Saturday, August 13, 2011

[HumJanenge] Fwd: The Supreme Court decision on answer papers

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RTI Prekshak <rtiprekshak@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:30:40 +0530
Subject: The Supreme Court decision on answer papers
To: "C J Karira" <cjkarira@gmail.com>

There is considerable elation over the Supreme Court's decision on the
answer papers. Is there anything to celebrate?

The Supreme Court judgement is attached for convenience

*The following obiters may create a lot of damage and encourage
arbitrariness in denial of information*

*B. * Page 47

33. Some High Courts have held that section 8 of RTI Act is in the nature of
an exception to section 3 which empowers the citizens with the right to
information, which is a derivative from the freedom of speech; and that
therefore section 8 should be construed strictly, literally and narrowly.
This may not be the correct approach. The Act seeks to bring about a balance
between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for
preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability
by providing access to information under the control of public authorities.

The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual
practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include
efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal
resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The
preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to
harmonise these two conflicting interests. While sections 3 and 4 seek to
achieve the first objective, sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to achieve the
second objective.

Therefore when section 8 exempts certain information from being disclosed,
it should not be considered to be a fetter on the right to information, but
as an equally important provision protecting other public interests
essential for the fulfilment and preservation of democratic ideals.

34. When trying to ensure that the right to information does not conflict

with several other public interests (which includes efficient operations of
the

governments, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information,

optimum use of limited fiscal resources, etc.), it is difficult to visualise
and enumerate all types of information which require to be exempted from
disclosure in public interest. The legislature has however made an attempt
to do so. The enumeration of exemptions is more exhaustive than the
enumeration of exemptions attempted in the earlier Act that is section 8 of
Freedom to Information Act, 2002. The Courts and Information Commissions
enforcing the provisions of RTI Act have to adopt a purposive construction,
involving a reasonable and balanced approach which harmonises the two
objects of the Act, while interpreting section 8 and the other provisions of
the Act.

*C.* Page 52

37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to
information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible
citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and
accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and
all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under
clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency
and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging
corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other
than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal
importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like
confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary
relationships, efficient operation

of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions
under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to
transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and
eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely
affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive
getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and
furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or
abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and
integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its
citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or
intimidation of honest officials

striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of
the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and
furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular
duties.

*Conclusion*

38. In view of the foregoing, *the order of the High Court directing the
examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer
books is affirmed, *subject to the clarifications regarding the scope of the
RTI Act and the safeguards and conditions subject to which 'information'
should be furnished. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

The Supreme Court has only directed *inspection *of the answer books, not
giving copies. If even ten thousand students apply for inspection of answer
books, can anyone visualize how this could be done in a limited time frame?
It is possible to have a system which can deliver even a million
photocopies,-if required,- within 30 days. But to arrange for an inspection
of answer papers by even ten or twenty thousand students is seeming
impossible. This  judgement may be impossible to implement, and the obiters
may have a deadly sting for RTI.


--
RTIprekshak

[rti4empowerment] From WEDS: Should tryst with democracy end?

[rti4empowerment] How to use RTI more effectively with CIC Shailesh Gandhi

FYI
Bhaskar Prabhu
Mahiti AdhikarM<Manch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ajay - Moneylife Foundation <mail@mlfoundation.in>
Date: Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:28 PM
Subject: How to use RTI more effectively with CIC Shailesh Gandhi
To: mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com


 
Seminar details: A unique interaction with Shailesh Gandhi, India's most prolific Central Information Commissioner, on How to use the powerful Right to Information (RTI) Act to the best advantage of society without needless friction between those who seek information and those who are responsible for providing it.
 
Date: Saturday, 3 September 2011
 
9.30 to 10am
Registration & Tea
 
Session Time: 10:00am to 1:00pm
 
10.00am to 10.15am
Introduction of guests by Moneylife Foundation
 
10.15am to 10. 30am
Welcome remarks by Mr S S Mundra, Executive Director, Union Bank of India
 
10. 30am to 10. 45am
Opening Remarks by Mr V S Das, Executive Director, Reserve Bank of India
 
10.45am to 11.45am
Address by Mr Shailesh Gandhi, Central Information Commissioner
 
11.45am to 12.45pm
Discussion and interaction
 
12.45pm to 12.55pm
Vote of thanks by Mr Ashok Ravat, Secretary, Bank Depositors Association
 
Close at 1 pm with boxed refreshments
 
Venue
P L Deshpande Kala Academy, 
Near Siddhivinayak Temple, Sayani Road, Prabhadevi, 
Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400025.
 
Admission: FREE
NO ENTRY WITHOUT PRIOR REGISTRATION
 
Contact details:
Call Judith / Seraphina on 022-24441058-60,
or email us at mail@mlfoundation.in, or log on to www.mlfoundation.in
     

Mr Shailesh Gandhi Central Information Commissioner for Right to Information.

  Speaker's profile: Mr Shailesh Gandhi is a graduate in Civil Engineering from IIT Bombay. He was a first generation entrepreneur in plastic packaging and was CMD of Clear Plastics Ltd. At the end of the 90's Shailesh began to devote a considerable amount of time to civil society issues. He was active in the IIT Aluumni Association and campaigned passionately to bring to book those responsible for killing whistleblower and IIT-ian Satyendra Dubey.
   
  After the RTI Act became law, he decided to focus on using RTI for public good. He evangalised the use of RTI and tirelessly conducted RTI workshops. He was conferred the Nani Palkhivala Memorial Award for civil liberties in 2008. In 2008, he became the Central Information Commissioner for Right to Information.
   
  From 16th August Mr Gandhi's portfolio includes: Reserve Bank of India, NABARD, National Housing Bank, Allahabad Bank, Andhra Bank, Bank of India, Bank of Maharastra, Corporation Bank, Dena Bank, IDBI Bank, Indian Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Punjab & Sind Bank, Syndicate Bank, United Commercial Bank, United Bank of India, Vijaya Bank, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Health & Family Department PGIMER, Indian Nursing Council (INC), National Board of Examination (NBE), All India Institute of Medical Science(AIMS), Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Medical Council of India(MCI), Directorate General of Health and Service (DGHS), Directorate of Health & Family Welfare (DHFW), Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and Department of Atomic Energy.
 
 


 If you want to forward this link to a friend then use this link this link

 If you do not want to receive any more mails use this link


Re: [HumJanenge] Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG

Dear Nangia ji,

Thanks for your exemplry views.  If u can give your views on the order relating to the complait of perjury u.s. 340 of cr p c, I shall be grateful to you or any other members competent to guide about the further course of action on that.


On Sat, 13/8/11, suresh nangia <sknangia2004@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: suresh nangia <sknangia2004@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: shaileshgan@gmail.com
Date: Saturday, 13 August, 2011, 7:17 PM

Dear Shri Gupta
 
     In your mail to Shri Manoj Pai, you have raised 2 issues: (i) Ms Dixit taking a lenient view and exonerating PIO (who had since retired) for his default in responding to RTI application / providing information while in service, and (ii) that no action can be taken against an official / PIO after his retirement.
 
    On first point, two persons performing role function of a judge adjudicating a case matter can always hold different views and can deliver judgements / order based on their respective perceptions. It is a common happening in Judiciary at various levels, including High Courts / Supreme Court. Whiel both Ms Dixit and SG are CICs with equal authority, their commitments to the cause vary. SG by virtue of his long involvement in the cause of strenghtening RTI as a movement and his background as an Activist himself before his being appointed as CCI, has been giving very bold and pathbreaking Orders. In another recent Order, SG has imposed a penalty on a senir CBI Officer who tried to show defiance in the matter of giving appearance before the Commission. I am sure no other CIC would have dared to do it. So, we have to take the Orders of Ms Dixit in its own stride. My experience with Ms Dixit is also none too encouraging, She has been taking soft view in cases where PIO does not respond to RTI application in the first place and later responds after Appeal is filed (which establishes the fact of delay beyond any realms of doubt) and again provides incomplete & misleading information.
 
     On the 2nd point, it may not be correct to state and / or take a view that no action can be taken against an Official after his retirement for his lapse / default while he was in service. If a cause of action has been initiated for a punitive action against such Official for lapse / default before his retirement, he continues to be accountable for the recalcitrance in his performance while in service. Government Rules for proceeding against such officials do provide for such recourse /action against them. In fact, retirement of such official is made conditional subject to his accountability till the matter is finally decided. There are whole lot of cases where officials have faced action for their lapses / defaults while in service. In fact, in some cases even the release of terminal benefits (on retirement) are withheld till the cases are decided.
 
     I trust, that makes the things clear
 
    S K NANGIA            

--- On Fri, 12/8/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: "subramanian" <gs.manian@nic.in>, mkgper1952@gmail.com
Date: Friday, 12 August, 2011, 9:42 AM

--- On Fri, 12/8/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Thanks Mr Pai for mailing this landmark decision.  RTI users are grateful to Shri  Shailesh Gandhi, IC for his landmark decision and hope that other ICs will not be found wanting.

In my case, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner has exornated the CPIO on the plea that he has retired though his lapses were proved to the extent of even submitting three false affidavits before the Commission stating that the file has lost.  On the order of the Commission, PIO even wrote to the Delhi Police twice that the file has been lost and DP has to register an NCR (Non-cognisable Report) on the second complaint. 

CIC has even refused to take action against the faultering CPIO for perjury u.s. 340 of Cr. P.C. for misleading the CIC. IC, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit observed on my prayer to take action under sec. 340, "The Appellant filed another application dated 03.05.2011 invoking provisions of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. read with Sections 191 and 193 of the IPC.  This application is rejected outrightly since the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence."  Thus in such circumstances, no applicant will be able to challange the CPIO's if they file wrong affidavits and lodge false FIRs or NCR claiming loss of file.  The complaint complaint u.s. 340 before the Metropolitan Magistrate can only be filed by the Court/ Authority before which such false affidavit (s) have been submtted.  If the plea of the Hon'ble IC is accepted, more and more ICs will falsly represent before the CIC or SIC's that the file has got lost.

On penalising the retired CPIO, the observation is, "In so far as the erstwhile CPIO is concerned, he is no longer in service and hence no penal action can now be taken against him .In view of the fact that no further action can be taken nor remedy provided under operation of the RTI Act 2005, the matter is treated as clsoed."

Enlightened members of this Forum are invited to give their views on the issue and suggest further action as per RTI Act and other laws of the land.

On Thu, 11/8/11, Manoj Pai <mpai@bsnl.in> wrote:

From: Manoj Pai <mpai@bsnl.in>
Subject: Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG
To: manojpai@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, 11 August, 2011, 10:15 PM

It  might interest you, that in recent decision IC SG has imposed full
penalty  of Rs.25,000/- on one Mr. M. M. Das Retired CPIO of Employees
Provident Fund Organisation, Kolkata.

Maybe  this decision could be of help to you in matters where the CPIO
denied  you  information  and was confident that he / she would not be
imposed any penalty after retirement.

Manoj

Re: [HumJanenge] Why the series of circulars issued by Chief Secretary, Orissa on Section 4 of RTI Act have been doomed to a fiasco

dearfriend
we have already filed the PIL case in Orissa High Court. The case is going on.

Regards
Pradip Pradhan
On 8/10/11, sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Pradip Ji,
> instead of writing about the failure of the state government, the
> proper course is the filing of petition in the high court for
> implementation of section 4.
> regards
> sandeep
>
> On 8/10/11, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
>> *Why the series of circulars issued by Chief Secretary, Orissa on Section
>> 4
>> of RTI Act have been doomed to a fiasco *
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> In his latest circular letter [No. RTI-52/11 8302 / CS(1&PR) dated
>> 11.7.2011], the Chief Secretary of Orissa has issued another instruction
>> to
>> all the Public Authorities of the State to comply with mandatory
>> provisions
>> under Section 4 (1) (a),( b), (c),( d), and Sections 4(2), (3) and (4) of
>> RTI Act forthwith. It is worthwhile to recall that way back on 9.1.2009
>> Mr.
>> A.K.Tripathy then Chief Secretary Orissa had also issued a similar
>> circular
>> emphasizing strict compliance with Section 4 of the Act. Again, in a state
>> level review meeting convened by Chief Secretary, Orissa on 15.5.2011, all
>> the Public authorities were instructed to ensure proactive disclosures
>> under
>> Section 4 of RTI Act. In the meeting it was also decided that stern action
>> would be taken against the erring Public Authorities who would fail to
>> comply with the instruction. Further, it is interesting to note that when
>> the RTI Act 2005 was newly notified but not yet fully enforced, the Chief
>> Secretary Orissa had held a meeting of Secretaries of important
>> Departments
>> of the Government on 22.08.2005 to chalk out a plan of action for
>> implementation of various provisions of Act , where also the following
>> decision was adopted in respect of implementation of Section 4 of the
>> Act-"*3. Proactive
>> disclosure: *According to the provision of Section 4 of the R.T.I. Act,
>> every Public Authority is required to disclose information voluntarily in
>> 17
>> points by 12.10.2005. Steps should be taken to go for voluntary disclosure
>> of information to the maximum extent so that the strength of application
>> seeking information will be substantially reduced". (vide Para-3 of the
>> Proceedings at http://203.193.146.66/ipr/Corecom.asp?lnk=11). After a few
>> months the Chief Secretary issued also an Operational Guidelines dated
>> 28.10.2005 for implementation of RTI Act in the State, wherein the Para-16
>> read, "Top priority should be given for suo-motu dissemination of maximum
>> information in order to reduce the number of information seekers" (
>> http://203.193.146.66/ipr/RTI/guidelines.pdf). But going by the admission
>> made in the Chief Secretary's latest circular, the above deadline is long
>> past by more than five and half years, reducing the whole business of
>> issuing circular after circular to a big joke only.
>>
>> After long 6 years of enactment of RTI Act 2005, it hardly needs to be
>> mentioned that Section 4 is virtually the heart and soul of the Act,
>> though
>> neglected by every public authority including the office of Chief
>> Secretary
>> itself. As is well known, the Section requires each Public Authority to
>> make
>> proactive disclosure of information about 17 subjects within 120 days of
>> enactment of the Act i.e., 12th October 2005. The said bunch of
>> information
>> was required to be disclosed in local language and widely disseminated
>> through notice board, newspapers and electronic media including internet
>> etc. and to be made available to the citizens instantly free of cost or on
>> payment of xerox cost only. Both head and PIO of every public authority
>> were
>> accountable to provide instant access to the related information to the
>> desirous citizens who unlike in case of Section-6 were not required to
>> submit any application for the purpose.
>>
>> Now the question arises, why such a big failure on the part of the State
>> Government in ensuring the compliance to Section 4 by public authorities
>> from top to bottom? And, how many circulars require to be issued by the
>> Chief Secretary Orissa in years to come for ensuring the necessary
>> compliance?
>>
>> If we delve deep into the reasons for the above kind of failure, it would
>> be
>> noticed that non-observance, nay, gross neglect by all the public
>> authorities in respect of the Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006 (
>> http://203.193.146.66/ipr/RTI/amendment%20to%20ORTI%20Rules,2005.pdf) is
>> the
>> major one. Such Rules which is in place only in the State of Orissa
>> provides
>> inter alia for maintenance of a Register in the office of every public
>> authority for recording the particulars of every person who would visit it
>> for seeking information/ inspection of proactively disclosed information
>> under Section-4 of the Act. Such a register, if maintained properly,
>> shall
>> not only store a proof of the concerned visitor but also serve as an
>> incentive to him to visit the office of the public authority more and
>> more.
>> Mainly because, through this route he/she can instantly access a lot of
>> information about his village, community and such public matters without
>> having to submit a written application along with application fees, wait
>> for
>> 30 days to receive the requested information and also pay Rs.2/- per page
>> towards the cost of information. But, strangely enough, none of the
>> circulars of Chief Secretary has ever instructed the public authorities to
>> comply with the above mentioned State Rule for maintenance of a separate
>> register in their office for the purpose of Section-4.
>>
>> The next major reason for non-compliance to Section 4 in Orissa is a
>> series
>> of queer orders issued by the former Chief Orissa Information Commissioner
>> Mr.D.N.Padhi on 20.06.2006 wherein he gave a clear signal to the public
>> authorities of the State that nothing would happen against them on account
>> of their non-compliance to the provisions of Section-4. In those orders he
>> even went further to state, "As the complaint petition does not come
>> within
>> purview of Section 18 of Right to Information Act, 2005, the same is
>> rejected" (For instance, vide Complaint Case No.3/2006). While such an
>> order
>> was patently ultra vires the parent Act, it served as the greatest
>> nuisance
>> against RTI Act in Orissa by way of emboldening the public authorities and
>> PIOs to go on a violation spree against Section 4 with impunity. Till date
>> Orissa Information Commission has been working in a Section-4 phobia mode,
>> no matter Mr.D.N.Padhi has been meanwhile replaced by Mr.T.K.Mishra in the
>> capacity of Chief Orissa Information Commissioner. What can be a better
>> proof of Commission's cultivated lenience towards Section-4 baiters than
>> the
>> glaring fact that not a single violator of Section 4 has been punished or
>> censured by the Commission during all these 5 years?
>>
>> Given an all-failure of both Government and Information Commission in
>> respect of Section 4, the RTI users of Orissa heaved a sigh of relief when
>> Orissa High Court on admitting a PIL filed by Mr. Sanjeeb Satpathy an RTI
>> activist associated with Antodaya, Kalahandi issued notice to both State
>> Govt. and Orissa Information Commission to file their respective response
>> as
>> to why have failed to ensure compliance to Section-4 thus far. It seems
>> the
>> Chief Secretary has been awakened by this notice of High Court to show
>> some
>> activity or the other on the front of Section-4, even if for purely
>> cosmetic
>> purposes.
>>
>> Be that as it may, if the two major pillars of RTI regime of the State
>> i.e.
>> Government and Information Commission really mean business for compliance
>> to
>> Section-4, they should adopt the following 3 measures-
>>
>> - Instruction by the Chief Secretary to each and every public
>> authority of the State to maintain a Register for recording the
>> particulars
>> of the visitors seeking information under Section-4 as required under
>> Orissa
>> RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006;
>>
>> - Orissa Information Commission to review its decisions whereby
>> it
>> exempted the complaints against violation of Section-4 from the purview of
>> adjudication by the Commission; and OSIC to award severe penalty against
>> the
>> violators of Section 4, which would serve as exemplary to the rest of
>> violators among PIOs and public authorities; and
>>
>> - The Office of Chief Secretary and the Office of Secretary to
>> I&PR
>> Dept, the nodal RTI agency of the State should show the model in
>> compliance
>> to Section-4 by way of maintaining the concerned Register for visitors
>> under
>> Section-4 and making necessary logistic arrangement for allowing the
>> members
>> of public wishing inspection of and access to documents falling under
>> proactive disclosures of RTI Act.
>>
>> *Pradip Pradhan*
>>
>> *M-99378-43482 *
>>
>> *Date- 10.9.2011 *
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>

Re: [rti4empowerment] NCPRI puts five draft notes on Lokpal

Prabhum Maam,
 
Good dispensation.
WEDS


From: Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 13 August 2011, 11:53
Subject: [rti4empowerment] NCPRI puts five draft notes on Lokpal




Forwarded by Bhaskar Prabhu
Mahiti Adhikar Manch
Civil Society News
New Delhi
The Anna Hazare group has hogged the headlines with its draft Jan Lokpal Bill, but a low-key process by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) has yielded proposals in the form of five draft concept notes which could,with further discussion, become the basis for a draft law.
The NCPRI draws on experience and its proposals emerge from discussions in which contrary views are frequently expressed. It includes groups like the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, (MKSS), which work at the grassroots and have valuable insights into the functioning of institutions at ground level.
If the NCPRI has come to be seen as being slower than the Hazare group, it is because it approaches the creation of a draft law as a complex process.
The NCPRI's discussions on the Lokpal have included Justice A.P. Shah, Sailesh Gandhi, Usha Ramanathan, Annie Raja, Harsh Mander, Pratyush Sinha, Amitabh Mukhopadhyay, Aruna Roy, Shekhar Singh and Nikhil Dey among others. There have been conversations with Justice J.S. Verma, though he hasn't been formally involved.
While the Hazare group has proposed an all-powerful Lokpal/Lokayukta structure, the NCPRI has suggested a basket of measures which will tackle corruption in all its forms at various levels.
This is important since corruption has many manifestations. At the top it is secretive, complex and requires sophisticated investigation. At the grassroots, corruption is an open secret.
In NCPRI discussions, caution has been expressed against creating institutions outside the democratic process. The Indian Constitution delicately balances power between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The general view in the NCPRI has been that the basic framework of the Constitution should not be challenged.
There has been concern over concentrating too much power in a single institution. It may be too much to expect a Lokpal to tackle complaints against the Prime Minister, senior judges and MPs at the top as well as officials like junior engineers and block development officers at the bottom. The Union government alone employs some four million people.
"The Lokpal should not collapse under its own weight," Aruna Roy of the MKSS said at a two-day consultation held at the Teen Murti Library in Delhi in July.
It has also been felt that it is better to strengthen dysfunctional institutions by addressing their weaknesses and create new ones only wherever necessary. There is no point in replicating bad examples.
"We need to strengthen existing democratic institutions and not bypass them. We have laws. We need to implement old laws even as we draw up new ones," said Shekhar Singh.
So, instead of one mighty Lokpal, the NCPRI has proposed institutions at different levels. These are:
  • A Central Lokpal Anti-Corruption Commission to deal with corruption in high places. It would cover the Prime Minister, MPs, Class A officers. At state level, a Lokayukta Commission would cover the Chief Ministers, MLAs etc.
  • A strengthened Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to deal with the bureaucracy below Class A officers.
  • A Grievance Redressal Commission (GRC) to register and resolve everyday complaints which ordinary citizens have against their local administrations.
  • A Judicial Accountability and Standards law to tackle complaints against judges and improve the functioning of the judiciary.
  • A law for the protection of whistleblowers who are key to the uncovering of corruption.
The debate over the Lokpal has thrown up differences among activist groups on certain key points. The NCPRI's view on these points is as follows:
PRIME MINISTER: The NCPRI recommends that the Prime Minister should come under the Lokpal but with checks and balances. The PM cannot be questioned on decisions he has taken on security and defence. Investigations against the PM can only begin only if a full bench of the Lokpal recommends it and a full bench of the Supreme Court examines the evidence and agrees. To prevent the PM from becoming a 'lame duck', the draft bill says the PM will not be held responsible for decisions taken by other ministers in his government, and before starting such an investigation, a notice will need to be served to the ruling party.
INVESTIGATIVE POWERS: NCPRI members agreed the Lokpal should have the power to investigate and prosecute. But they suggested splitting the two functions for achieving greater balance and good sense. It was also proposed that the Prevention of Corruption Act be modified to cover companies as co accused.
The NCPRI also proposes a search committee to find people with good reputations to be on the Lokpal bench. The Lokpal should have financial and functional autonomy. A two- year deadline for all trials was not seen as a practical idea. Penalties for frivolous complaints has been opposed. Only those with malafide intention should be penalised.
Central Vigilance Commission: With Group A officers coming under the Lokpal, the CVC could investigate complaints and grievances against Group B and other officials. A list can be worked out. The CVC currently receives nearly 15,000 complaints a year and investigates hardly any. But people are familiar with it. NCPRI recommends removing the 'single directive' by which the CVC has to seek the permission of the Union government before investigating an officer of the level of joint secretary and above.
The NCPRI is discussing two models for the CVC:
First, the CVC could be hived off as a separate investigative department with its own cadre. So Vigilance Officers (VOs) would report to the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) in the CVC. Currently VOs are appointed by their respective departments and are 'nameless and faceless.' The VO would be able to initiate investigation in the department if required and be answerable to the CVO.
The second model is to make the secretary of the department responsible for delays or inefficiencies in investigation. So the VO would report to the secretary. If the complainant is unhappy with the VO and the secretary, he can approach the CVC. NCPRI members felt the advantage with this model is that the autonomy of the department would remain and the secretary would be made accountable.
Prasanta Sen, a lawyer, said VOs should get security of tenure in the department so that they can pick up nuances and get specialisation in that area. Another suggestion was to draw up Standard Operating Procedures. Smooth processes were found to be very useful in investigation and for speeding things up.
Complaints against the CVC should go to the Lokpal and be investigated before being referred to the Supreme Court. The responsibility of finding candidates for the CVC would be entrusted to the Lokpal through a search committee.
GRIEVANCES: The Lokshikayat Grievance Redress Commission proposed by the NCPRI would tackle day-to-day grievances and make every government department accountable and efficient. It was pointed out a healthy trend was already underway. Some states have made 'time-bound services' mandatory.
Every department would have to clearly inform people about the services or goods it is providing, how these can be accessed, who is eligible and who will be responsible for delivering those services. The quality of the department can be assessed by its output. Every public authority will have a Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO) for receiving and disposing of complaints within a specified time line.
At block level, a facilitation centre is proposed which will tell villages about the government's schemes and entitlements. It will file complaints and send them to the GRO. The centres would come under the Lokshikayat Grievance Redressal Commission. Computerisation would be necessary for tracking complaints and entitlements. The commission can, from time to time, order social audits and assess how departments at the grassroots are functioning with people's participation.
Grievances would not just include ration cards and entitlements. If laws at the grassroots such as the Forest Rights Act were not being properly implemented, then that too would constitute a grievance, explained a member.
JUDICIARY: The most complex reform appears to be with regard to the judiciary.
The NCPRI suggests retaining the independence of the judiciary but seeks to make it accountable by strengthening the weak Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, tabled in Parliament in December 2010.
The bill lays down standards of behaviour for judges of the Supreme Court and High Court. It establishes a mechanism for receiving and investigating complaints and a procedure for impeaching a judge. The bill proposes setting up a National Judicial Oversight Committee to deal with complaints against judges.
The NCPRI would like the National Judicial Oversight Committee to be strengthened. As per the government draft, the Oversight Committee has been crowded with members from the judiciary which makes it look like a charmed circle. The NCPRI recommends instead that members of the Oversight Committee be chosen through a collegium system, include two non-judicial members and be chaired by the Vice-President of India.
The NCPRI proposes making the Oversight Committee a permanent body. All serving judges on the committee should work full-time. The committee will come up with its own procedures. It will appoint an Investigation Committee with at least two serving members of its own committee, if a judge has to be investigated. Also, the Oversight Committee will define what exactly is meant by 'misbehaviour' by judges – technically even Parliament isn't empowered to define that.
The NCPRI has suggested that scrutiny of complaints against judges should be done in camera. The outcome of a complaint may not be serious enough to require a judge to be removed. Advisories and warnings can also be used as punishments.
Members also said that former judges of the Supreme Court should be prohibited from giving opinions or seeking arbitration except if the President or governor seeks it in the national or public interest.
A young lawyer from Bhopal pleaded that this new bill be used to improve the functioning of the judiciary and set higher standards. Corruption is not the only issue. At district level the judiciary was a complete mess with judges traipsing in and out of the court as and how they pleased. People sold their assets in an elusive search for justice. The quality of judgements and orders passed was pathetic.
"Let us use this opportunity to clean up the rot in the judiciary," he said. "Otherwise you may end up with a clean and hopelessly inefficient judiciary."
He recommended splitting the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill into two: so a Judicial Standards Bill would ensure the judiciary improved its services and a Judicial Accountability Bill would make sure judges were not corrupt.




Re: [HumJanenge] Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG

Dear Shri Gupta
 
     In your mail to Shri Manoj Pai, you have raised 2 issues: (i) Ms Dixit taking a lenient view and exonerating PIO (who had since retired) for his default in responding to RTI application / providing information while in service, and (ii) that no action can be taken against an official / PIO after his retirement.
 
    On first point, two persons performing role function of a judge adjudicating a case matter can always hold different views and can deliver judgements / order based on their respective perceptions. It is a common happening in Judiciary at various levels, including High Courts / Supreme Court. Whiel both Ms Dixit and SG are CICs with equal authority, their commitments to the cause vary. SG by virtue of his long involvement in the cause of strenghtening RTI as a movement and his background as an Activist himself before his being appointed as CCI, has been giving very bold and pathbreaking Orders. In another recent Order, SG has imposed a penalty on a senir CBI Officer who tried to show defiance in the matter of giving appearance before the Commission. I am sure no other CIC would have dared to do it. So, we have to take the Orders of Ms Dixit in its own stride. My experience with Ms Dixit is also none too encouraging, She has been taking soft view in cases where PIO does not respond to RTI application in the first place and later responds after Appeal is filed (which establishes the fact of delay beyond any realms of doubt) and again provides incomplete & misleading information.
 
     On the 2nd point, it may not be correct to state and / or take a view that no action can be taken against an Official after his retirement for his lapse / default while he was in service. If a cause of action has been initiated for a punitive action against such Official for lapse / default before his retirement, he continues to be accountable for the recalcitrance in his performance while in service. Government Rules for proceeding against such officials do provide for such recourse /action against them. In fact, retirement of such official is made conditional subject to his accountability till the matter is finally decided. There are whole lot of cases where officials have faced action for their lapses / defaults while in service. In fact, in some cases even the release of terminal benefits (on retirement) are withheld till the cases are decided.
 
     I trust, that makes the things clear
 
    S K NANGIA            

--- On Fri, 12/8/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: "subramanian" <gs.manian@nic.in>, mkgper1952@gmail.com
Date: Friday, 12 August, 2011, 9:42 AM

--- On Fri, 12/8/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Thanks Mr Pai for mailing this landmark decision.  RTI users are grateful to Shri  Shailesh Gandhi, IC for his landmark decision and hope that other ICs will not be found wanting.

In my case, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner has exornated the CPIO on the plea that he has retired though his lapses were proved to the extent of even submitting three false affidavits before the Commission stating that the file has lost.  On the order of the Commission, PIO even wrote to the Delhi Police twice that the file has been lost and DP has to register an NCR (Non-cognisable Report) on the second complaint. 

CIC has even refused to take action against the faultering CPIO for perjury u.s. 340 of Cr. P.C. for misleading the CIC. IC, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit observed on my prayer to take action under sec. 340, "The Appellant filed another application dated 03.05.2011 invoking provisions of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. read with Sections 191 and 193 of the IPC.  This application is rejected outrightly since the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence."  Thus in such circumstances, no applicant will be able to challange the CPIO's if they file wrong affidavits and lodge false FIRs or NCR claiming loss of file.  The complaint complaint u.s. 340 before the Metropolitan Magistrate can only be filed by the Court/ Authority before which such false affidavit (s) have been submtted.  If the plea of the Hon'ble IC is accepted, more and more ICs will falsly represent before the CIC or SIC's that the file has got lost.

On penalising the retired CPIO, the observation is, "In so far as the erstwhile CPIO is concerned, he is no longer in service and hence no penal action can now be taken against him .In view of the fact that no further action can be taken nor remedy provided under operation of the RTI Act 2005, the matter is treated as clsoed."

Enlightened members of this Forum are invited to give their views on the issue and suggest further action as per RTI Act and other laws of the land.

On Thu, 11/8/11, Manoj Pai <mpai@bsnl.in> wrote:

From: Manoj Pai <mpai@bsnl.in>
Subject: Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG
To: manojpai@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, 11 August, 2011, 10:15 PM

It  might interest you, that in recent decision IC SG has imposed full
penalty  of Rs.25,000/- on one Mr. M. M. Das Retired CPIO of Employees
Provident Fund Organisation, Kolkata.

Maybe  this decision could be of help to you in matters where the CPIO
denied  you  information  and was confident that he / she would not be
imposed any penalty after retirement.

Manoj

Friday, August 12, 2011

[rti4empowerment] NCPRI puts five draft notes on Lokpal




Forwarded by Bhaskar Prabhu

Mahiti Adhikar Manch

Civil Society News
New Delhi

The Anna Hazare group has hogged the headlines with its draft Jan Lokpal Bill, but a low-key process by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) has yielded proposals in the form of five draft concept notes which could,with further discussion, become the basis for a draft law.

The NCPRI draws on experience and its proposals emerge from discussions in which contrary views are frequently expressed. It includes groups like the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, (MKSS), which work at the grassroots and have valuable insights into the functioning of institutions at ground level.

If the NCPRI has come to be seen as being slower than the Hazare group, it is because it approaches the creation of a draft law as a complex process.

The NCPRI's discussions on the Lokpal have included Justice A.P. Shah, Sailesh Gandhi, Usha Ramanathan, Annie Raja, Harsh Mander, Pratyush Sinha, Amitabh Mukhopadhyay, Aruna Roy, Shekhar Singh and Nikhil Dey among others. There have been conversations with Justice J.S. Verma, though he hasn't been formally involved.

While the Hazare group has proposed an all-powerful Lokpal/Lokayukta structure, the NCPRI has suggested a basket of measures which will tackle corruption in all its forms at various levels.

This is important since corruption has many manifestations. At the top it is secretive, complex and requires sophisticated investigation. At the grassroots, corruption is an open secret.

In NCPRI discussions, caution has been expressed against creating institutions outside the democratic process. The Indian Constitution delicately balances power between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The general view in the NCPRI has been that the basic framework of the Constitution should not be challenged.

There has been concern over concentrating too much power in a single institution. It may be too much to expect a Lokpal to tackle complaints against the Prime Minister, senior judges and MPs at the top as well as officials like junior engineers and block development officers at the bottom. The Union government alone employs some four million people.

"The Lokpal should not collapse under its own weight," Aruna Roy of the MKSS said at a two-day consultation held at the Teen Murti Library in Delhi in July.

It has also been felt that it is better to strengthen dysfunctional institutions by addressing their weaknesses and create new ones only wherever necessary. There is no point in replicating bad examples.

"We need to strengthen existing democratic institutions and not bypass them. We have laws. We need to implement old laws even as we draw up new ones," said Shekhar Singh.

So, instead of one mighty Lokpal, the NCPRI has proposed institutions at different levels. These are:

  • A Central Lokpal Anti-Corruption Commission to deal with corruption in high places. It would cover the Prime Minister, MPs, Class A officers. At state level, a Lokayukta Commission would cover the Chief Ministers, MLAs etc.
  • A strengthened Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to deal with the bureaucracy below Class A officers.
  • A Grievance Redressal Commission (GRC) to register and resolve everyday complaints which ordinary citizens have against their local administrations.
  • A Judicial Accountability and Standards law to tackle complaints against judges and improve the functioning of the judiciary.
  • A law for the protection of whistleblowers who are key to the uncovering of corruption.

The debate over the Lokpal has thrown up differences among activist groups on certain key points. The NCPRI's view on these points is as follows:

PRIME MINISTER: The NCPRI recommends that the Prime Minister should come under the Lokpal but with checks and balances. The PM cannot be questioned on decisions he has taken on security and defence. Investigations against the PM can only begin only if a full bench of the Lokpal recommends it and a full bench of the Supreme Court examines the evidence and agrees. To prevent the PM from becoming a 'lame duck', the draft bill says the PM will not be held responsible for decisions taken by other ministers in his government, and before starting such an investigation, a notice will need to be served to the ruling party.

INVESTIGATIVE POWERS: NCPRI members agreed the Lokpal should have the power to investigate and prosecute. But they suggested splitting the two functions for achieving greater balance and good sense. It was also proposed that the Prevention of Corruption Act be modified to cover companies as co accused.

The NCPRI also proposes a search committee to find people with good reputations to be on the Lokpal bench. The Lokpal should have financial and functional autonomy. A two- year deadline for all trials was not seen as a practical idea. Penalties for frivolous complaints has been opposed. Only those with malafide intention should be penalised.

Central Vigilance Commission: With Group A officers coming under the Lokpal, the CVC could investigate complaints and grievances against Group B and other officials. A list can be worked out. The CVC currently receives nearly 15,000 complaints a year and investigates hardly any. But people are familiar with it. NCPRI recommends removing the 'single directive' by which the CVC has to seek the permission of the Union government before investigating an officer of the level of joint secretary and above.

The NCPRI is discussing two models for the CVC:

First, the CVC could be hived off as a separate investigative department with its own cadre. So Vigilance Officers (VOs) would report to the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) in the CVC. Currently VOs are appointed by their respective departments and are 'nameless and faceless.' The VO would be able to initiate investigation in the department if required and be answerable to the CVO.

The second model is to make the secretary of the department responsible for delays or inefficiencies in investigation. So the VO would report to the secretary. If the complainant is unhappy with the VO and the secretary, he can approach the CVC. NCPRI members felt the advantage with this model is that the autonomy of the department would remain and the secretary would be made accountable.

Prasanta Sen, a lawyer, said VOs should get security of tenure in the department so that they can pick up nuances and get specialisation in that area. Another suggestion was to draw up Standard Operating Procedures. Smooth processes were found to be very useful in investigation and for speeding things up.

Complaints against the CVC should go to the Lokpal and be investigated before being referred to the Supreme Court. The responsibility of finding candidates for the CVC would be entrusted to the Lokpal through a search committee.

GRIEVANCES: The Lokshikayat Grievance Redress Commission proposed by the NCPRI would tackle day-to-day grievances and make every government department accountable and efficient. It was pointed out a healthy trend was already underway. Some states have made 'time-bound services' mandatory.

Every department would have to clearly inform people about the services or goods it is providing, how these can be accessed, who is eligible and who will be responsible for delivering those services. The quality of the department can be assessed by its output. Every public authority will have a Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO) for receiving and disposing of complaints within a specified time line.

At block level, a facilitation centre is proposed which will tell villages about the government's schemes and entitlements. It will file complaints and send them to the GRO. The centres would come under the Lokshikayat Grievance Redressal Commission. Computerisation would be necessary for tracking complaints and entitlements. The commission can, from time to time, order social audits and assess how departments at the grassroots are functioning with people's participation.

Grievances would not just include ration cards and entitlements. If laws at the grassroots such as the Forest Rights Act were not being properly implemented, then that too would constitute a grievance, explained a member.

JUDICIARY: The most complex reform appears to be with regard to the judiciary.

The NCPRI suggests retaining the independence of the judiciary but seeks to make it accountable by strengthening the weak Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, tabled in Parliament in December 2010.

The bill lays down standards of behaviour for judges of the Supreme Court and High Court. It establishes a mechanism for receiving and investigating complaints and a procedure for impeaching a judge. The bill proposes setting up a National Judicial Oversight Committee to deal with complaints against judges.

The NCPRI would like the National Judicial Oversight Committee to be strengthened. As per the government draft, the Oversight Committee has been crowded with members from the judiciary which makes it look like a charmed circle. The NCPRI recommends instead that members of the Oversight Committee be chosen through a collegium system, include two non-judicial members and be chaired by the Vice-President of India.

The NCPRI proposes making the Oversight Committee a permanent body. All serving judges on the committee should work full-time. The committee will come up with its own procedures. It will appoint an Investigation Committee with at least two serving members of its own committee, if a judge has to be investigated. Also, the Oversight Committee will define what exactly is meant by 'misbehaviour' by judges – technically even Parliament isn't empowered to define that.

The NCPRI has suggested that scrutiny of complaints against judges should be done in camera. The outcome of a complaint may not be serious enough to require a judge to be removed. Advisories and warnings can also be used as punishments.

Members also said that former judges of the Supreme Court should be prohibited from giving opinions or seeking arbitration except if the President or governor seeks it in the national or public interest.

A young lawyer from Bhopal pleaded that this new bill be used to improve the functioning of the judiciary and set higher standards. Corruption is not the only issue. At district level the judiciary was a complete mess with judges traipsing in and out of the court as and how they pleased. People sold their assets in an elusive search for justice. The quality of judgements and orders passed was pathetic.

"Let us use this opportunity to clean up the rot in the judiciary," he said. "Otherwise you may end up with a clean and hopelessly inefficient judiciary."

He recommended splitting the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill into two: so a Judicial Standards Bill would ensure the judiciary improved its services and a Judicial Accountability Bill would make sure judges were not corrupt.



Thursday, August 11, 2011

[HumJanenge] Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG

--- On Fri, 12/8/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Thanks Mr Pai for mailing this landmark decision.  RTI users are grateful to Shri  Shailesh Gandhi, IC for his landmark decision and hope that other ICs will not be found wanting.

In my case, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner has exornated the CPIO on the plea that he has retired though his lapses were proved to the extent of even submitting three false affidavits before the Commission stating that the file has lost.  On the order of the Commission, PIO even wrote to the Delhi Police twice that the file has been lost and DP has to register an NCR (Non-cognisable Report) on the second complaint. 

CIC has even refused to take action against the faultering CPIO for perjury u.s. 340 of Cr. P.C. for misleading the CIC. IC, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit observed on my prayer to take action under sec. 340, "The Appellant filed another application dated 03.05.2011 invoking provisions of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. read with Sections 191 and 193 of the IPC.  This application is rejected outrightly since the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence."  Thus in such circumstances, no applicant will be able to challange the CPIO's if they file wrong affidavits and lodge false FIRs or NCR claiming loss of file.  The complaint complaint u.s. 340 before the Metropolitan Magistrate can only be filed by the Court/ Authority before which such false affidavit (s) have been submtted.  If the plea of the Hon'ble IC is accepted, more and more ICs will falsly represent before the CIC or SIC's that the file has got lost.

On penalising the retired CPIO, the observation is, "In so far as the erstwhile CPIO is concerned, he is no longer in service and hence no penal action can now be taken against him .In view of the fact that no further action can be taken nor remedy provided under operation of the RTI Act 2005, the matter is treated as clsoed."

Enlightened members of this Forum are invited to give their views on the issue and suggest further action as per RTI Act and other laws of the land.

On Thu, 11/8/11, Manoj Pai <mpai@bsnl.in> wrote:

From: Manoj Pai <mpai@bsnl.in>
Subject: Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG
To: manojpai@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, 11 August, 2011, 10:15 PM

It  might interest you, that in recent decision IC SG has imposed full
penalty  of Rs.25,000/- on one Mr. M. M. Das Retired CPIO of Employees
Provident Fund Organisation, Kolkata.

Maybe  this decision could be of help to you in matters where the CPIO
denied  you  information  and was confident that he / she would not be
imposed any penalty after retirement.

Manoj

[HumJanenge] Full Penalty imposed on Retired CPIO

This might send shock waves amongst all those CPIOs who have retired. In a recent decision the CIC found it fit to impose full penalty of Rs.25,000/- the retired PIO of Employees Provident Fund Organisation,Zonal Office, Kolkata. Check link for full decision

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_C_2010_001552_13427Penalty_T_64596.pdf

Is anybody aware of similar cases on penalty being imposed on staff who have retired?

Manoj

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Why the series of circulars issued by Chief Secretary, Orissa on Section 4 of RTI Act have been doomed to a fiasco

Dear Pradip Ji,
instead of writing about the failure of the state government, the
proper course is the filing of petition in the high court for
implementation of section 4.
regards
sandeep

On 8/10/11, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Why the series of circulars issued by Chief Secretary, Orissa on Section 4
> of RTI Act have been doomed to a fiasco *
>
>
>
> Dear friends,
>
> In his latest circular letter [No. RTI-52/11 8302 / CS(1&PR) dated
> 11.7.2011], the Chief Secretary of Orissa has issued another instruction to
> all the Public Authorities of the State to comply with mandatory provisions
> under Section 4 (1) (a),( b), (c),( d), and Sections 4(2), (3) and (4) of
> RTI Act forthwith. It is worthwhile to recall that way back on 9.1.2009 Mr.
> A.K.Tripathy then Chief Secretary Orissa had also issued a similar circular
> emphasizing strict compliance with Section 4 of the Act. Again, in a state
> level review meeting convened by Chief Secretary, Orissa on 15.5.2011, all
> the Public authorities were instructed to ensure proactive disclosures under
> Section 4 of RTI Act. In the meeting it was also decided that stern action
> would be taken against the erring Public Authorities who would fail to
> comply with the instruction. Further, it is interesting to note that when
> the RTI Act 2005 was newly notified but not yet fully enforced, the Chief
> Secretary Orissa had held a meeting of Secretaries of important Departments
> of the Government on 22.08.2005 to chalk out a plan of action for
> implementation of various provisions of Act , where also the following
> decision was adopted in respect of implementation of Section 4 of the
> Act-"*3. Proactive
> disclosure: *According to the provision of Section 4 of the R.T.I. Act,
> every Public Authority is required to disclose information voluntarily in 17
> points by 12.10.2005. Steps should be taken to go for voluntary disclosure
> of information to the maximum extent so that the strength of application
> seeking information will be substantially reduced". (vide Para-3 of the
> Proceedings at http://203.193.146.66/ipr/Corecom.asp?lnk=11). After a few
> months the Chief Secretary issued also an Operational Guidelines dated
> 28.10.2005 for implementation of RTI Act in the State, wherein the Para-16
> read, "Top priority should be given for suo-motu dissemination of maximum
> information in order to reduce the number of information seekers" (
> http://203.193.146.66/ipr/RTI/guidelines.pdf). But going by the admission
> made in the Chief Secretary's latest circular, the above deadline is long
> past by more than five and half years, reducing the whole business of
> issuing circular after circular to a big joke only.
>
> After long 6 years of enactment of RTI Act 2005, it hardly needs to be
> mentioned that Section 4 is virtually the heart and soul of the Act, though
> neglected by every public authority including the office of Chief Secretary
> itself. As is well known, the Section requires each Public Authority to make
> proactive disclosure of information about 17 subjects within 120 days of
> enactment of the Act i.e., 12th October 2005. The said bunch of information
> was required to be disclosed in local language and widely disseminated
> through notice board, newspapers and electronic media including internet
> etc. and to be made available to the citizens instantly free of cost or on
> payment of xerox cost only. Both head and PIO of every public authority were
> accountable to provide instant access to the related information to the
> desirous citizens who unlike in case of Section-6 were not required to
> submit any application for the purpose.
>
> Now the question arises, why such a big failure on the part of the State
> Government in ensuring the compliance to Section 4 by public authorities
> from top to bottom? And, how many circulars require to be issued by the
> Chief Secretary Orissa in years to come for ensuring the necessary
> compliance?
>
> If we delve deep into the reasons for the above kind of failure, it would be
> noticed that non-observance, nay, gross neglect by all the public
> authorities in respect of the Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006 (
> http://203.193.146.66/ipr/RTI/amendment%20to%20ORTI%20Rules,2005.pdf) is the
> major one. Such Rules which is in place only in the State of Orissa provides
> inter alia for maintenance of a Register in the office of every public
> authority for recording the particulars of every person who would visit it
> for seeking information/ inspection of proactively disclosed information
> under Section-4 of the Act. Such a register, if maintained properly, shall
> not only store a proof of the concerned visitor but also serve as an
> incentive to him to visit the office of the public authority more and more.
> Mainly because, through this route he/she can instantly access a lot of
> information about his village, community and such public matters without
> having to submit a written application along with application fees, wait for
> 30 days to receive the requested information and also pay Rs.2/- per page
> towards the cost of information. But, strangely enough, none of the
> circulars of Chief Secretary has ever instructed the public authorities to
> comply with the above mentioned State Rule for maintenance of a separate
> register in their office for the purpose of Section-4.
>
> The next major reason for non-compliance to Section 4 in Orissa is a series
> of queer orders issued by the former Chief Orissa Information Commissioner
> Mr.D.N.Padhi on 20.06.2006 wherein he gave a clear signal to the public
> authorities of the State that nothing would happen against them on account
> of their non-compliance to the provisions of Section-4. In those orders he
> even went further to state, "As the complaint petition does not come within
> purview of Section 18 of Right to Information Act, 2005, the same is
> rejected" (For instance, vide Complaint Case No.3/2006). While such an order
> was patently ultra vires the parent Act, it served as the greatest nuisance
> against RTI Act in Orissa by way of emboldening the public authorities and
> PIOs to go on a violation spree against Section 4 with impunity. Till date
> Orissa Information Commission has been working in a Section-4 phobia mode,
> no matter Mr.D.N.Padhi has been meanwhile replaced by Mr.T.K.Mishra in the
> capacity of Chief Orissa Information Commissioner. What can be a better
> proof of Commission's cultivated lenience towards Section-4 baiters than the
> glaring fact that not a single violator of Section 4 has been punished or
> censured by the Commission during all these 5 years?
>
> Given an all-failure of both Government and Information Commission in
> respect of Section 4, the RTI users of Orissa heaved a sigh of relief when
> Orissa High Court on admitting a PIL filed by Mr. Sanjeeb Satpathy an RTI
> activist associated with Antodaya, Kalahandi issued notice to both State
> Govt. and Orissa Information Commission to file their respective response as
> to why have failed to ensure compliance to Section-4 thus far. It seems the
> Chief Secretary has been awakened by this notice of High Court to show some
> activity or the other on the front of Section-4, even if for purely cosmetic
> purposes.
>
> Be that as it may, if the two major pillars of RTI regime of the State i.e.
> Government and Information Commission really mean business for compliance to
> Section-4, they should adopt the following 3 measures-
>
> - Instruction by the Chief Secretary to each and every public
> authority of the State to maintain a Register for recording the particulars
> of the visitors seeking information under Section-4 as required under Orissa
> RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006;
>
> - Orissa Information Commission to review its decisions whereby it
> exempted the complaints against violation of Section-4 from the purview of
> adjudication by the Commission; and OSIC to award severe penalty against the
> violators of Section 4, which would serve as exemplary to the rest of
> violators among PIOs and public authorities; and
>
> - The Office of Chief Secretary and the Office of Secretary to I&PR
> Dept, the nodal RTI agency of the State should show the model in compliance
> to Section-4 by way of maintaining the concerned Register for visitors under
> Section-4 and making necessary logistic arrangement for allowing the members
> of public wishing inspection of and access to documents falling under
> proactive disclosures of RTI Act.
>
> *Pradip Pradhan*
>
> *M-99378-43482 *
>
> *Date- 10.9.2011 *
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

[HumJanenge] Why the series of circulars issued by Chief Secretary, Orissa on Section 4 of RTI Act have been doomed to a fiasco

Why the series of circulars issued by Chief Secretary, Orissa on Section 4 of RTI Act have been doomed to a fiasco

 

Dear friends,

In his latest circular letter [No. RTI-52/11 8302 / CS(1&PR) dated 11.7.2011], the Chief Secretary of Orissa has issued another instruction to all the Public Authorities of the State to comply with mandatory provisions under  Section 4 (1) (a),( b), (c),( d), and Sections 4(2), (3) and (4) of RTI Act forthwith. It is worthwhile to recall that way back on 9.1.2009 Mr. A.K.Tripathy then Chief Secretary Orissa had also issued a similar circular emphasizing strict compliance with Section 4 of the Act. Again, in a state level review meeting convened by Chief Secretary, Orissa on 15.5.2011, all the Public authorities were instructed to ensure proactive disclosures under Section 4 of RTI Act. In the meeting it was also decided that stern action would be taken against the erring Public Authorities who would fail to comply with the instruction. Further, it is interesting to note that when the RTI Act 2005 was newly notified but not yet fully enforced, the Chief Secretary Orissa had held a meeting of Secretaries of important Departments of the Government on 22.08.2005 to chalk out a plan of action for implementation of various provisions of Act , where also the following decision was adopted in respect of implementation of Section 4 of the Act-"3. Proactive disclosure: According to the provision of Section 4 of the R.T.I. Act, every Public Authority is required to disclose information voluntarily in 17 points by 12.10.2005. Steps should be taken to go for voluntary disclosure of information to the maximum extent so that the strength of application seeking information will be substantially reduced". (vide Para-3 of the Proceedings at http://203.193.146.66/ipr/Corecom.asp?lnk=11). After a few months the Chief Secretary issued also an Operational Guidelines dated 28.10.2005 for implementation of RTI Act in the State, wherein the Para-16 read, "Top priority should be given for suo-motu dissemination of maximum information in order to reduce the number of information seekers" (http://203.193.146.66/ipr/RTI/guidelines.pdf). But going by the admission made in the Chief Secretary's latest circular, the above deadline is long past by more than five and half years, reducing the whole business of issuing circular after circular to a big joke only.

After long 6 years of enactment of RTI Act 2005, it hardly needs to be mentioned that Section 4 is virtually the heart and soul of the Act, though neglected by every public authority including the office of Chief Secretary itself. As is well known, the Section requires each Public Authority to make proactive disclosure of information about 17 subjects within 120 days of enactment of the Act i.e., 12th October 2005. The said bunch of information was required to be disclosed in local language and widely disseminated through notice board, newspapers and electronic media including internet etc. and to be made available to the citizens instantly free of cost or on payment of xerox cost only. Both head and PIO of every public authority were accountable to provide instant access to the related information to the desirous citizens who unlike in case of Section-6 were not required to submit any application for the purpose.

Now the question arises, why such a big failure on the part of the State Government in ensuring the compliance to Section 4 by public authorities from top to bottom? And, how many circulars require to be issued by the Chief Secretary Orissa in years to come for ensuring the necessary compliance?

If we delve deep into the reasons for the above kind of failure, it would be noticed that non-observance, nay, gross neglect by all the public authorities in respect of the Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006 (http://203.193.146.66/ipr/RTI/amendment%20to%20ORTI%20Rules,2005.pdf) is the major one. Such Rules which is in place only in the State of Orissa provides inter alia for maintenance of a Register in the office of every public authority for recording the particulars of every person who would visit it for seeking information/ inspection of proactively disclosed information under Section-4  of the Act. Such a register, if maintained properly, shall not only store a proof of the concerned visitor but also serve as an incentive to him to visit the office of the public authority more and more. Mainly because, through this route he/she can instantly access a lot of information about his village, community and such public matters without having to submit a written application along with application fees, wait for 30 days to receive the requested information and also pay Rs.2/- per page towards the cost of information. But, strangely enough, none of the circulars of Chief Secretary has ever instructed the public authorities to comply with the above mentioned State Rule for maintenance of a separate register in their office for the purpose of Section-4. 

The next major reason for non-compliance to Section 4 in Orissa is a series of queer orders issued by the former Chief Orissa Information Commissioner Mr.D.N.Padhi on 20.06.2006 wherein he gave a clear signal to the public authorities of the State that nothing would happen against them on account of their non-compliance to the provisions of Section-4. In those orders he even went further to state, "As the complaint petition does not come within purview of Section 18 of Right  to Information Act, 2005, the same is rejected" (For instance, vide Complaint Case No.3/2006). While such an order was patently ultra vires the parent Act, it served as the greatest nuisance against RTI Act in Orissa by way of emboldening the public authorities and PIOs to go on a violation spree against Section 4 with impunity. Till date Orissa Information Commission has been working in a Section-4 phobia mode, no matter Mr.D.N.Padhi has been meanwhile replaced by Mr.T.K.Mishra in the capacity of Chief Orissa Information Commissioner. What can be a better proof of Commission's cultivated lenience towards Section-4 baiters than the glaring fact that not a single violator of Section 4 has been punished or censured by the Commission during all these 5 years?      

Given an all-failure of both Government and Information Commission in respect of Section 4, the RTI users of Orissa heaved a sigh of relief when Orissa High Court on admitting a PIL filed by Mr. Sanjeeb Satpathy an RTI activist associated with Antodaya, Kalahandi issued notice to both State Govt. and Orissa Information Commission to file their respective response as to why have failed to ensure compliance to Section-4 thus far. It seems the Chief Secretary has been awakened by this notice of High Court to show some activity or the other on the front of Section-4, even if for purely cosmetic purposes. 

Be that as it may, if the two major pillars of RTI regime of the State i.e. Government and Information Commission really mean business for compliance to Section-4, they should adopt the following 3 measures-

-          Instruction by the Chief Secretary to each and every public authority of the State to maintain a Register for recording the particulars of the visitors seeking information under Section-4 as required under Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006;

-          Orissa Information Commission to review its decisions whereby it exempted the complaints against violation of Section-4 from the purview of adjudication by the Commission; and OSIC to award severe penalty against the violators of Section 4, which would serve as exemplary to  the rest of violators among PIOs and public authorities; and

-          The Office of Chief Secretary and the Office of Secretary to I&PR Dept, the nodal RTI agency of the State should show the model in compliance to Section-4 by way of maintaining the concerned Register for visitors under Section-4 and making necessary logistic arrangement for allowing the members of public wishing inspection of and access to documents falling under proactive disclosures of RTI Act.  

Pradip Pradhan

M-99378-43482  

Date-  10.9.2011   

 

Sunday, August 7, 2011

[HumJanenge] Why RTI ? (and what do I need information for)

Keeping up with our practice of keeping our members informed about
developments in the field of information theory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/books/review/the-theory-that-would-not-die-by-sharon-bertsch-mcgrayne-book-review.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=books

"How should we modify our beliefs in the light of additional
information? Do we cling to old assumptions long after they've become
untenable, or abandon them too readily at the first whisper of doubt?
Bayesian reasoning promises to bring our views gradually into line
with reality and so has become an invaluable tool for scientists of
all sorts and, indeed, for anyone who wants, putting it
grandiloquently, to sync up with the universe. If you are not thinking
like a Bayesian, perhaps you should be.

.. If you want to assess the strength of your hypothesis given the
evidence, you must also assess the strength of the evidence given your
hypothesis. .."

The counterfeit coin mathematics is explained here

http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/index.php/Bayes%27_theorem#Counterfeit_coin_example

Sarbajit

Re: [HumJanenge] Monitoring the existence & functioning of "RTI Cells"

Most CPIOs don't deal with RTIs themselves or interact with applicants. In every large P/A there is an RTI section / section officer which deals with such matters. The DoPT proposal was to regularise this arrangement and expands its activities. Applicants ought not to have to meet the CPIO personally. Its also better to use the Post Office CAPIO route. We must also recognise that CPIOs are doing RTI in addition to their normal work - so it is an impostition on them (not to mention on the non-RTI-ing tax payers) if they waste their time "dealing with" applicants (instead of applications)

Inspection of information though is a big problem, and applicants are made to wait for long periods. We could focus on this.

Sarbajit

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 8:03 PM, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
dear Roy, the CPIO/PIO cell of all ministries must be located in a room to just walk in and not through the reception centres where the CPIO/PIO sitting deep inside some where deep inside make the applicant wait for long for various reasons and does not want to interact in person. beniwal 

--- On Sun, 7/8/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Monitoring the existence & functioning of "RTI Cells"
To: "humjanenge" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sunday, 7 August, 2011, 6:59 AM


In May 2011 DoPT advised other Ministries / Depts to set up RTI Cells.

http://circulars.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02rti/1_12_2010-IR19052011.pdf
(Please read the annexures carefully - which if actually implemented would sort out a lot of the "process" problems)

What is the feedback from our members / have you experienced any improvements ?

Sarbajit.