Right to Information
Part A : Decisions of CIC
Mr. Mahavir Chopda of Mumbai addressed a few queries under
the RTI Act to NMIMS University of Vile Parle (W), Mumbai. The queries raised
included :
- In how many instances did students cancel admission after
paying fees for admission to your FT-MBA Course ?
- What amount of fees was retained by NMIMS (i.e.
collected but NOT refunded to students) due to the above cancellations ?
PIO refused to give the information and the First AA did not
reply to the appeal.
In the appeal before CIC, the representative of NMIMS
submitted that NMIMS is not a public authority. To decide on this issue, CIC
stated that two matters need to be determined :
a) Whether NMIMS is public authority by virtue of being a
deemed University.
b) Whether NMIMS is ‘substantially financed’ by Government.
In the hearing before CIC, Mr. Shekhar Gupta appeared on
behalf of NMIMS. He was asked to inform the Commission whether they have
received land at concession rates, or any other subsidies. He was also asked
whether donations received by the Institution are exempt from payment of Income
tax. If any of the concessions described have been availed of, he was to give a
Chartered Accountant’s certificate certifying the value of these concessions.
The respondent has stated that they are unaided Institution.
It was also argued that information sought is exempt u/s.8 (1)(d) of the RTI
Act. An affidavit was filed by Mr. Madhav N. Welling, Pro-Vice Chancellor of
NMIMS University dated 3 February, 2009 stating that the deemed University has
not obtained any land at concessional rates nor are the donations received
exempt from payment of Income tax.
‘Public Authority’ is defined u/s.2 (h) of the RTI Act. It
includes any authority or body or institution of self government established or
constituted . . . . by notification issued or order made by the
appropriate government.
Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956,
which provides for the constitution of Deemed Universities reads as follows :
“The Central Government may, on the advice of the Commission,
declare by notification in the official Gazette, that any institution for higher
education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University for the
purpose of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of
this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the
meaning of clause (f) of Section 2.”
CIC noted : Thus, it is clear that a deemed University
gets this status by virtue of a notification issued by the Central Government.
NMIMS has been conferred the status of a deemed University by virtue of
notification No.F9-37/2001-U-3 dated 13 January, 2003 of the Government of
India. It clearly meets the criterion of sub-clause (d) of clause (h) of section
2 of the RTI Act. Hence, all deemed Universities are Public Authorities as
defined under the RTI Act. Since NMIMS University is also a deemed University by
virtue of a notification by the Central Government it is a Public Authority and
must furnish information as mandated by the RTI Act.
The Commission also held that provisions of section 8(1)(d)
do not exempt the information sought, as the said information is not of
commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property the access to
which would harm the competitive position.
In view of the above view taken by the Commission, it held
that NMIMS University is a Public Authority as defined in the RTI Act and must
give the information sought by the appellant. “The information shall be supplied
by Mr. Madhav N. Welling, Pro-Vice-Chancellor of NMIMS University to the
appellant free of cost before 20 April 2009”.
[Mr. Mahavir Chopda vs. NMIMS University, Decision No.CIC/OK/A/2008/01098/SG/2550
dtd. 31.03.2009].
Part B : The RTI Act
Standing committee of the Parliament on RTI Act, 2005 :
National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI)
has made a presentation before the above committee. Some of the items of the
said presentation are worth noting to understand present deficiencies of the RTI
Act.
In previous 4 issues of BCAJ, 10 items have been reported :
1. Level of awareness
2. Use and Misuse of the RTI Act
3. Reduction of 20-year period for keeping documents
4. Voluntary Disclosures
5. Changes in Section 8
6. Penalties
7. Use of the RTI Act and refusal of information
8. Grievance redressal
9. Application fee
10. Strengthening the RTI Act
Now 11th and final item is being reported :
Central Information Commission
The Central Information Commission has a huge backlog of cases, which seems to grow larger everyday. This is mainly due to the very poor support system and infrastructure provided by the government to the Information Commission. For the Commission to function effectively, they need to have access to a large number of qualified advisors who can do a preliminary analysis of each appeal and complaint, thereby making the task of the Commissioner easier.
Given the role the Commission has to play, especially in adjudicating on matters relating to the government, it is important that the Commission retains its intellectual and functional independence. This is difficult to do when departments and ministries of the government control their budgets. It is, therefore, important that the budgetary allocations for the Commission are voted directly by Parliament or, at the very least, are a separate plan head without being subsumed under any ministry.
It has been observed that various public authorities are not following many of the Commission’s orders and directions. Considering the role the Parliament envisaged for the Information Commission, this is essentially subverting the wishes of the Parliament.
Therefore, it is important that the Prime Minister’s office send out a strong letter directing all public authorities to strictly follow the orders and directions of the Information Commission, unless they have been able to obtain a stay from a competent court. The PMO should also set up a mechanism to review compliance on a monthly basis and the report of compliance should be discussed at the three monthly meeting of the earlier suggested RTI Council.
The manner in which Information Commissioners are selected is shrouded in secrecy and reeks of arbitrariness and patronage. Though the Act very clearly specifies that Information Commissioners must be ‘persons of eminence in public life’, for the government this has mostly meant retired civil servants. No effort has been made to open up the process of selection to public scrutiny, or even to share with the public the rationale for choosing the people who are chosen and not others. This is so even when there have been demands from the public to do so, as in the case of the recent appointment of four new information commissioners. It is ironic that while appointing the Central Information Commissioners under the RTI Act, the Government of India repeatedly violates both the spirit and the letter of the RTI Act, specifically Section 4(1)(c & d).
These sections specify that the government must, suo moto: “publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public; …. provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons”. Surely the appointment of Information Commissioners is an administrative decision that affects all the people of India, and also an ‘important decision that affects the public’ !
Part C : Other News
Haj House in Mumbai
Replying to an RTI application filed by Mumbai-based social activist A. M. Attar in November 2008, the Haj Committee of India (HCI) has said that Haj House – the committee’s headquarters – does not belong to the Muslim community.
The popular notion that the massive Haj House near CST, built with donations from the community without any government funding, belongs to the Muslim community is wrong. The HCI, which falls under the ministry of external affairs (MEA), has clarified that Haj House is not a Muslim property and that it belongs to the MEA. Interestingly, The Haj Committee Act, 2002 does not clarify who owns Haj House.
“Muslims had contributed to the construction of the building. Apart from a couple of months when the Haj season is on, the building remains unused. This is gross under-utilisation of a prime property”, said city-based hotelier A. M. Khalid who, along with Attar, is fighting to get Haj House out of the MEA’s control.
CA Examination
Students who fail in chartered accountant exams can find out their mistakes by going through their answer sheets as the Delhi HC directed the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) to provide a certified copy of the paper of students under the Right to information Act. Dismissing an ICAl’s plea against a CIC order, the HC said the answersheet cannot be excluded from the purview of the RTI.
New Rules for RTI applications by NRI
In order to simplify the RTI application process from abroad, the CIC has framed new rules enabling NRIs to pay application fees and information costs at the Indian embassies and missions abroad. “The commission will meet officials from the external affairs ministry and DoPT to smoothen issues related to the mode of payment and acceptance of appeals. Embassies may accept only the fee and information cost and provide e-receipt to applicants”, CIC chief Wajahat Habibullah said.
Padma awards
In response to a Right to Information query filed by Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the Home Ministry has admitted that “no specific record of the deliberations of the meeting of the Padma awards committee is maintained.
Only the final recommendations of the awards committee are submitted for the approval of the Prime Minister and the President”.
In what appears to be an attempt to shrug off disclosure, the government said there were no ‘specific records’ created in terms of receipt of nominations when asked about the number of recommendations that were received by the Home ministry by the cut-off date of September 30.
Incidentally, the decision on the awards was taken over a period of three days in meetings held on December 19, 20 and 22, 2008. The non-official members of the committee nominated by PM Manmohan Singh included Prof. [yotindra Jain, Kapila Vatsyayan, R Chidambaram, Tarun Das and Sayeeda Hameed.
Assets of the Ministers from Rajya Sabha
Earlier PMO had ruled that information on MP’s assets as being furnished to the speakers of the Lok Sabha (LS) and Rajya Sabha (RS) are exempt.
On appeal to CIC, he referred the matter to the speakers of LS and RS. In response, the Rajya Sabha has agreed to provide asset details of the Union Ministers who are members of RS. In reply to RTI query, it provided the information details of assets and liabilities of 16 ministers out of 18 as available.
PM Manmohan Singh owns only Maruti 800, Mr. Praful Patel is the richest cabinet minister with combined wealth of Rs.46.8 crores, Mr. A. K. Antony has the least financial muscle with combined worth of Rs.17.9 lakhs.
Report of Maharashtra State Information Commission
Maharashtra SIC submitted the annual report of 2008 to Vidhan Sabha on 16.03.09. It is a document in Marathi. English translation is under preparation and hopefully will be available in early June. Meantime, some interesting statistics:
- 5 Commissioners together have imposed penalty in 256 cases, total amount of penalty levied Rs.34,01,432.
- Total pendency of appeals as on 31.12.08 is 14,273 (In Mumbai 1574, in Konkan 1,339, Pune 3,863, Nashik 10, Aurangabad 3,584, Amravati 912, Nagpur 970).
- Total pendency of complaints u/s.18 is 1207, (highest in Mumbai 560).
It is understood that Maharashtra is the first state in India to present annual report of 2008 as required under section 25 of the RTI Act.
