Three interesting points are decided in CIC’s decision dated
30-4-2008 in the matter of Shri Deepak H. Chhabria of Mumbai v. Ministry of
Overseas Indian Affairs.
In Shri Chhabria’s RTI application, he wanted to know whether
a demand draft of Rs.25,000 sent by the Employment Promotion Council of Indian
Personnel, Mumbai, was encashed by the Ministry for renewal of RC for 25 years,
etc.
1.1 RTI application filed on 8 March, 2007 was first replied
by the PIO on 21 June, 2007, i.e., a delay of more than two months,
beyond the period (one month) stipulated for reply in the RTI Act.
1.2 The Commission, therefore, decided to issue a show-cause
notice as to why penalty should not be levied for this delay under Section 20(1)
of the Act.
2.1 In the first reply given, the respondents informed the
appellant that they were collecting the information which would be supplied to
him. However, later through a letter of 14 August 2007, they informed the
appellant that they regarded the information asked for as third-party
information.
2.2 The Commission was sorry to see this change of stand of
the respondents. The Commission examined the issue and came to the conclusion
that even though the information asked is about others than the appellant who
filed the application, in view of the public interest involved in the case, this
cannot be regarded as third-party information. The matter, obviously, involves
and affects a lot of persons. It, therefore, directed the respondents to
disclose all the documents/files on the subject to the appellant by 21 May 2008.
3.1 The Commission also noticed that the replies received by
the appellant from the respondents were signed neither by the PIO, nor by the
Appellate Authority but other officials in the Department.
3.2 The Commission warned the respondents to henceforth
ensure that provisions of the Act are adhered to in letter and spirit and that
response to the RTI applications and appeals are signed by the PIO and the
Appellate Authority, respectively. They were also directed to mention the name
of the Appellate Authority while making the first response to the RTI
application.
(No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01297 decided on 30-4- 2008)
Inspection of files
where investigation is in process :
This is the case of one Shri Dhirendra Krishna. In this case
the decision was given on 29-2-2008. In the said decision, while quoting from
the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Shri Bhagat Singh v. Chief
Information Commissioner & Ors., (Refer BCAJ, May 08) the Commission had
concluded as follows :
“To enable us, therefore, to examine as to the manner in
which inspection of the concerned file will impede the process of prosecution
in this case, if at all, particularly since this process has been pending for
so long, the concerned file will be submitted to us for our inspection on
2-5-2008 at 4.00 p.m. in the office premises of the CBI.”
The inspection was shifted to the CIC’s office. In the
submissions, CBI’s representative submitted a statement of details of Court
hearings. The same were from 27-1-2000 to 26-3-2008, next hearing fixed on
2-9-2008. As many as 17 hearings had taken place along with number of
adjournments from time to time.
The CBI representative submitted that the failure to frame
charges was not a result of any resistance on the part of the prosecution, he
submitted that in this case the appellant together with other co-accused in the
same case have sought discharge first in the Trial Court and then from the High
Court, but their discharge applications have been dismissed. He further
submitted that whereas they have brought all the relevant records for the
inspection, they have no difficulty in allowing inspection of any record held by
them in relation to the case of appellant Shri Dhirendra Krishna, whether relied
upon and therefore filed before the Trial Court or indeed records that have not
been filed and have not been relied upon, which appellant Shri Dhirendra Krishna
has in his appeal before us and subsequent representations repeatedly claimed to
exist by pleading that such records will assist him in contesting the case.
These are open for inspection by appellant Shri Dhirendra Krishna. With this
therefore, respondents have in fact, withdrawn the exemption from disclosure
sought u/s.8(1)(h), agreeing to inspection which will include any record of
which a list was handed over to the appellant Shri Dhirendra Krishna with a copy
retained on the CIC’s record in the hearing on 22-2-2008.
It is difficult to imagine why the CBI changed its stand, may
be after coming to know of the contents of the judgment of the High Court of
Delhi as reported in May 2008 issue of BCAJ.
Part B : The RTI Act
Part II of Chapter 5 of the Annual Report 2005-06 as
published by the Central Information Commission deals with suggestions for
reforms.
Clause (g) of S. 25(3) mandates that each such report shall
state :
(g) recommendations for reform, including recommendations
in respect of the particular public authorities for the development,
improvement, modernisation, reform or amendment to this Act or other
legislation or common law or any other matter relevant for operating the right
to access information.
In this part, the Commission has listed suggestions received
from different public authorities for reforming the Act to ensure better
implementation. Some of such reforms suggested are :
Public Information Officers should be provided with supporting staff and other infrastructure such as computer, printer, space for staff, etc.
Time limit for destroying old files be re-evaluated and re-fixed and that clarifications should be issued regarding entitlement of the questioner to very old records, which will not help the public.
A specific amendment may be made in the RTI Act with reference to the period up to which in-formation can be requested/furnished.
The fee be increased for detailed information covering large periods of time, which is sought in a format in which the information is generally not maintained by Ministries/Departments.
This suggestion is given by several public authorities as they feel that this is a lacuna, which needs to be taken care of to discourage frivolous and superfluous requests under the Act.
Several public authorities want some sort of exemption from the purview of the Act. For example, while the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions) requested exemption from disclosure of information relating to examination and recruitment/ appointment cases, the DMRC requested __ general exemption as it is undertaking a time-bound exercise of completing the Delhi Metro.
The Supreme Court of India (Ministry of Law , Justice) has sought exemption from the Act for any information, which, in the opinion of the Chief Justice of India or his nominee, may adversely affect or interfere or tend to interfere with the independence of the judiciary or administration of justice.
“‘.. The Supreme Court of India has suggested that a decision by the Chief Justice of India under the Act should not be subjected to further appeal. It has suggested adding the following proviso to S. 19(3) :
“Provided further that the second appeal arising out of the Order passed by an officer of the Supreme Court of India inferior in rank to Registrar General of the Supreme Court of India shall lie before the Registrar General of the Supreme Court of India”.
Some public authorities have suggested that provisions of the RTI Act be extended to cover private sector as well or exemption be considered for public sector undertakings in the same field, like banks, insurance companies, Sail v. Tata Steel, RIL v. ONGe, etc.
Canara Bank (Ministry of Finance) has suggested making the application fee mandatory for appeals as well.
The CBI has observed that if the immediate Appellate Authority has also rejected a request for information, it is not fair to penalise the Central Public Information Officer alone for not providing the information.
Many suggestions have been received for safe-guards to be built into the Act, such as :
- Safeguards to discourage those who request personal information,
- Safeguards to ensure that the Act does not become a tool in the hands of delinquent employees to serve their own interests,
- Requested the inclusion of provisions to check the bona fide of the requester and to refuse information to those who are not directly concerned with it or might use it for promoting their own business interests or may misuse it.
The time frame of one month for replying to queries may be increased, the number of questions in a single representation may be restricted to only one; suitable amendment may be made in the Act, so as to specify / curtail the number of applications an applicant can make on the same issue.
In conclusion, the report states that the stocktaking of the implementation of the Act reveals that more still needs to be done.
These include:
- Proper indexing and computerisation of records for regular and consistent publishing on the website of the public authority, so that members of the public do not need to personally file an application or VISitthe official to seek information.
- Public authorities must also begin to use open access software such as Wiki or Plone to upload information that they have disclosed to citizens under RTI on their website. They could initially upload only the information which is most requested by citizens, and steadily, say, within the next 12 months, move towards a system where all information that is requested is automatically made public, unless it falls under the exempted category.
- Finally, an attitudinal change is needed among public officials who still believe that they have a monopoly over records and resent the public’s demand for ‘too much’ information for ‘too less’ a fee.
- Public authorities must attempt to make the Act as citizen-friendly as possible rather than pitch for exemption from its purview. Initiatives such as the ones listed above would be more in line with the letter and intent of the Act, which has placed on public authorities the onus of its effective implementation.
Part C : Other News
Government’s apathy for RTI Act:
‘Mint’ under the feature ‘Our View’ has made very revealing remarks on the Government’s apathy to ‘f’ spread awareness of the RTI Act, even though the Act mandates it to do it. ‘Mint’ writes:
“The contrast is a stark one. While cricket fans are endlessly reminded through TV spots about the Governments’ flagship Bharat Nirman programme, there is no attempt to publicise the provisions of the landmark Right to Information Act, 2005. Why? Because the former is a potential vote winner, while the latter is politically useless and a bureaucratic nightmare.”
• Judiciary under RTI Act:
After the speaker of Loksabha (reported in BCAJ May issue) now, the former Chief Justice of India, J. S. Verma has commented on the issue of the coverage of the Courts under the RTI Act.
In reply to the question: How do you view CJI K. G. Balakrishnan’s controversial statement that being a constitutional office holder he was not answerable under RTI ?
He replies: In a democracy, no one is unaccountable. The mode of enforcement of accountability may, can and should vary according to the nature and position of the public functionary. The CJI is no exception to this rule. The Constitution provides for his removal, which is the ultimate form of accountability. He is accountable even for his judicial functioning. He has to hear cases in open Court and give reasoned decisions which are subject to public scrutiny. So, where is the scope to suggest that he can’t be accountable for his administrative functioning?
Further, in reply to the question: Doesn’t the judiciary’s hostility to RTI make a mockery of the three resolutions of judicial accountability passed by the SC Judges under your leadership?
His reply is : When those three resolutions were unanimously adopted on May 7, 1997, I did hope that they would be institutionalised in due course. Much as I admire the SC ruling that every political candidate should disclose his antecedents, I cannot imagine how a judge can hold others to a standard he does not apply to himself.
It appears that CJI, Mr. Balakrishnan, still maintains that CJI is not ‘a public authority’ within the meaning of the RTI Act.
It is now learnt that undeterred by the Chief Justice of India’s assertion that he does not come under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has decided to take up the issue in a Full-Bench hearing soon.
The issue is likely to come up before the Supreme Court breaks for recess. The issue comes at a time when the CJI has mellowed down from his earlier stance and said that his office is that of a public servant. “The CJI is a constitutional authority. RTI does not cover constitutional authorities”, the CJI had recently remarked. In a statement later, he clarified that he was a public servant and the issue of being governed under the Act was debatable.
• Interesting incident in SIC’s office:
Hussain, an Indian Forest Service officer of the 1980 batch, was appointed Secretary to the Maharashtra Information Commission a year ago. On one day in May, when Hussain reached the office, he was told that he had already been relieved and that he should get in touch with his parent (forest) department for his new assignment. According to reports, Buldhana collector Vasant Poreddiwar has taken over as the new Secretary of the Commission.
Hussain had been busy organising a one-day meeting of Chief Information Commissioners at Pune. After the meeting, when he reached his office in the New Administrative Building across Mantralaya, he saw Poreddiwar already occupying his office. He was then informed that he had been repatriated to his parent (forest) department. It was a mockery of the Right to Information Act. The CIC, which decides on applications under the RTI, failed to inform Hussain that he had been transferred.
• Does R in RTI mean ‘RedressaI’?:
One RTI activist writes: The Right to Information Act, in its second year, can well be christened the Redressal through Information Act. For, in an un-recorded trend, the 2005 law, meant to empower citizens with details of Government decisions, is now being increasingly used as a means of redressal of grievances.
Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah says that the use of RTI as a grievance-redressal mechanism was not totally unexpected, at least by activist groups. It is noticed that RTI now is being largely used for getting details of delayed. passports, ration cards, denial of pensions and son. While the CIC is clear on the purpose of RTI, in such cases where there is a violation of rules or law, citizens certainly can be helped. The pattern of redressal grievances is picking up in the country. Some of the instances are :
- A resident of Jhansi got details of what he al-leged was the forged DNA fingerprinting report of his 5-year old son, which his wife had got done.
- An appellant got details of the computation of his pensionary benefits denied to him for the last 10 years.
- The North-Eastern Railways was asked to furnish all information to an applicant relating to” recruitment and promotion of engineers, since . he had alleged malpractices in promotion of staff .
- The Municipal Corporation of Delhi was asked to respond in 10 days to an applicant who had for long been seeking information regarding permissible limits for construction on a plot.
- A group of appellants from Varanasi filed a complaint against the Ministry of Textiles, since they were aggrieved with non-implementation of; health-insurance scheme for weavers. The Ministry was asked to settle the grievances within a month.
- The CIC made a “strong recommendation” to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot a plot under the Janata category in Rohini, since the applicant’s allotment number was wrongly quoted by the bank and the allotment cancelled. “This amounts to denial of the right of a member of the public and also denial of natural justice,” the CIC order noted.
- The Employees Provident Fund Organisation was ordered to return Rs.625 deducted from an applicant’s subsistence allowance to be paid to -: the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, since it was done without taking his consent.
RTI exposes nepotism in Kerala Government:
RTI query has put Kerala’s left Government in a spot, inviting charges of promoting nepotism and also raising questions about the CPM’s stand on ethics in public life.
At the centre of the storm is Kerala Health Minister P. K. Sreemathi, who has inducted her daughter-in-law Dhanya M. Nair into her personal staff. This was revealed by the General ;.,Administration Department in response to RTI query seeking details of Sreemathi’s personal staff. The request was filed by AIADMK State Secretary Sreenivasan Venugopal.
In reply, Venugopal got a list of 22 names including Dhanya, who is married to Sreemathi’s son. She had joined the staff as a clerk and was only recently promoted to the post of additional personal assistant. Her salary works out to around Rs. 17,000 p.m. Dhanya will also be eligible for pension once she completes 2 years in her post.
Delays in appeals before Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions:
Almost everywhere it has been a sorry state of affairs. Recently, it has come to the public notice that in UP, more than half of over 9000 appeals and complaints made are pending. Out of 9946 appeals and complaints received in UP SIC’S office during 2006-07, as at the end of March 2008, 4088 appeals and complaints have remained pending .
CIC’s Press Release:
To foster the spirit of ‘share & care’ amongst the stakeholders, the Central Information Commission has provided a platform on its website
where the public authorities/Central Government Ministries/Departments can post what they consider a ‘Best Practice’ with regard to implementation of the RTI in their set-up. The enlight- I ened citizens among us who want to publicly acknowledge and recognise the ‘heroes’ amongst the public authorities who they consider to have innovated a procedure in their organisations or improved on the existing ones, so as to make the accessibility of information hassle-free to the larger masses may also share their experience and what they liked about the practice in the public authority, so that it could be replicated and/ or further improved.
