ORDERS OF THE COURT

Finally in 2007 I was told after several visits to the Registrar’s Office in Lonavala, that the document was received but for want of space in Lonavala office, it is sent to the Registrar’s office at Vadgaon-Maval about 20 miles away from Lonavala. I visited Vadgaon from time to time with my wife and with the advocate. Every time we were informed that the document will have to be searched out from a heap of documents and I must wait till evening to give them enough time to look for the same. My advocate also inquired several times at Vadgaon, but every time the reply was the same that it was not traceable.

I talked to Narayan Varma who suggested to make an application under the RTI Act and he helped me to prepare the application including questions there-in regarding how many documents were lodged for Registration in 1993, which were still pending in 2010 and how many were registered and returned to the applicants, what was the limit prescribed under the Act and more specifically when will my document, lodged in March 1993, be registered.

Within 15 days, I received a reply at my Mumbai address that my documents will be sent to me in due course but in the meanwhile, I could take inspection at Vadgaon by paying the necessary charges. I replied, thanking them for their letter sent after 17 years (Lord Ramachandraji’s vanvas was over in 14 years) and asking them to send original sale deed at the earliest. Lo and behold?! Within ten days, I get the original document in 2010 registered in 1993?!

The moral of the fairy tale is that one must invoke one’s rights as a citizen more frequently under the RTI Act, particularly when activist like Shri Narayan-bhai is out to help us and citizens must exercise their rights under statute given by the government by taking a little extra trouble?!

(Continued from January 2010)

  5.  Sub judice?:

The Appellate Authority had claimed exemption u/s.8(1)(e), but the PIO has given no reason to justify how S. 8(1)(e) can apply.

The CIC decision cited by the respondent states ‘The matter is sub judice. The Appellate Authority has cor-rectly advised that information in question could be obtained through the Court which is examining the matter.’ No reasoning has been offered as to which exemption clause of the RTI Act applies. The only exemp-tion of S. 8(1) which might remotely apply and under which information can be denied is S. 8(1)(b) states, ‘information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any Court of law or Tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of Court;’

This clause does not cover sub judice matters, and unless an exemption is specifically mentioned, information cannot be denied. Disclosing information on matters which are sub judice does not constitute contempt of Court, unless there is a specific order forbidding its disclosure. I respectfully have to disagree with the earlier decision cited by the appellant since it is per incuriam.

This Commission rules that a matter being sub judice cannot be used as a reason for denying information under the Right to Information Act.

    6. Privacy?:

U/s.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 State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger interest justifies the disclosure of such information?:” To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria?:

It must be personal information. Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In common language 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 S. 8(1)(j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.]

The phrase ‘disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest’ means that the information must have some relationship to public activity. Various public authorities in performing their functions 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 permission, licence or authorisation, all these are public activities.

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 safeguards. Therefore it can be argued that where the State routinely obtains information from the citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy.

Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of ex-pression and right to life are universal and therefore would apply in all countries uniformly. However, the concept of ‘privacy’ is related to the society and different societies would look at these differently. India has not codified this right so far, hence in balancing the right to information of citizens and the individual’s right to privacy, the citizen’s right to information would be given greater weightage.

Therefore we can accept that disclosure of informa-tion which is routinely collected by public authority and routinely provided by individuals, would not be an invasion on the privacy of individual and there will only be a few exceptions to this rule which might re-late to information which is obtained by a public au-thority while using extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone-tapping.

    From the Budget speech of Pranab Mukherjee, Minister of Finance on February 26, 2010?:
Inclusive development?:

    For the UPA Government, inclusive development is an act of faith. In the last five years, our Government has created entitlements backed by legal guarantees for an individual’s right to information and her/his right to work. This has been followed-up with the enactment of the right to education in 2009-10. As the next step, we are now ready with the draft of Food Security Bill which will be placed in the public domain very soon.

Ritika Sharma and her father claimed in the police complaint that they had provided Rs.30 lakh in dowry (in jewellery, cash and kind) to Ritika’s husband Mohan Sharma. Facing the prospect of imprisonment, Mohan Sharma filed an RTI application, seeking the income-tax details of his father-in-law.

It was revealed that Ritika’s father had only declared nominal income. It then became apparent that the claims made by the father-daughter duo about the dowry payment were false. The matter is sub judice. (Names changed)

Case 2?:

A month ago, Visakha Malhotra filed an RTI application seeking details of her ex-husband’s income after she was denied rightful maintenance following her divorce. Her husband had claimed that he was a busi-nessman. “Her petition was based on her right to live with dignity,” said a senior I-T official, on condition of anonymity. (Name changed)

According to income-tax officials, the trend of seeking RTI for dowry and maintenance cases began after a Delhi High Court judgment. In a 2007 case, Bhagat Singh was denied information regarding the earnings of his wife (with whom he had a discord), by the Income-tax Department, on the ground that the matter was being investigated. Singh, who was accused by his wife Saroj Nimal of accepting a dowry of Rs.10 lakh from her, filed a request with the Income-tax Department for investigating into his wife’s sources of income in view of the fact that she was a primary school teacher. In a landmark judgment, the Court directed the Income-tax Department to provide the information sought by Bhagat Singh.

The trend seems to be really catching on now. “There are around 30 ranges in the National Capital Region and each of these ranges processes or receives around 3 to 4 RTI applications seeking Income-tax details and most of them are related to either dowry harassment or maintenance cases.”

    Tax refunds?:

At our RTI clinics, we assist many to make RTI application for the pending income-tax refunds. They invariably get the refund. The Times of India on March 15 reported on this subject and said?: Life just got better for millions who have ran from pillar to post for years to secure their tax refunds from the Income-tax (I-T) Department. In the landmark ruling, the Central Information Commissioner has passed an order which says “information on refunds is covered under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.”

M. L. Sharma, the Central Information Commissioner, while passing the order, said?:

“To deny the appellant information sought by him under clause (e) or clause (j) of S. 8(1) is nothing but misappreciation of law.”

“The information sought by the appellant is covered u/s.2(f) of the RTI Act and he has a right to seek information u/s.2(j) thereof. It is clarified that the appellant has not sought any information which the public authority is holding in fiduciary capacity.”

While directing the Income-tax Department to disclose information for the inordinate delay, he also ordered the issue of refunds within three months.

The CIC also rapped the Department for failing to appear in a hearing arranged by the Commission where the appellant was present.

    Cabinet’s advice to the President of India?:

Pushing the boundaries in its interpretation of the Right to Information Act (RTI), the Central Information Commission (CIC) said advice given by the Union Cabinet to the President is liable for disclosure under the information law.

Referring to SC ruling on Article 74(2) on the question of constitutional privilege, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah ruled that though the Constitution said the Cabinet’s advice to the President could not be ‘inquired into’, it did not mean that such advice could not be ‘disclosed’. “It does not mean the nature of this advice can’t be disclosed,” he said while directing the President’s Secretariat to al-low checking of files pertaining to communication between former President Shanker Dayal Sharma and ex-PM Narasimha Rao on the issue of extending SC status to Dalits who had converted to Christianity.

    Monitoring Govt. projects through the use of RTI?:

Although the State Chief Information Commissioner has asked alert citizens to monitor Government projects through the use of RTI, not many are satisfied with the way their efforts have found support.

The experience of Bhaskar Prabhu, an RTI activist and a member of Mahiti Adhikar Manch, an NGO that monitors Government spending, has not been good enough. Prabhu filed an application to monitor the money spent on grass beds at tree bases on Dr. Ambedkar Road in F/South ward, Mumbai. He also sought information on the expenses on iron guards around the trees. The details sought were for work orders worth Rs.7.26 lakhs that were passed in Octo-ber 2008 and January 2009. The work was to be completed by March 2009.

But the Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to his April 2009 application in time. After the hearing at the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in May 2009, the application got misleading and incomplete information.

“They did give information of grass beds, but not the locations of the work. It was impossible to see if the work was completed,” said Prabhu.

There was no information of the 164 iron grill tree guards for which money was already paid. The money set aside for the guards is 25% of entire amount. When he complained to the ward officer and deputy superintendent of gardens, it got known that around 20 guards were put and some petty penalty was imposed on the contractor. There is still no information to conduct the audit, a frustrated Prabhu said.

When contacted, H. Kale, Assistant Commissioner, F/ South ward, said, “The file is not in my hand anymore. It has been given to some other officers. We have slapped a fine of Rs.50,000 on the contractor.”

    Skywalks in Mumbai?:

Even as Mumbaikars question the need for so many sky-walks in the city, reply given to a query under the Right to Information Act is an eye-opener. Each of the 67 sky-walks in Mumbai have been proposed by an elected representative — an MP, MLA or a corporator. In fact, there are cases where work on skywalk stopped because the local representatives initially supported it and then changed their stance, following opposition from sane people. Nearly all the requests have been made orally by elected representatives, stated the RTI replies to the Grant Road citizen Arvind Dagha’s queries.

Construction of 67 skywalks at a cost of Rs.1.400 crore has been taken up. Initially, around 50 skywalks were to be constructed at the cost of Rs.600 crore. That number was later increased to 67. A. K. Pehal, in charge of the skywalk project, said they were being constructed only after carrying out a study.

    Stop attacks on RTI activists?:

In his Budget speech, Union Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee said the weaknesses in government systems, structures and institutions posed a challenge to policy planners. He said our public delivery mechanisms prevented the country from realising its true potential. The analysis is spot on. So, how do we fix governance?? Transparency and accountability hold the key to good governance. Institutional reforms are necessary to achieve this. The Government plans to set up a financial sector legislative reforms commission and an independent evaluation office to assess public programmes. These are timely. Many enabling legislations have been passed in recent years to make administrators responsible to citizens. But laws alone aren’t enough. Mindsets also must change if the legal safeguards are to become effective.

The experience of the Right to Information (RTI) Act is instructive. The RTI Act has been a radical step to-wards making administration transparent and ac-countable. Civil society groups have used the RTI Act to expose corruption in public administration and ser-vices. But not all sections of society have reacted favourably to the Act. Often, bureaucrats refuse to part with information demanded under the RTI. A worse trend is to attack RTI activists physically. The latest case is from Maharashtra where a Thane-based RTI activist was shot at. The Government needs to curb such crimes. The message must go out that attacks on RTI activists will not be tolerated. Public delivery mechanisms can improve only if the State and civil society work together to plug loopholes in these systems.

(Editorial in The Times of India, dated 4-3-2010)

    Sonia forces PM to put RTI amendments on hold?:

Plans to amend the Right to Information (RTI) Act have been put on ice, with Congress bosses taking up with the Government the complaint of the activists that the proposed changes would lead to dilution of the information law. Senior sources said the amend-ments will have to wait till the time the Government dispels fears of rights activists.

Congress Chief Sonia Gandhi wrote to PM Manmohan Singh some time ago, drawing his attention to the fear of activists. The PM and virtually the entire Government feel the amendments are necessary for smooth functioning of the Government and to keep out frivolous complaints, but Singh has agreed to hold consultations with stakeholders (read activists).

According to some reports, Singh is also in favour of excluding the office of the CJI from the RTI Act ambit. The amendments proposed by the PM would keep the office of the CJI out of the purview of the Act. However, Sonia Gandhi has opposed any such amendments.