ORDERS OF CIC

Sunil Kumar had asked Department of Revenue a series of
questions aimed at eliciting from the Department of Revenue their interpretation
of the provisions of the Budget, the Finance Act and the notifications issued
thereof.

Citing certain decisions of the Commission and the definition
of information u/s.2 (f) of the RTI Act as well as on the basis of the
confidentiality of the Budget and its provisions including the Finance Act,
respondents declined to disclose the information through CPIO’s communication
dated 25-3-2010 and the decision of the Appellate Authority, dated 23-4-2010.

Central Information Commissioner (CIC), A. N. Tiwari, held
that ‘given the nature of the queries appellant had included in his RTI
application, it is obvious that he has been seeking from the respondents their
interpretation of various provisions of the Budget, the Finance Act and the
notifications thereof. This cannot qualify to be information u/s.2(f) and hence
has been rightly declined by the respondents.’

During the hearing, it was stated on behalf of the
respondents that on the basis of the feedback received from the citizens and
various trade and financial organisations, government, from time to time, issues
clarifications regarding specific points in various Acts, Rules, notifications,
etc. One such clarification has been issued by the Ministry of Finance covering
most of the grounds and the points mentioned in appellant’s RTI application.
Respondents were willing to provide a copy to the appellant for his reference
and use. They however reiterated their point that it was not open to any private
citizen to use the RTI Act to seek from the respondents their specific comments
about interpretation of laws, Acts, Rules and notifications. CIC held that
respondents’ contention is valid and was upheld.

[Sunil Kumar v. Department of Revenue, No. CIC/AT/A/2010/00342
dated 3-9-2010]

CIC Mr. M. L. Sharma has ruled that Co-operative Banks are
not Public Authority in the matter of two appeals by Preeti Goyal.

CIC stated that a bare reading of clause (h) of S. 2 of the
RTI Act would indicate that a private body or a co-operative society can be said
to fall in the domain of this clause, if it is substantially financed, directly
or indirectly, by the funds provided by the appropriate Government. Admittedly,
the society in question has not received any funds either from the Central
Government or the Government of Union Territory of Chandigarh. By this logic, it
cannot be said to be a public authority. Needless to say, once it is held that
the society in question is not a public authority, it has no liability to
provide any information under the RTI Act.

General Manager Mr. Dhillon of Chandigarh State Co-operative
Bank Ltd. appeared before the Commission and in a written representation relied
on certain decisions, the ratio whereof is that Co-operative Banks do not fall
in the ambit of S. 2(h) of the RTI Act.

The relevant para of the representation is extracted below :

“In the latest judgment reported as 2009 (5) RCR (Civil) 394
— Bidar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bidar v. The Karnataka
Information Commission, Bangalore and another and 2009 (5) RCR (Civil) 833;
Dattaprasad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. The Karnataka Information
Commission, Bangalore and another, it has been held by the Karnataka High Court
that co-operative society does not fall within the purview of S. 2(h) of the RTI
Act. Similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in a judgment reported
as AIR 2009 Bombay 75, wherein it has been held that a Co-operative Bank
registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is not a public
authority.”

Based on above CIC held that the Chandigarh State
Co-operative Bank Ltd. is not a public authority.

[Preeti Goyal v. Chandigarh State Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Appeals No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000657 & 658, decision dated 16-9-2010]

In the last two issues of BCAJ, I had covered talks by Gopal
Krishna Gandhi and Nandan Nilekani at the inaugural and concluding sessions
respectively at CIC’s 5th annual convention held on 13th & 14th September 2010.
Hereunder is the brief summary of talks at the inaugural session by Mr. Veerappa
Moily and at four technical sessions in between :

Dr. Veerappa Moily agreed RTI has caught our imagination.

Right to Information has the key to strengthening
participatory democracy and ushering in people centred governance. For creation
of a global information society, it is essential to safeguard plurality of
opinions, and to promote ‘open access to networks for service and information
suppliers’ and ‘free expression of ideas’.

The 1st technical session ‘RTI and Public Private
Partnership Projects’ was chaired by A. N. Tiwari, CIC (now Chief Central
Information Commissioner).

He summarised the discussion and concluded that many
infrastructure projects on PPP mode satisfy the basic tenets of a Public
Authority as defined under the RTI Act. He also observed that in the years to
come the RTI may go a long way in operationalising the PPP more objectively. He
was of the opinion that the governments themselves should declare whether a
particular PPP project is a public authority under RTI Act or not.

The 2nd technical session : ‘Responsibility of Political
Leadership in Promoting RTI’ was chaired by V. Narayansamy, Hon’ble Minister
of State, Planning & Parliamentary Affairs.

Sri Narayansamy: Right to Information is a tool in the hands of citizens which keeps the bureaucracy on its toes. However, he stated that the citizens are suffering in getting the information, even though they fulfill all their obligations as required under the Act. They are given misleading, truncated and irrelevant information and some people misuse it as well. He commended the role of the Commissions and cited two decisions of CIC. In one of the cases the Commission directed the PMO to disclose the assets of the Ministers, which they complied and while in another case, the Commission, directed the DoPT to disclose file notings. The Hon’ble Minister expressed his grief over the killings/threats of RTI activists. He said that the Government is sensitive to the situation and is bringing about special legislation for whistle blowers protection and privacy Act. The role of the politicians, the law makers does not stop with the enactment, it includes efforts in ensuring implementation. Shri Narayansamy concluded that the Judiciary should be made accountable. All three wings of the government have to function under the provisions of the RTI Act.

The 3rd technical session : ‘RTI & Judiciary’ was chaired by Wajahat Habibullah. One of the panelists was Justice A. P. Shah. His conclusions were:

Conclusion : Demands for change to existing systems in the judiciary must be met rationally, bearing in mind the objectives sought to be achieved. Will the proposed changes promote public respect for the judiciary and the rule of law? Will they strengthen democratic principles ? How do they relate to the constitutional requirement of judicial independence? The guiding principle should always be accountability but let it always be commensurate with judicial independence and impartiality. The challenge is to develop mechanisms of accountability that do not undermine judicial independence.

The 4th Technical Session : ‘Challenges and Opportunities in RTI — Role and Responsibility of Media/CSO’ was chaired by Ms. Mrinal Pande, Chairperson, Prasar Bharti.

One of the panelists, Ms. Ravi Singh stated that RTI is as important as the right to food and right to education. Since constant vigilance is the price for freedom, the role of NGOs, the media, the courts and the civil society is important.

Another panelist, Shailesh Gandhi observed that all the stakeholders of the RTI have to work together to create a supportive environment for the Act to flourish.

                                            Part C: Information On & Around

   Ration offices in Mumbai and around:

Vigilance Committees play a crucial role in addressing the grievances of local residents against ration shops. But information obtained under the RTI has revealed that due to vacancies in these committees, several areas are under represented.

Anil Galgali, an RTI activist who procured this information, said, “A Vigilance Committee is supposed to meet once a month to redress the grievance of the residents. But the provision for a Vigilance Committee is meaningless if it does not have any members.”

The vigilance committee also ensures that commodities in rationing shops are sold as per the directives of the government. “An inefficient vigilance committee is a setback for below poverty line (BPL) ration card holders who rely heavily of essential items sold through ration shops. Absence of an efficient vigilance body means that there are no effective checks and balances on the public distribution system (PDS),” he added.

It has come to light that in five of the 53 rationing offices in Mumbai, Thane and Navi Mumbai, there is not a single member on the vigilance committee.

    University of Mumbai flouting RTI Act:

PIO of the University of Mumbai and also AA never responded to the RTI Application/Appeal filed by S. K. Nangia, RTI activist even after repeated reminders. However, on the application dated 15-3-2010, finally, AA fixed the hearing on 30-10-2010.

Now, the activist has written to Rajan Welukar, vice-chancellor at the University of Mumbai, highlighting the problems faced by citizens in seeking information from the university. He has also asked for reasons for the delay of more than six months for an appeal hearing to be held.

Senior official at the university states that they were tied up with other routine work in the university and shall write a regret letter to the applicant for the delay.

   Taxis in Mumbai:

According to the data provided by the RTO, from April 2009 to March 2010, 303 cases of refusals, 1,236 cases of meter tampering and over charging and 85 offences of rude behaviour were registered. In comparison, complaints launched between April and September shot up to 3,500, with the offence of drivers refusing multiplying eight times from 303 to 2,400 cases.

STOP PRESS

Information on selection of Judges:

A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court wondered whether the time had come to make public the details of appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. A Bench comprising Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S. S. Nijjar referred to a constitution Bench, the crucial question on disclosing correspondence between the Chief Justice of India and the Law Minister on appointment of HC and SC judges under the RTI Act.

This is a significant development as 19 High Courts have opposed the order of the Delhi HC allowing disclosure of information on appointment of judges. Even the Delhi HC has opposed the pronouncement on administrative grounds. The sole exception is the Gauhati HC.

Echoing the views of the HCs, Attorney General G. E. Vahanvati told the Bench, “Information made available to the CJI in respect of appointment of judges of HCs as well as the SC is held by him in trust and in fiduciary capacity.”

Justice Reddy said, “The current debate is a sign of a healthy nation. This debate on the Constitution involves a great and fundamental issue.” Writing the judgment for the Bench, he said precedents relating to interpretation of the Constitution on this issue need not mean stagnancy. “The ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text (Constitution) mean in our time,” he said. The bench framed the following questions for the consideration of constitution Bench:

Very sensitive and crucial issue for RTI to get wide spectrum of coverage now awaits fill this judgment gets pronounced.