The appellant, Mr. Surinder Puri of Delhi, sought certain
information from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) regarding one
property, all around which there had been encroachment.
The PIO did not provide the information. First, the AA
directed the PIO to provide the requisite information as available on record.
In the second appeal, Mr. Surinder Puri had stated:
On 12.01.2010, the inspection became unruly. The Commission
received a letter dated 28.01.2010 from the Appellant Mr. Puri wherein he
alleged physical assault and brutal manhandling of two office bearers of the
Public Grievance and Welfare Society (PGWS), who were among the other members
who accompanied the Appellant for the joint inspection. In the letter, it has
been stated that the inspection was initiated in the presence of MCD
officials. According to the letter, there were seven police constables of
Sarai Rohilla Police Station who were also present at the inspection site. The
MCD officer is said to have only allowed two of the society members to inspect
the property site. Therefore, only two office bearers of PGWS went in for the
inspection on the Appellant’s behalf. It has been alleged that while the
inspection was on, Municipal Councilor Mr. Satbir Singh, along with his
accomplices (reportedly son and nephew), came with a mob of 30 people and
inflicted a brutal physical assault with an iron rod on one office bearer,
which is said to have caused him a fracture on the nose bone and that the
second office bearer was slapped and bullied. Furthermore, it has been alleged
that when an attempt was made to file a FIR (First Information Report) against
the said attack, the case was only registered after the society lodged a
complaint with the CMM (North).
-
as some tension was
anticipated, both parties had requested the Police to be present during the
inspection.
-
crowd had gathered
before the Inspection could be completed and persons were asking questions
to the representatives of the Appellant.
-
some level of
altercation took place either at the inspection site or just away from it on
the Main Road. Even the MCD officials have admitted that there was some
pushing around and arguments.
-
the inspection could
not be completed due to the presence of the crowd. It was completed at a
later point in the absence of the Appellant or his representatives but in
the presence of a larger Police force.
Mr. Ajay Kumar (one representative of PWGS) had sustained injuries and had been taken to Hospital by the Police.
The Commission made the following Decision:
The Commission finds from the statements that Po-lice personnel were present during the whole epi-sode and were either unable to or unwilling to take any action to intervene and disperse the crowd. This points to a very sorry state of affairs in terms of law and order. Trouble had been anticipated at the site and when it did start, the Police was unable or un-willing to take any action. The incident took place on 12 January, 2010. The Commission requested for a report on the incident before 24.02.2010, which the Police has not submitted. Now it is over ten weeks since the incident occurred, but the police did not give a report but instead deemed it a fit case to op-pose in a writ petition.
Complaint is allowed.
The appellant was prevented from carrying out the inspection to arrive at the facts. MCD officers and police officers were present but could not ensure that the inspection could be carried out.
With regard to the allegations of physical assault, the Commission finds that offences under the Indian Penal Code may have been committed in the pres-ent case against the representatives of the Appel-lant. However, the Commission as a statutory body does not have the powers to investigate allegations against offences under the Indian Penal Code or take action under the Code of Criminal Procedure. When such incidents are brought to the notice of the Com-mission, the Commission can initiate an inquiry at its level under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act and it has to rely on external agencies such as the Police and the MCD to undertake part of the inquiry and assist the Commission. As a statutory body, the Commission can work effectively only if it gets cooperation from other Departments of the Government, especially those which are trained in investigative methods. If statutory bodies such as the Delhi Police and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi decide not to assist the Commission in the performance of its statutory functions, the Commission will find it difficult to dis-charge its duties under the RTI Act.
Neither the Commissioner, MCD, nor the Commis-sioner, Delhi Police, have extended cooperation in the conduct of this inquiry. The Commission expresses the hope that the Police and the MCD will do their duty and help statutory authorities in performing their functions, failing which it would not be possible for citizens to exercise their fundamental right to information to ‘contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed’, which is the objective and promise of the Right to Information Act 2005.
Citizens rightly expect that the Information Commission must ensure their protection when they are using Right to Information to unearth and challenge illegal activities. It is with deep concern that I admit that I am unable to take any further action as my powers under the Act have now been rendered completely ineffective by the non-cooperation of the Police and the MCD. I hope that all statutory agencies will cooperate to ensure that the rule of law prevails.
(Mr. Surinder Puri, Delhi vs. PIO, MCD, Delhi: Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000163/7237 dated 25.03.2010)
Section 4 of the RTI Act
As stated often in my articles, Section 4 of the RTI Act is the mother of all Sections in the Act. If the obligations on public authorities cast therein are complied with, the need to furnish RTI applications can get considerably reduced. In this case, even the State Bank of India, the largest bank of the country, has not complied with its obligation under this Section.
The Order states:
During the hearing, it was brought to our notice that the State Bank of India as a public authority has not yet published details about the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations in terms of the mandatory obligations cast on it under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act. If it is true, it is unfortunate; a major public authority like the SBI is expected to be a trendsetter in implementing RTI Act. We direct the CPIO to bring it to the notice of the authorities in the SBI immedi-ately to ensure that such details about each of its officers and employees are immediately put up in the public domain through its website at all lev-els and certainly not later than a month from the receipt of this Order.
The Order also directs the PIO to furnish information on the following points to the applicant, Shri Chetan Kothari, which was denied by the PIO and the AA:
Monthly salary and wages paid to each employee, by name, in the State Bank of India, Mumbai Zone as at the end of 31st March 2009; [This information should be given in electronic form in a CD as the number of employees might be too large]
Total number of safe deposit lockers in the Mumbai Zone as on the above date; and
A categorical statement to the effect that the names of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority have been duly displayed in every branch of the Mumbai Zone.
It may be of interest to the readers that CIC conducts many appeals by video conferences. This one was heard through video conferencing. The Appel-lant was present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC whereas the Respondents were present in the Bandra (Mumbai) studio.
(Shri Chetan Kothari, Mumbai vs. CPIO, State Bank of India, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai: CIC/SM/ A/2009/001479 decided on 01.04.2010)
Postal Order
In spite of such a mode prescribed in the Rules, the CPIO of UCO Bank refused to accept the application since it was accompanied with a postal order by way of application fee and declined to provide the information. The AA endorsed the decision of the CPIO. CIC Satyananda Mishra in his Order writes:
“We strongly object to the decision of the CPIO sup-ported by the order of the Appellate Authority that the Indian postal order is not an accepted mode of payment of application fee under the RTI Act. The rules framed by the Government of India in this regard are quite clear and it is unfortunate that nearly 3* years after the Indian postal order was introduced as a method of payment, these authorities should be rejecting an application from a citizen by disal-lowing his postal order. During the hearing, the Respondents expressed regrets on behalf of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority but that hardly helps. The rejection of his application and, later; his appeal on the sole ground that he had decided to pay his application fee by postal order has caused avoidable harassment and financial loss to the Appellant. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to explain in writing if he has reasonable cause for his decision to disallow the application of the Appellant. If we do not receive his explanation within 15 working days from the receipt of this order, we will proceed to consider impos-ing the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 on him for having denied the information on thoroughly wrong grounds.
The appellant in this appeal had also submitted that the UCO Bank had only one Appellate Authority lo-cated in their corporate office in Kolkata and very few CPIOs in the field making it extremely difficult for information (* Actually it is nearly 4 years) seek-ers to approach these authorities for information. Besides, it appears that the Appellate Authority does not give any opportunity of hearing to the Appellants before deciding the appeals. The Respon-dents admitted that indeed there was only one Appellate Authority for the entire Bank having thou-sands of branches all over India and that the Appellate Authority decided appeals without providing any opportunity of hearing to the Appellants. This is both unfortunate and unacceptable; nearly 5 years into the implementation of the Right to Informa-tion (RTI) Act, a responsible public authority like the UCO Bank must not treat this law with such casual abandon. Section 5 (1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act clearly mandates every public authority to appoint as many CPIOs in all administrative units or offices under it as may be necessary to provide information to persons requesting for the information under this Act. Similarly, Section 19(1) requires that such officers senior in rank to the CPIOs should be identified as Appellate Authority for receiving and deciding appeals. We expect that the UCO Bank shall, within a month from the receipt of this Order, designate larger number of CPIOs to cater to the information need of the citizens and designate more appellate authorities, preferably, in the Zonal offices, so that Appellants do not have to go all the way to its corporate office for filing appeals. We also direct the Appellate Authority to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Appellants before passing any order on their appeals.
Part B: The RTI ACT
On January 20, 2010, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions [Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)] issued one Office Memorandum (OM) on the subject of maintenance of records in consonance with Section 4 of the RTI Act.
In part A, I have summarised one Order on Section 4 and commented on its importance. In Part 3, the letter of SCIC talks of Section 4. I request all readers to bring this OM of DoPT to the notice of public authorities they are connected with such as PSUs, Nationalised Banks, Government-owned insurance companies and so on. Said OM reads as under:
The Central Information Commission in a case has highlighted that the systematic failure in maintenance of records is resulting in the supply of incomplete and misleading information and that such failure is due to the fact that the public authorities do not adhere to the mandate of Section 4(1)(a)of the RTI Act, which requires every public authority to maintain all its re-cords duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and form which would facilitate the Right to Information. The Commission also pointed out that such a default could qualify for payment of compensation to the complainant. Section 19(8)(b) of the Act gives power to the Commission to require the concerned public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered.
Proper maintenance of records is vital for the success of the Right to Information Act but many public authorities have not paid due attention to the issue despite instructions issued by this Department. The undersigned is directed to request all the Ministries/Departments, etc,. to ensure that requirements of Section 4 of the Act in general and clause (a) of sub-section (1) thereof in particular are met by all the public authorities under them without any further delay.
At this stage, I may also refer to THE PUBLIC RE-CORDS ACT, 1993 (PRA), which regulates the man-agement, administration and preservation of public records of the Central Government, Union Territory Administrations, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies and corporations, commissions and committees constituted by the Central Govern-ment or a Union Territory Administration and mat-ters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The rules (THE PUBLIC RECORDS RULES, 1997) are also enacted under this PR Act.
Under the said Act and Rules also duty is cast on all entities as referred to above (and which are also entities covered under the RTI Act) to regulate etc. of the public records (extensively and in inclusive manner defined) and to furnish an Annual Report to the Director General or head of the Archives in the pre-scribed form.
It may be noted that this Act also provides the regulations for destruction of Public Records. Very often, in response to the request to the PIO to provide some records, the reply is received that the same are destroyed. The applicant then should ask whether compliance is made to the PR Act and the PR Rules. It may be noted that penalty for contraventions is very heavy provided in Section 9 of PR Act as under:
Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of Section 4 or Section 8 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.
Part C: OTHER NEWS
Important Pronouncements by the Commission:
(Continuing from January 2010)
When Shailesh Gandhi, CIC, was in the BCAS of-fice some months ago addressing RTI activists and journalists, he distributed a compilation of 8 important and profound pronouncements by the Central Information Commission. Herewith 7 & 8 (the last two) thereof:
7. Third Party
It is clearly stated in Section 11 (1) that ‘submission of third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information’. Section 11 gives a third party an opportunity to voice its objections to disclosing information. The PIO will keep these in mind and denial of information can only be on the basis of exemption under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act.
The test of public interest is to be applied to give information, only if any of the exemptions of Section 8 apply. Even if any exemption applies, the Act enjoins that if there is a larger public inter-est, the information would still have to be given. There is no requirement in the Act of establishing any public interest for information to be obtained by the sovereign Citizen; nor is there any require-ment to establish larger Public Interest, unless an exemption is held to be valid. Insofar as looking at the credentials of the applicant are concerned, the lawmaker has categorically stated in Section 6 (2), ‘An applicant making a request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.’ Since the law categorically states as above, it is clear that the credentials of the applicant are of no relevance, and are not to be taken into account at all when giving the information. The truth remains the truth and it is not important who accesses it. If there is a larger Public Interest in disclosing a truth, it is not relevant who gets it revealed.
If the third party objects to giving the information, the Public Information Officer must take his objec-tions and see if any of the exemption clauses of Sec-tion 8 (1) apply. If any of the exemption clauses ap-ply, the PIO is then obliged to see if there is a larger Public interest in disclosure. If none of the exemp-tion clauses applies, information has to be given.
8. Assets of Public Servant
The Commission can allow denial of information only based on the exemption listed under Section 8 (1) of the Act.
Under Section 8 (1) (j), information which has been exempted is defined as:
“Information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the cause may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:”
To qualify for this exemption, the information must satisfy the following criteria:
1. It must be personal information
Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In common lan-guage we would ascribe the adjective ‘personal’ to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. From this it flows that ‘personal’ cannot be related to Institutions, organisations or corporates. (Hence we could state that section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied when the in-formation concerns institutions, organisations or corporates).
2. The phrase ‘disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest’ means that the information must have some relationship to a public activity.
Various Public Authorities in performing their func-tions routinely ask for ‘personal’ information from Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a Public Authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, license or authorisation, all these are public activities. The information sought in this case by the appellant has certainly been obtained in the pursuit of a public activity.
We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances, special provisos of the law apply, always with certain safe-guards. Therefore it can be argued that where the State routinely obtains information from Citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion of privacy.
Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public Servant, which is routinely collected by the Public Authority and routinely provided by the Public Servants, – cannot be construed as an invasion of the privacy of an individual. There will only be a few exceptions to this rule, which might relate to information which is obtained by a Public Authority while using ex-traordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone-tapping. Any other exceptions would have to be specifically justified. Besides, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that even people who aspire to be public servants by getting elected have to declare their property details. If people who aspire to be public servants must declare their property details, it is only logical that the details of assets of those who are public servants must be considered to be disclosable. Hence the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied in such a case.
RTI Act amendments:
Very interesting and significant exchange of corre-spondence has taken place between PM and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi: Times of India on April 10, 2010 has made following report:
Against PM wish, Sonia stood ground on ‘no RTI changes’
Congress Chief Sonia Gandhi firmly resisted changes to the RTI Act despite the government wanting to tinker with the transparency legislation, an RTI query reveals.
Amendments to the RTI Act have been in the news for some time with activists protesting against the government’s move to exempt disclosure of Cabinet papers, internal discussions and judiciary. Sonia, in a letter dated November 10 had voiced this concern and said the government should “refrain from accepting or introducing changes in the legis-lation… in my opinion there is no need for changes or amendments”.
The letter, accessed under RTI by activist S C Agar-wal, said, “It will of course take time before the momentum generated by the Act makes for greater transparency and accountability in the structures of the government. But the process has begun and it must be strengthened… It is important, therefore, that we adhere strictly to this original aims and re-frain from accepting or introducing changes in legislation on the way it is implemented that would dilute its purpose. In my opinion, there is no need for changes or amendments. The only exceptions permitted, such as national security, are already well taken care of in the legislation.”
In response, the PM on December 24 stood his ground that certain issues could not be dealt with without changes in the Act. Among the issues cited by the PM were that the CJI had pointed out that the “independence of the higher judiciary needs to be safeguarded in the implementation of the Act. There are some issues relating to disclosure of Cabinet papers and internal discussions”.
The PM assured that while the government was tak-ing steps to improve dissemination of information and training of personnel, “there are some issues that cannot be dealt with, except by amending the Act”. “The Act does not provide for the constitution of benches of the CIC though this is how the busi-ness of commission is being conducted,” the PM had said.
Editorial in Times of India of India of April 14, 2010
The RTI Spectre
The act is working. Don’t tamper with it
Few of our public institutions foster a culture of transparency and accountability. The Right to In-formation (RTI) Act was enacted in 2005 to change tradition of opacity and make governance a trans-parent process. The Act’s been working reasonably well and has become useful tool for a large cross-section of civil society to examine the workings of government. Since in the process institutional failings get exposed as well, there is resistance to the RTI culture from various quarters including the government.
Many public institutions that come under the ambit of the Act now want its radical edge blunted. Many state information commissions are starved of funds and personnel, which may lead to a collapse of the institution itself. Pleas to amend the Act must be seen in this context and handled with caution. As Congress president Sonia Gandhi wrote in her letter to the prime minister, “It is important that we adhere strictly to its (RTI Act) original aims and re-frain from accepting or introducing changes in the legislation on the way it is implemented that would dilute its purpose.” Sonia’s intervention has come in the wake of a letter written by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to the Prime Minister. The letter states that information concerning the functioning of the judiciary should be exempted from the scope of the Act to safeguard its independence.
The CJI’s apprehensions about possible misuse of in-formation of “a highly confidential and sensitive nature” are valid. But should, for example, information on in-house inquiry proceedings regarding allegations against sitting judges or appointment of judges in high court be considered sensitive and barred from the public eye? Should not the apex court be in the forefront of an initiative to make the working of public institutions transparent? The push to amend the RTI Act came first from the government itself. Last year, the government proposed amendments to the Act so that “frivolous and vexatious” applications could be discarded and disclosure of file notings exempted. The amendments failed to pass muster with state information commissioners, but they could be revived at any time.
To give teeth to the RTI legislation, the government must beef up infrastructure at the information commissions. More personnel and infrastructure must be created fast at the commissions to avoid a break-down. There are already more than 11,000 cases pending with the Central Information Commission. The situation is worse in many states. The focus must be on a climate of openness, rather than trying to restrict the scope of RTI Act.
Right to Information – A route to good Governance
The book under above title was published by BCAS Foundation in 2007. Its updated, enlarged and re-vised edition authored and compiled by Narayan Varma was launched by BCAS on 25th March by Shri TN Manoharan, former president of ICAI and the director of Satyam Computer Services Ltd and now Padma Shri.
Same was re-released by Public Concern for Governance Trust (joint publishers of this edition) on 7th April through the hands of Dr. Suresh Joshi, the Chief Information Commissioner, Maharashtra. The function was extensively covered by the Press. Hereunder is what DNA reported on 08.04.2010:
- RTI replies may soon be at your doorstep in 7 days State information commissioner will write to CM for faster disposal of cases
If State information commissioner Suresh Joshi has his way, information sought under the Right to Infor-mation (RTI) Act will be made available to citizens in seven days, and not the stipulated 30 days.
Speaking at the launch of RTI activist Narayan Varma’s book Right to Information – A Route to Good Governance on Wednesday, Joshi said he will be writing to the chief minister and the chief secre-tary asking for a change in the Act to ensure faster dissemination of information.
Joshi said that in only 15% of the total applications, information officers may need more than a week to respond. “There is no reason for all applicants to wait for a month to get a reply,” Joshi said, adding, “I will also ask the chief minister and chief secretary to compliment officers who give information within seven days.”
Talking about the success of the RTI Act, Joshi said corruption has gone down by 20%, “The RTI Act has increased accountability and transparency. Bureau-crats cannot shirk their responsibilities anymore.”
He said the government needs to appoint senior officers as first appellant authorities (FAA). “If there is better work at that level, 50% of our work will re-duce,” he sad.
Talking about Varma’s book, Joshi said it was a one-stop guide for all RTI related queries. The book contains information on prominent cases and judgments given by various commissioners. “The idea is not only to create awareness, but also to help peo-ple understand the Act,” Varma said.
Information under RTI now in just 15 days
True to his words as reported in above, Dr. Joshi wrote to CM on April 8. Hereunder news item in In-dian Express of 22.04.2010:
CITIZENS now may not have to wait for 30 days to get details under the Right to Information Act. In a bid to make Maharashtra progressive by setting a good trend in RTI, State Information Commissioner Suresh Joshi has requested Chief Minister Ashok Chavan to issue a resolution to make information available in 15 days.
With the State receiving 4.4 lakh applications from citizens – considered higher than in the US and Mexico – and disposal rate of more than 95 percent Joshi said it was about time that Maharashtra moves to giving information earlier than the 30-days limit.
In 2002, before the Central Government accepted the Act, Maharashtra had its own RTI Act, which required providing information within 15 days.
Therefore, there shouldn’t be a problem in going back to the original process. “It is not difficult to give details or documents in 15 days as everything is available in the department itself. Officials can send letters to applicants in seven days time to take the information after paying necessary amount and by the 15th day they can hand over the detail,” Joshi said.
The letter – a copy of which is available with The Indian Express written to Chavan on April 8 – states that a Government Resolution should be issued urging officials to try hard and give information in 15 days. Chavan is expected to reply to the letter in the next few weeks.
Although officials doing so cannot be given monetary incentive, head of departments could be suggested to take this note while considering promotions, the letter states.
“There are Confidential Reports prepared for officers by their seniors and they can mention that due to exemplary services in disposing RTI queries he could be considered for accelerated promotion,” Joshi said. While amendment to this extent in the act will require Center’s approval, Joshi said that Maharashtra can experiment and see if the effort is successful.
“If information could be given in 15 days and all departments follow the rule instead of waiting for 30 days, then the state can set an example and then central government could take the lead and make a similar suggestion for other states,” Joshi said.
While Joshi is happy with the massive use of the RTI by citizens he has expressed dissatisfaction in section 4 of the act which requires voluntary disclosure of information on part of government.
NSE is a Public Authority
High Court of Delhi in a decision dated 15th April, 2010 have held that NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LIMITED is a “public authority” as it is an “authority or institution of self government’ constituted or established by notification or order issued by the appropriate Government. It is also held that the petitioner is controlled by the appropriate Government.
Detailed reporting of this landmark decision will be made in the next month’s article. In Mumbai, we are moving Bombay High Court, where Writ petition is pending, to decide similarly in the matter of BSE.
