus, the CIC might cry itself hoarse on the validity of file notings, the Government might say it has backed off on the amendment on file notings, but the Government's Ministries and Departments will behave as if the amendment was in place.
The CIC gave vent to its exasperation in its June 23, 2006, decision allowing file notings in a case filed by Mahendra Gaur against the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). Mr. Gaur, who alleged malpractice in the sale of 2T oil in Rajasthan, took recourse to the RTI Act after he failed to get a hearing. The DCA's Chief Public Information Officer, C.S. Khurana, refused him access to file notings; so in his appeal to Rinchen Tempo, the designated Appellate Authority, Mr. Gaur appended the CIC's Satyapal decision on file notings. Ms. Tempo dismissed the appeal, citing the DoPT's website posting on file notings. Said the Commission: "The question whether file notings are exempt or not has been put to rest by this Commission in Satyapal versus TCIL ... and this decision is in the website of this Commission. In terms of Section 19 (7) of the said (RTI) Act, while the decision of this Commission is final and binding on the parties in that case, in the matter of interpretation of the provisions of the Act, the said interpretation is binding on all the public authorities. Curiously in her decision, she [the Appellate Authority] has ignored to refer to the decision of the Commission even though the appellant has referred to the same in his appeal."
Three days later, it was the Railway Ministry's turn to get an earful from the CIC. Noting that the PIO concerned had denied access to file notings to the applicant only because of the DoPT's website instructions, the Commission said: "... clarifications by the Department of Personnel and Training ... cannot override the statutory provisions of the RTI Act of 2005." Finally, in sheer helplessness and faced with mounting and completely unnecessary appeals against non-disclosure of file notings by various Ministries and Departments, the CIC ordered the DoPT to remove its website posting, which was creating "unnecessary and avoidable confusion in the minds of Public Authorities" who were denying access to file notings even though the RTI Act "does not exempt file notings from disclosure."
Clearly, information is power for the Government — RTI Act or no RTI Act. There can be two sides to the grand battle being fought on the sanctity or otherwise of file notings. It is possible that the Government genuinely fears that access to file notings will, to quote the Prime Minister's Office, "inhibit the expression of frank views by officers ... place him [an officer] under threat or danger." It is a disputable position but not a dishonest position. What is unacceptable is that the Government should repeatedly override the CIC and the RTI Act — in this and other matters. Forget file notings, Government Ministries and Departments have so far shown no inclination to file the mandatory annual reports on the implementation of the Act. The DoPT leads the pack of rebels: It has misinterpreted the Act, encouraged other Ministries to follow this misinterpretation, slighted the CIC over and over, refused to hand over papers to it even though the Act requires it do so and done everything to preserve the regime of secrecy that arms the Government but disarms the people.
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2006083007361100.htm&date=2006/08/30/&prd=th&
Central Information Commission criticised
Staff Correspondent
"There have been delays in hearing applications"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First hearing of a case held only three to four months after application was filed
Under RTI Act cases must be decided within 30 days of receipt of appeal
CIC says its staff strength has been improved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW DELHI: Six months after the Central Information Commission was constituted, its record in dealing with complaints and appeals under the Right to Information (RTI) Act came in for severe criticism.
Addressing a meeting on the RTI Act, organised here by the All-India Management Association in collaboration with the IC-Centre for Governance here on Saturday, Arvind Kejriwal from Parivartan, an organisation that has been spearheading the RTI campaign in Delhi, said the Commission's performance had become a matter of serious concern. Pointing to delays in hearing applications, he said the first hearing of a case filed before the Commission was held only three to four months after the first application was filed. "This renders irrelevant the requirement in the RTI Act for cases to be decided within 30 days of the receipt of the appeal," said Mr. Kejriwal.
No penalties
Mr. Kejriwal said the Commission was yet to impose a single penalty on Public Information Officers (PIOs) who had refused to provide or given misleading information. Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, if the CIC was of the opinion that a PIO had, without reasonable cause, refused to entertain an application for information, or had given misleading information, it had to impose a penalty of Rs. 250 a day till the information was supplied.
Chief Central Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said that he welcomed public criticism of the functioning of the Commission but an evaluation of the CIC had to be done over an extended period. He said the Commission had received over 600 appeals and it had taken decisions in 99.
On the implementation of the RTI Act's penalty clause, he said a show cause notice had to go out and an investigation conducted to determine if the PIO was in the wrong "without reasonable doubt."
"There are two to three cases where such investigations are being conducted," he said.
Mr. Habibullah said the CIC's staff had been strengthened, and included an officer of the secretary level and a judicial officer.
Speaking at the seminar, Convenor of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) Shekhar Singh said the Government must ensure awareness about the contents and scope of the RTI Act. He said Section 2(f) of the Act effectively expanded the scope of the Act beyond public and Government bodies to include private bodies as well.
Section 2(f) defines information as relating to "any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force."
Date:16/04/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/04/16/stories/2006041604501000.htm
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
"There have been delays in hearing applications"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First hearing of a case held only three to four months after application was filed
Under RTI Act cases must be decided within 30 days of receipt of appeal
CIC says its staff strength has been improved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW DELHI: Six months after the Central Information Commission was constituted, its record in dealing with complaints and appeals under the Right to Information (RTI) Act came in for severe criticism.
Addressing a meeting on the RTI Act, organised here by the All-India Management Association in collaboration with the IC-Centre for Governance here on Saturday, Arvind Kejriwal from Parivartan, an organisation that has been spearheading the RTI campaign in Delhi, said the Commission's performance had become a matter of serious concern. Pointing to delays in hearing applications, he said the first hearing of a case filed before the Commission was held only three to four months after the first application was filed. "This renders irrelevant the requirement in the RTI Act for cases to be decided within 30 days of the receipt of the appeal," said Mr. Kejriwal.
No penalties
Mr. Kejriwal said the Commission was yet to impose a single penalty on Public Information Officers (PIOs) who had refused to provide or given misleading information. Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, if the CIC was of the opinion that a PIO had, without reasonable cause, refused to entertain an application for information, or had given misleading information, it had to impose a penalty of Rs. 250 a day till the information was supplied.
Chief Central Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said that he welcomed public criticism of the functioning of the Commission but an evaluation of the CIC had to be done over an extended period. He said the Commission had received over 600 appeals and it had taken decisions in 99.
On the implementation of the RTI Act's penalty clause, he said a show cause notice had to go out and an investigation conducted to determine if the PIO was in the wrong "without reasonable doubt."
"There are two to three cases where such investigations are being conducted," he said.
Mr. Habibullah said the CIC's staff had been strengthened, and included an officer of the secretary level and a judicial officer.
Speaking at the seminar, Convenor of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) Shekhar Singh said the Government must ensure awareness about the contents and scope of the RTI Act. He said Section 2(f) of the Act effectively expanded the scope of the Act beyond public and Government bodies to include private bodies as well.
Section 2(f) defines information as relating to "any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force."
Date:16/04/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/04/16/stories/2006041604501000.htm
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)