ORDERS OF CIC

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.

“According to the Commission, ‘information’ which is
requested u/s.6(1) of the RTI Act refers to only that information which is
available on record. Such information cannot be created. The terms ‘opinions’
and ‘advices’ which are brought within the purview of ‘information’ u/s.2(f) of
the RTI Act are opinions or advices that are already present on record. It does
not mean that if the opinion or advice of the public authority is sought
u/s.6(1) of the RTI Act, the said opinion or advice shall have to be created. It
must be an opinion or advice which is already on record. The creation of
information by the public authority every time such information is sought
u/s.6(1) of the RTI Act shall render governance impossible. However, the
Commission has observed that there are certain practices within a department
that are peculiar to that department. Such practices or understanding within the
department may not be present in a recorded form. Where information sought
u/s.6(1) of the RTI Act pertains to such general practices or understanding,
then the same must be provided to the applicant, even if such practices or
understanding are not specifically on record.”

The Appellant in the case before the Commission had cited one
order of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah v
Administration Officer & Ors. 2010(1) ID 287 (SC). The Supreme Court of India,
while dismissing the petition, interpreted section 2(f) of the RTI Act and
observed that an applicant u/s.6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is
already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. The
applicant is entitled to get a copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders,
etc but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices,
circulars, orders, etc have been passed, especially in matters pertaining to
judicial decisions.

[Dr. Jitendra Nath Gupta vs. PIO & SDM (Civil Lines):
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/ 2010 / 00 2398/ 9878 of 22.10.2010] [2010(2) ID 593 (CIC,
DELHI)]

? Mr. Virajoo Kumar had asked Telecom Regulatory Authority of
India (TRAI) to provide him certain information in respect of Mobile no.
09304549785..

PIO of TRAI replied to inform the applicant that no such
information was being maintained by TRAI.

During the hearing before the Commission, the representative
of TRAI submitted that TRAI can call for such information from the service
provider as it needs for its own purposes by passing an order in writing but the
information requested for by appellant is not wanted by TRAI and therefore, it
is not bound to call for this information from the service provider.

As per the clause 2(f), information also includes
‘information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public
authority under any other law for the time being in force.’ In other words, if
TRAI has authority under any law to access information from Reliance Company, it
can access that information for onward transmission to the information seeker.
According to Shri. Abraham, u/s.12of the TRAI Act,1997, TRAI has the authority
to call for information from the service provider by passing an order in writing
but this information should be such as is needed by TRAI for its own purpose. In
other words, according to him, TRAI cannot seek information from a private
entity for servicing the RTI Act.

Hereunder I reproduce paras 6 to 9 of the
decision –

6. Clause (a) of section 12(1) is reproduced
below –

‘(a) call upon any service provider at any time to furnish in
writing such information or explanation relating to its affairs as the Authority
may require’

Shri Abraham lays emphasis on the last 05 words of the above
clause viz. ‘as the Authority may require.’ It is his interpretation that this
expression means that TRAI can call for information only when it needs it for
its own purposes and not for the purposes of supplying it to the information
seeker under the provisions of the RTI Act.

7. We are afraid, the construction put on clause (a) by Shri
Abraham is not correct. According to us, the true meaning of the expression ‘as
the Authority may require’ is ‘as the Authority may direct’. In other words,
TRAI can call for such information from a private entity as it needs for its own
purposes as also for the purpose of servicing the RTI Act.

8. The above interpretation also finds support in the
Judgement dated 25.9.2009 of the Delhi High Court in WP (civil) No 765 of 2007 (Poorna
Prajna Public School Vs CIC) wherein High Court favoured wider interpretation of
the word ‘information’. The relevant part of para 16 of the judgement is
extracted below: –

“Further, information which a public authority can access
under any other law from private body is also ‘information’ u/s.2(f). The public
authority should be entitled to ask for the said information under law from the
private body. Details available with a public authority about a private body are
‘information’ and details which can be accessed by the public authority from
private body are also ‘information’ but the law should permit and entitle the
public authority to ask for the said details from a private body”.

9. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the
appellant is legally entitled to seek the information from TRAI u/s 2(f) of the
RTI Act and TRAI is mandated to call for such information from the service
provider (Reliance Company in this case) as mentioned hereinabove and furnish
the same to the appellant. We respectfully disagree with the view taken by other
Single Benches of the Commission.

[Virajoo Kumar vs. TRAI: Decision No. CIC/DS/ C/
2010/00 332 decided on 25.10.2010] [2010(2) ID 661(CIC DELHI)]

                                                        PART B: The RTI Act, 2005

In the last issue (Feb 2011) I had reported on the directions issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC) on 09.12.2010 to all the Central Government’s Public Authorities through the Min-istries & Departments of Government of India. It appears that landmark initiative taken by the CIC is not bearing good fruit.

    Of the 1,600 public authorities (government departments, apex bodies, autonomous organisations and ministries) listed by the Commission, only 125 have obeyed its direc-tive and appointed transparency officers. The macro picture at the central level is no better with only 34 of 70 odd ministries and apex bodies appointing transparency officers. The ministries of finance, home and culture and the Prime Minister’s Office have done nothing except expressing their intention to appoint a transparency officer.

    The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the parent department of the Commission, has taken exception to the directions and said that by giving such directions to departments, CIC has overstepped its brief. In its letter to the authority, DoPT has said that by appointing transparency officers CIC was trying to ‘create another bureaucracy’.

    CIC, however, feels that it is only trying to assign another responsibility to the same set of bureaucrats present in the government departments. Speaking to ET, Chief Central Information Commissioner Satyanand Mishra said, ‘We are examining the matter. The Com-mission does not have the powers to withdraw any of its orders. At the same time we don’t need to justify our orders. If any department has an objection it can only take legal recourse. Over the past few years in our deliberations as Information Commissioners, we had found that had the Ministries voluntarily disclosed information many applications would not have been filed. This is why the directive was given.’

Information on & Arround

Four members of Deshbhakti Andolan distributed roses to employees at the Charity Commissioner’s office in Worli one day in early February.
Deshbhakti Andolan resorted to Gandhigiri after the Charity Commissioner’s Office, in response to a query filed under the Right to Information Act by one of the andolan members, said it had lost pertinent files and papers.
Charity Commissioner on complaint made has assured that the file would be traced and information shall be provided.

The Public Cause Research Foundation has analysed 79,813 decisions passed by the CICs and SICs across the country. The researchers found that in 59,631 cases, the information was delayed, but only 1,896 officials were punished. The report said had these penalties been imposed, the exchequer would have got nearly Rs. 86 crore during 2009-10. ‘Twenty-six Commissioners across the country did not impose a single penalty in the whole year’

Activist Anil Galgali, who sought information under the Right to Information Act, said those who register the number of deaths in the crematoria were over-worked.
There is a paucity of staff at the crematoria run by the municipal administration. With 36 posts lying vacant in the 46 crematoria run by the BMC, the delay in getting the last rites done has been inconveniencing citizens as well as the staffers.
The civic administration runs 46 crematoria, 7 cemeteries for Christians and 10 for Muslims. Apart from these, there are 125 privately-run ones and 11 powered by electricity.
Galgali said that after the RTI application was filed; the civic body issued a circular directing the authorities to fill the vacant posts.

                                             PART D: RTI & SUCCESS STORIES

Normally, my article contains 3 parts as would be observed above. Since long, I have been wanting to add PART D: containing success stories of RTI. BCAS Foundation & Public Concern for Governance Trust (PCGT) (where at I am a trustee) run 4 RTI Clinics and on an average 50 individuals visit these clinics in a month and are provided RTI guidance and they submit RTI applications and appeals etc. We now intend to arrange feedback on their applications etc. As such very few come back to report the success they get or solutions that they achieve though many have satisfactory results.

Similarly, I believe many CAs make RTI applications etc and have success stories.

It is with the above belief that I intend to add PART D as above to my article. I request all read-ers to send their RTI success stories in brief. We would like to report them here. Please join in this crusade.

Hereunder one success story:

Dear Narayan Varmaji:

First of all let me profusely thank you and other members of PCGT and BCAS for guiding my hus-band Dr. Shiban Charagi to fight his case through RTI. He was not only successful to get justice for himself but for others too, when a large Goverment Organisation like B.A.R.C. (Bhabha Atomic Research Centre) under Department of Atomic Energy had to strictly adhere to Supreme Court Judgements of 12th May 2008 by Justice Markandeye Katju.

BARC has started informing officers at all levels about their CR Grading by their Superiors. Also an officer can challenge his CR grading by refusing to put his signature on the intimation of the CR Grading.

My husband (who has the rare privilege of being listed in MARQUIS who is who in the world) was denied PRIS (Performance related incentives scheme) on the basis of poor assessment by his immediate supervisor. My husband has been a UNESCO Scholar. He was a one of the few employees (out of 15300) denied PRIS on poor CR grading. His CR was assessed in a hurry by a biased supervisor. He was also denied facilities for research work and manpower assigned to him removed and he was thereby harrased and humiliated.

My husband filed a letter of grievances to the PMO. This was forwarded to the Secretary DAE. Other reminders followed. But no action took place at ground level.

Later my husband took guidance from BCAS and was successful in getting a sum of over a lakh rupees (pre tax deduction). He was informed of his previous grade in CR. Later his grading was revised. After re-assessment PRIS sanctioned. This is the first such case in the history of the Department of Atomic Energy.

A battle that would have cost lakhs of rupees if taken up legally with CAT etc and would have been time consuming also and few years delay ended within two to three months of filing the RTI petition.

Hail RTI! Hail BCAS & PCGT and all the activists who made RTI a reality! RTI is a new pillar of Indian democracy.