BMC & RTI:
If all goes as planned, there will be no need to put an RTI application to get information about the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) as the civic body, in a year’s time, plans to digitise each and every document and put it up on their website for all to see. Not a small feat as they have over 80 Crore papers to be displayed online.
“All these documents are important and they are so old that even turning pages can damage them. If we want to preserve these documents, getting them digitised is the only way,” said a senior civic official. “Once the digitisation is done, there will be no need to submit a right to information (RTI) application for obtaining information regarding the BMC,” said Sitaram Kunte, Municipal Commissioner.
Nagpur SIC:
On Saturday 16th March, Times of India reported: SIC heard three appeals and levied a fine of only Rs. 18,000 in all the last six months and so on. The State Information Commission (SIC) bench in Nagpur seems to be doing everything to blunt the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, a legislation that has empowered common people against the system. Next day on Sunday, 17th March, Times of India issued clarification as under:
The state information commissioner, Bhaskar Patil, has pointed out that the headline ‘Nagpur info chief clears 3 of 1,849 pleas in 6 months’ is incorrect. He stated that the SIC had heard and disposed of 1,978 appeals and complaints from June to December last year, out of which it levied monetary fine in three cases. The SIC had also recommended ‘disciplinary action’ on 41 cases out of 1,849 second appeals and 485 complaints. The error is regretted.
Corruption and RTI:
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has slammed the Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance and two of its key organs – the Central Bureau of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) – for shielding its allegedly corrupt senior officials.
In response to an RTI application filed by Economic Times, CVC has revealed the minutes of all annual review meetings held by it in 2012 with Central Vigilance Officers (CVOs) of various government sectors. The minutes of such meeting held on 27th July, 2012, with CVOs of the Revenue and Transport Sector reveal that CVC came down hard on the Department of Revenue, CBDT and CBEC for going slow against corruption. The minutes clearly state that CVC Pradeep Thakur said at the meeting that there is a “perceptible tendency” in the Department of Revenue of “trying to protect particularly senior officers” in the organisation. CVC asked Shashi Shekhar, the additional secretary (revenue) and CVO of Department of Revenue, to make concerted efforts to liquidate the pendency of corruption complaints, saying the commission was concerned over the inordinate delay in implementation of its advice for action.
Shielding top officers is a phenomenon in CBDT too, the minutes indicate. “CVC expressed its concern at the inordinate delays being caused by CBDT in finalising regular department action cases, implementation of CVC’s advice and in grant of sanction for prosecution. CVC stated that such delay indicated reluctance of the administration in taking action against senior officials and such delays, especially in grant of sanction for prosecution, are completely unacceptable. CVC also expressed its displeasure at the arbitrary fashion in which adjudicating officers are passing the orders while deciding cases of higher revenue implications,” the minutes say. CVC was similarly anguished about the large number of pendency of action against allegedly corrupt officials in CBDT, saying Supreme Court has recently made it mandatory for prosecution sanction to be granted within three months and officers intentionally delaying the same to be held accountable.
As per the CVC annual report for 2011, CBDT and CBEC were still to take action against a total of 474 corrupt officers against whom CVC advised action over six months ago. 330 such cases were pending in CBEC while 144 cases were pending in CBDT. In comparison, CBEC took action only against 69 of its officers last year while CBDT acted against just eight officers.
