RIGHT TO INFORMATION (r2i)

PART A I  DECISION
OF SIC

Telangana State
information Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000 to a senior
citizen who was fighting for information regarding her revised pension and
other records from the medical department for the last 10 months. Dr TSS
Lakshmi (76), a retired professor of dermatology/Medical Superintendent of
Osmania General Hospital, had filed a Right To Information petition in December
2017 seeking information from the Director of Medical Education on the revision
of her pension details. “Provide me with the xerox copy of my service register
and information of health card and a copy of the proposal for revision of pay
fixation and pension,” said the applicant in the petition. However, the
applicant did not get the required information even after 30 days of the
standard procedure time mentioned under the RTI Act, 2005.

In the follow up hearing of the case, she
was informed by the Public Information Officer that there were no records of
her data. Irked by the PIO’s response, the Chief Information Commissioner Dr
Raja Sadaram Soma ruled in favour of Lakshmi. He said that the complainant
retired in 2002 and that she has been drawing pension from the State,
suggesting that the PIO’s response was not convincing at all.

(Source:http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/telangana/2019/mar/17/sic-awards-rs-10000-relief-to-rti-applicant-1952150.html)

The State Information Commission has held
that it is for the information seeker under the Right to Information Act to
choose the mode of collecting the required information and that the State
Public Information Officer (SPIO) has no discretionary power to dictate any
particular mode.The commission made the observation while issuing a show cause
notice to the SPIO of the Revenue Divisional Office, Kottayam, for asking an
information seeker to visit the office and gather the required information by
perusing the relevant files there.

The commission pointed out that as per
section 2(j) of the RTI Act, right to information meant the information held by
or under the control of any public authority and which include the right to
inspect work, documents, records, and take note, extracts or certified copies
of documents or records. The Commission pointed out that section 2(i)(ii)(iii)
and (iv) of the Act spoke of the right of the information seeker to gather
information by adopting his/her own mode of choice.

(Source:https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/rti-applicant-can-choose-mode-of-info-collection-sic/article26493229.ece)

PART B I RTI ACT, 2005

For discovering an incriminating document from the defence department, a
journalist is threatened. For attaching those documents to a public interest
litigation, a lawyer is threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets
Act. The battle is now between the freedom of speech and official secrecy. Can
official deals, if wrongful, be protected under the curtains of secrecy?

In the wake of resistance and criticism from media bodies and the public,
the attorney general said the government had no intention of prosecuting
journalists and lawyers for using the ‘documents’.

Then Centre filed an affidavit on March 13, 2019 stating that those who
leaked were guilty of penal offences including theft. It was claimed that
annexed notes were marked ‘secret’, and exempted from disclosure even under the
Right to Information Act. It also raised a point under the Evidence Act, on the
use of evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to the
affairs of the state without permission.

These claims reflect the intention to attack the review petition on
technical grounds, without condemning the veracity of the contents that
strengthen allegations. First of all, it is not a trial in which admissibility
of evidence need to be thoroughly examined; the government can raise those
points in the trial that happens after the investigation the petitioners
are seeking. The facts of the case have to be considered to decide whether a
probe should be ordered.

The second point is on the documents being marked ‘secret’. Which part of
the deal is secret, and why? The test established by the Supreme Courts of
India and the US in several cases to withhold a document as secret is the
doctrine of ‘clear and present’ danger. The Pentagon Papers case in the
US and Raj Narain’s case against Indira Gandhi in India, the Supreme Courts
laid down the norm that the danger should be so clear that secrecy needs to be maintained.

In Pentagon Papers, failures of the US Army in Vietnam were leaked
by the New York Times, Washington Post and others. The US
government wanted to prevent newspapers from publishing these reports, citing
‘national security’. In the Raj Narain case, the Centre was refusing to
share the blue book for the then prime minister’s visit during electioneering,
even many years after the event. The Centre has a duty to explain how a dissent
note from three negotiators would pose a clear and present danger to
‘security’.

To say that this document could not have been disclosed even under RTI
Act is legally not tenable, because the RTI Act provided for disclosure of
defence details and information from exempted organisations as well in the
context of corruption and human rights violation. The political executive
cannot use the Official Secrets Act and a ‘national security’ defence, without justifying them, to hide the truth and prevent a
probe.

The very origins of the Official Secrets Act was to muzzle the voice of
the opposition and criticism. The pre-independence 1923 Official Secrets Act
promotes secrecy and confidentiality around ‘governance’. It is shocking that
attorney general, representing the Centre, said the prosecution had stolen
‘secret’ documents and pleaded with the Supreme Court not to consider the
stolen parts of the deal papers.

The review of the apex court’s December 14 decision will have very
serious implications because the petitioners – Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and
Prashant Bhushan – are seeking an FIR against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and
others involved in the Rafale deal.

Relying largely on documents published in the media, the petitioners want
the Supreme Court to reverse their conclusion about the absence of alleged
commercial favouritism, because certain critical information was suppressed
from judicial scrutiny.

The AG attacked the review petition, claiming the documents were stolen
and then attached to the petition before the bench, which means the petitioners
are involved. It is in this context that the threat of prosecution under the
Official Secrets Act has to be examined.

Though the AG has retreated from this threat, it has stirred a debate
about practical application of provisions of the Official Secrets Act, because of
their inconsistency with the Right to Information Act, 2005. One must see how
official secrets are valid when transparency is the law and disclosure the
rule. Secrecy is now an exception.

More than a threat to the freedom of press and due process, the use and
abuse of the Official Secrets Act threatens good governance and promotes
corruption.

CULTURE OF SECRECY

As rightly observed by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, the
Official Secrets Act is founded on colonial mistrust of people and primacy of
officials who deal with citizens. The culture of secrecy was established
through this draconian law.

The commission’s recommendation to repeal it was rejected. In 2017, a
committee of the cabinet secretariat recommended making the Act more transparent,
at least. That was not acted on.

On the one hand, the government fills information commissions with former
bureaucrats to discourage disclosure, and on the other promotes the use of the
Official Secrets Act. The pre-independence Congress party had resolved to
repeal the Act, but every party including the Congress has used it to stifle
voices. When it is used in the forum of the Supreme Court to stall a probe into
the Rafale deal, the public must doubt the commitment to transparency and zero
tolerance of corruption.

Every document is not a secret and every leak is not a crime under the
Official Secrets Act. Criminality lies in “intending to benefit enemy country
directly or indirectly”. Sections 3 and 5 of the Act refer to making or
accessing a sketch, plan, model or note or document which is useful to the
enemy or wrongfully communicating it, which is likely to affect the sovereignty
and integrity of India, security of state or friendly relations with foreign
state.

THE ACT DOES NOT DEFINE ‘SECRECY’

The most interesting factor is that the Officials Secrets Act does not
define ‘secret’ or ‘official secret’, and does not provide a ‘classification’
of documents. The Manual of Departmental Security Instruction (MODSI) of the
Ministry of Defence has laid down procedures and criterion for classification
of documents as ‘top secret’, ‘secret’ and ‘confidential’.

Papers containing vital information which cannot be disclosed for reasons
of national security are classified as ‘top secret’, and these must not be
disclosed to anyone for whom they are not essential. Such papers include
references to current or future military operations, intending movements or
disposition of armed forces, shaping of secret methods of war, matters of high
international and internal political policy, ciphers and reports derived from
secret sources of intelligence.

The ‘secret’ classification is reserved for papers the disclosure of
which could cause administrative embarrassment or difficulty, an internal
breach of peace and amity, injury to the interest and prestige of the
government, or would be of advantage to a foreign nation or enemy.

The ‘confidential’ category is reserved for papers containing information
the unauthorised disclosure of which, while not endangering national security,
would be prejudicial to the interests of the nation, any government activity or
individuals, or would cause administrative embarrassment or difficulty or be of
an advantage to a foreign nation. In S.P. Gupta, the Supreme Court
rejected the criteria of ‘embarrassment to the government’.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT VS RTI

Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act defines ‘document’ as ‘document
includes part of a document. This means if any part of the document is secret’,
then the disclosure of part other than ‘secret’ part also can be denied.

Section 10 of RTI Act provided for separation of the ‘secret’ part and
release of the rest.

This is the conflict between these two Acts. Section 22 of the RTI Act
expressly provided that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official
Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any
instrument having effect by any law other than the RTI Act.

This was further fortified in section 8(2), which stated that information
exempted under sub-section (1) or exempted under the Official Secrets Act, 1923
can be disclosed if public interest in the disclosure overweighs the harm to
the protected interest.

The Bofors scandal was the result of a media investigation and the
leakage of key documents. In fact, the official radio of Sweden released
threads of the bribery to Indian dealers behind the Bofors deal with India.
This could happen because there is a Freedom of Press Act in Sweden, which
granted people the right to information back in 1766. The transparency law
ensures corruption-free defence deals.

STOLEN TRUTHS

In this context of a 21^st century access law overriding a
97-year-old British relic law of secrecy, one has to see whether all papers of
negotiations, undue increase in the price, irrational preference of Anil Ambani
to HAL, ignoring the ‘make in India’ policy, dissent of three members of
seven-member negotiating team against a parallel bargain by the PMO in Rafale
deal, etc., can be considered as ‘official secrets’.

Even if agreed that they are stolen, as contended by the AG, the
documents accessed by the media are not condemned as false. This strengthens
the plea to review the Supreme Court’s December 14 decision. The government has
a duty to tell the apex court and people which part of the Rafale deal could
harm security interests, and disclose the rest.

Whether citizen, journalist or lawyer, shouldn’t everyone have the right
to criticise and challenge the purchase of Rafale fighter aircraft at a price
much higher than earlier estimated?

M. Sridhar Acharyulu is a former Central Information Commissioner and a
professor of media law at Bennett University.

(Source:https://thewire.in/law/rafale-deal-official-secrets-act-rti)

PART C I INFORMATION ON & AROUND

An RTI query has revealed that portals like BookMyShow levy an extra
‘internet handling fee’ against each ticket, which is in violation of the RBI’s
Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) regulations that were issued by the Reserve Bank
of India on Dec 6, 2017.

As per the regulations, the merchant (in this case, the movie theater)
is supposed to pay an amount to the bank against every transaction made by
customers using a credit or debit card as per MDR regulations.

However, movie ticketing apps may be allowing the merchant to transfer
this fee onto unwitting customers by charging it from them in the form of
“internet handling fee”. This fee includes 18 percent Integrated GST
(IGST) which the customer is supposed to pay.

(Source:https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/rti-bookmyshow-overcharging-customers-rbi-meity-2068071.html)

In the last four years, Amravati division, commonly known as Vidarbha,
recorded highest number of suicides, at 5,214.This was followed by Aurangabad
division, also known as Marathwada, with 4,699 farmer suicides.

At a time when drought has been declared in about half of Maharashtra –
about 150 tehsils out of 360 – a Right to Information query has revealed that
the number of farmer suicides in the state has doubled in the last four years.

In a letter to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the
Maharashtra government says between 2011 and 2014, which is when the
Congress-NCP was in power, 6,268 famers committed suicide. The number rose
sharply by 91 per cent to 11,995 from January 2015 till the end of 2018.

“The core issues of farmers related to the distress in the rural
area is mostly related to the credit, cost and the crop pattern adopted by the
farmers. The issues of health, rural unemployment and natural climate are also
very significant,” Kishore Tiwari, head of Vasantrao Shetti Swawalamban
Mission, Maharashtra government.

(Source:https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/rural-distress-farmer-suicides-in maharashtra-doubled-in-last-4-years-reveals-rti-3617231.html)

Only one musk deer is present across zoos in the country, according to a
response obtained under the Right to Information Act.

The Central Zoo Authority, under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change (MoECC), stated that the lone male musk deer was in a zoo in
Himachal Pradesh.

A Noida-based RTI activist had sought details on the population of musk
deer across states in the country, both in zoos as well as in the wild. He had
also asked statistics related to the poaching of the wild species, if any.

“There is only single male musk deer (that) exists in recognized zoo
(Himalayan Nature Park, Kufri as on 31.03.2018),” said the Central Zoo
Authority, which maintains the records of captive animals in zoos.There are
seven musk deer species of the genus Moschus and all of them are endemic to
Asia.

(Source:https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/only-one-musk-deer-in-country-s-zoos-reveals-rti-reply/739473.html)

In the list of cases to be heard by the Constitution bench of the
Supreme Court from March 27^th, the Supreme Court has included its
own appeal against a Delhi High Court judgment that had held that the Supreme
Court and the Chief Justice of India are “public authorities” under
the Right to Information Act. Three Judge bench of Delhi High Court comprising
the then Chief Justice A P Shah, Justice Vikramjeet Sen and Justice S
Muralidhar had upheld the single bench judgment that Supreme Court and the
Chief Justice of India have statutory duty to furnish information sought by
citizens regarding the functioning and administration of the Supreme Court. The
single bench had dismissed the challenge against the order of Central
Information Commission whereby it had directed the Supreme Court CPIO to
provide the information requested by Subhash Chandra Agarwal for supply of
information concerning declaration of personal assets by the Judges of the
Supreme Court.

(Source:https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/constitution-bench-hearing-list-143623)

Only 920 MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery) seats have
been added in the government medical colleges against the approved 10,000, in
the last five years, reveals an RTI.

According to the RTI filed by Chandra Shekhar Gaur, a resident of Madhya
Pradesh, the government has approved 36 medical colleges for adding 2,615 MBBS
seats in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, MP, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan,
Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Manipur and Karnataka.

It also released Rs 685 crore in 2015-18 for 12 states for increasing
the number of MBBS seats.

In Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan, only 50 new seats each have been added
against the approved 150 and 350 seats, respectively, in Karnataka, 350 seats
have been created against the approved 550, the RTI revealed.

In states like Jharkhand, MP, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, West Bengal and
Manipur not a single seat has been added.

According to the RTI, 450 seats were to be created in MP. But even after
sanction of Rs 108 crore in three years for the four government-owned medical
colleges, not a single seat has been added.

In Tamil Nadu, too, over Rs 82 crore has been released by the Centre to
add 345 seats. But the seat count remains the same.

States like Odisha (200 seats), Gujarat (170 seats) and Punjab (100
seats) have upgraded their medical colleges and increased the requisite number
of MBBS seats.

In 2014, a cabinet committee of the UPA government had approved the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s proposal relating to the
Centre-sponsored scheme for upgradation of government medical colleges and
increasing the number of MBBS seats. It was also announced that Rs 10,000 crore
would be invested for increasing the MBBS seats. Of this, the Centre was to
contribute Rs 7,500 crore and states/UTs Rs 2,500 crore.

The funding pattern was to be 90:10 between the central and the state
governments for northeastern states and the special category states. The ratio
of 70:30 was decided for other states.

Creation of one MBBS seat cost around Rs 1.20 crore, according to the
cabinet committee in 2014.

Again in 2018, the cabinet approved the proposal for adding 10,000
under-graduate seats by 2020-21 and 8,058 post-graduate seats — 4,058 in the
first phase by 2018-19 and 4,000 in the second phase by 2020-21.

(Source:https://www.moneylife.in/article/only-920-mbbs-seats-added-in-5-years-against-10000-approved-rti/56456.html)

Less than four hours before Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced
demonetisation on November 8, 2016, the Central Board of the Reserve Bank of
India (RBI) gave its approval to the scheme but also rejected, in writing, two
of the key justifications — black money and counterfeit notes — that he would
make in his televised address to the nation.

The minutes of the 561^st meeting of the RBI’s Central Board,
which was convened hurriedly in New Delhi at 5.30 pm that day, reveal that the
central bank’s directors described the move as “commendable” but also warned
that demonetisation “will have a short-term negative effect on the GDP for the
current year”.

The minutes were signed by RBI Governor Urjit Patel on December 15,
2016, five weeks after the meeting was held. In all, six objections, described
as “significant observations”, were recorded in the minutes by the RBI Board.
The RBI directors, after receiving a proposal draft of the scheme from the
Ministry of Finance on November 7, 2016, argued that the government’s
reasoning, that the withdrawal of HD (high denomination) currency notes of Rs
1,000 and Rs 500 would help in curbing black money and restrict circulation of
counterfeit cash, did not really hold good.

The minutes list out the justifications given by the Ministry of
Finance.

RBI Red Flags

• Short term
negative on GDP

• Rs. 400 crore
fake notes not very significant share of total cash

• Most black money
not held in cash but gold, real estate • Adjustment for inflation, difference
between economic growth and cash available not so stark.

(Source:https://indianexpress.com/article/india/two-years-after-demonetisation-okaying-note-ban-rbi-rejected-govt-claim-on-black-money-fake-notes-5438516/)

The State Bank of India has said as much as Rs 7,951.29 crore involving
1,885 cases of fraudulent activities have come to light during the first nine
months of the current fiscal year. In a reply to a right to information query,
the nation’s largest lender said, the first quarter reported 669 cases of
fraudulent activities amounting to Rs 723.06 crore, the second quarter saw 660
cases involving an Rs 4,832.42 crore and the third quarter reported 556 cases
amounting to Rs 2,395.81 crore. According to RTI activist Chandrashekhar Gaud,
the bank shared the data on Feb. 25.

Though he had also sought information about the financial losses to its
customers due to these fraudulent activities, the SBI refused to share the same
saying such information is exempted from disclosure under section 7 (9) of the
RTI Act of 2005. The bank did not share details of frauds such as phishing,
online, debit, credit cards fraudulent transactions or borrowers engaging in
fraudulent activities with the borrowed money.

(Source:https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/sbi-has-found-fraud-worth-rs-7-951-3cr-in-apr-dec-rti-reply#gs.1xytaa)

In a response to a Right to Information (RTI) application filed by The
Indian Express, the office of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said
no IC has been established. In addition, none of the ministers’ offices have
such an IC either.

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013, mandates that all places of employment with 10 or more
employees are mandated to have a functioning IC. While the Maharashtra CM
Secretariat has 110 employees, including 20 women, all the ministers’ offices
have more than 10 employees. In all, there are 38 ministers, including the
Chief Minister.

An RTI request was filed with the CM Secretariat seeking to know the
date of formation of the IC as per the provisions of law. In its reply, Public
Information Officer Geeta Yadav said, “The establishment works related to the
CM Secretariat is handled by the Desk 21 of the General Administration
Department (GAD),” and hence, such a committee was not established at the CM
Secretariat. “However, appropriate action is being taken in the matter after
seeking remarks from the concerned departments,” the reply added.

(Source:https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/no-internal-committees-in-ministers-offices-maharashtra-sexual-harassment-complain-5605934/)

PART D I RTI CLINIC-SUCCESS STORY

RTI Clinic of BCAS was approached by Mr.
Gandhi whose goods (Bales) were in the custody of the GST department and a
penalty was charged to him. It was mentioned that on payment of the penalty his
goods would get released by the department, but even after 3 months of paying
the penalty the goods were not released. After filing of a RTI application the
goods were released by the department.

RTI Clinic in April 2019: 2^nd, 3^rd,
4^th Saturday, i.e. 13^th, 20^th and 27^th  11.00 to 13.00 at BCAS premises. _