fiogf49gjkf0d
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), the country’s largest civic body, has been fielding the most Right to Information (RTI) queries of any public institution across the state. Observers said this indicates the desire of Mumbai’s citizens to have greater participation in public affairs.
Following are the number of applications received by various P. As in Maharashtra and at BMC:
|
Year
|
State
|
|
BMC
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
4.16L
|
|
46967
|
11.3%
|
|
2009
|
4.40L
|
|
59018
|
13.4%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
5.48L
|
|
72789
|
13.3%
|
|
2011
|
6.45L
|
|
90419
|
14.0%
|
|
2012
|
6.50L
|
plus*
|
1.02L
|
15.7%
|
Activists said the BMC shouldn’t pride itself on getting such a high number of queries, as this indicates a lack of transparency. “This means that BMC has failed to put up information on its website suo moto. The BMC must understand that Mumbai is an active city, with greater citizens’ participation. So there are bound to be more RTI applications in the absence of data from the BMC,” said Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner and chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on RTI set up by the BMC.
Jinnah’s Speeches:
The Central Information Commission has asked the government to take a view on disclosure of two speeches made by Pakistan founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah during the pre-Independence era, which are in the archives of All India Radio and explain the reasons for withholding them if it intends to do so. Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra said more than 60 years after the country’s independence, the time has come when all concerned must decide what information relating to the pre-Independence period should be made available to public.
The PMO has turned down an RTI request seeking records of an affidavit it filled in connection with the probe into the alleged land deals made by Congress chief Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra on grounds of “confidentiality”.
Nutan Thakur of Lucknow, through an RTI application, wanted to know all the file notings related to the PMO affidavit placed before the HC. She also wanted to know about the action taken after her petition was received. In its first reply in April, the PMO claimed that since the matter is sub-judice, records cannot be disclosed. Thakur then argued that such details can only be withheld when there is an explicit order from the court.
Later, in a reply on June 6, the PMO said, “The office, keeping in view the SC ruling, has sought exemption as the matter has been treated as confidential.”
It quoted a Supreme Court order which said that exception u/s. 8(1)(e) (of the RTI Act) is available not only in regard to information held by a public authority in a fiduciary capacity, but also to any information given or made available by a public authority to anyone else for being held in a fiduciary capacity.
