Month: April

Issue before the M.P. High Court was whether any public authority can make its own rules and prescribe thereby the fees to be paid for issue of information and copies of documents, etc.

Cantonment Board, Jabalpur (CBJ) passed the resolution and prescribed the fees to be paid under the RTI Act. Under it, fees prescribed were Rs.50 per page of A4 size (against Rs.2 as prescribed in the Central Government RTI rules).

The appellant was asked to deposit Rs.650 towards cost of providing information sought. He accordingly filed a writ. Before the Court, CBJ contended : “The Cantonment Board, Jabalpur has determined the schedule of fees looking to the schedule adopted by the M.P. Government and the Hon’ble High Court of M.P. The Cantonment Board, Jabalpur had done so as the expenses incurred in issuing copies and information were much higher than the fees being paid by the applicants seeking information. The Cantonment Board, Jabalpur being a local body akin to the Municipal Corporation adopted the schedule of fees existing for the Municipal Corporation in the State of M.P”.

Further, it was contended that the information is sought at times from various old records more than 50 years old. It requires involvement of staff which is already short. Considering these and various other aspects, reasonable cost for providing information has been prescribed vide Resolution No. 37, dated 20-12-2005, which is within the powers of the Cantonment Board, Jabalpur being municipal body. It has been mentioned specifically that the High Court has fixed minimum fees of Rs.50 per application in case of general application and Rs.500 in case of information related to tenders, documents, bids, business regulations and the actual cost of medium or printing cost price in case of other documents vide No. 15-R(J), dated 10-1-2006, copy of which is on records as Annexure R/2. However, during pendency of the writ petition, the Cantonment Board, Jabalpur acceded to the request of various sections of people and withdrew Resolution No. 37, dated 20-12-2005 vide Resolution No. 6, dated 13-9-2007. Accordingly, it is contended that the petition has been rendered infructuous.

The Court noted that although the resolution in question has already been withdrawn, in view of the stand taken by the respondents that the Resolution No. 37 was rightly passed and further in view of the relief for refund of costs it is thought proper to decide the issue raised herein.

It has been contended by the respondents that the Cantonment Board is a local body like Municipal Council and is well competent to make the rules regarding fees and costs as made by the Court. Suffice to say that the Chief Justice of the High Court is a competent authority within the ambit of definition as contained in S. 2(e) of the Act and therefore, by virtue of S. 28 it has powers to make rules with regard to fees and cost in exercise of powers under S. 28 of the Act. The Cantonment Board, Jabalpur being outside the purview of the term ‘Competent Authority’ within the meaning of S. 2(e) of the Act is not competent like the Chief Justice of High Court to make rules. In this view of the matter, the subject Resolution No. 37, dated 20-12-2005 was without any power and had no legal sanctity. Reliance on the prescription of fee and cost by the High Court is absolutely incorrect and misconceived. Since Resolution No. 37 has already been withdrawn, it is not required to be quashed.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that money received in excess is illegal and by no stretch of imagination it can be retained by CBJ contrary to their entitlement and CBJ was directed to refund the excess money out of the amount deposited by the applicant.

[2009 (1) ID 144 (M.P. High Court) : Amar Chand Bawaria v. Union of India and Others, W.P. No. 9264 of 2007, decided on 5-9-2008]

? Penalty – Reasonable cause Here, in this case, penalty of Rs.10,000 was imposed on the State PIO, S. P. Arora, estate officer of HUDA to be recovered in four monthly instalments for the lapse on his part for delay in furnishing the information. The Commission had also imposed a cost of Rs.2000 on account of considerable harassment to the applicant of the information.

The facts of the case were : The sequence of the events would show that the information was sought on 29-1-2007 on one plot when the file of the plot in question was lying with the Bank. The file was received back on 22-2-2007, but again sent to the Bank on 13-3-2007. The same was received on 30-3-2007 and information was supplied on 10-4-2007.

The Court held : “The penalty can be imposed only if there is no reasonable cause for not furnishing the information within the period of 30 days. The word ‘reasonable’ has to be examined in the manner which a normal person would consider it to be reasonable. The right to seek information is not to be extended to the extent that even if the file is not available for the good reasons, still steps are required to be taken by the officer to procure the file and to supply information. The information is required to be supplied within 30 days only if the record is available with the office. The inference cannot be drawn of the absence of reasonable cause for the reason that file could have been requisitioned back from the Bank. Since file was not available with the office, the inference drawn does not seem to be justified.”

In view thereof, the Court was of the opinion that the order of imposing penalty on the petitioner is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned order passed by the State Public Information Commission was set aside.

[2009 (1) ID 1 (Pb & Hry. High Court) : S. P. Arora, SPIO Cum Estate Officer, HUDA v. State Information Commission, Haryana and Others, CWP No. 15288 of 2007, decided on : 17-10-2008]

Part B: The RTI Act

Standing Committee of the Parliament on RTI Act, 2005:

National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) has made a presentation before the above committee. Some of the items of the said presentation are worth noting to understand present deficiencies of the RTI Act.

In February 2009, two items were reported:

1.    Level of awareness.

2.    Use and misuse  of the RTI Act.

In March 2009, another two items were reported:

1.    Reduction of 20 years period for keeping docu-ments.

2.    Voluntary  disclosures.

Hereunder further 3 items:

Changes  in S. 8 :

Though provisions u/ s.8 are all reasonable, one of the most misused Section of the Act, as seen through our study, is S. 7(9). This Section says that information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought, unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Unfortunately, many government departments are hiding behind this Section to deny all sorts of information even though a close reading of the Section would make it clear that it does not allow you to deny any information, but only allows you to give it out instead in the form available. A circular from the Department of Personnel and Training has confounded the confusion further. Therefore, a clarification needs to be issued through all Information Commissions that this Section of the Act cannot be used to deny information, but only allows the PA to give asked-for information in the form available, rather than in the form asked for.

Another Section that is being misused to deny in-formation is S. 11(1). Again, a close reading of this Section makes it clear that:

(i)    Only that information can be considered third-party under this Section, which has been treated as confidential by the third party. Therefore, all information about a third party does not come under this Section.

(ii)    That even third-party information of this type cannot be withheld unless it is exempt u/ s.8 (1).

This Section of the Act is intended to give the concerned third party an opportunity to try and convince the PIa that the information asked for is exempt under one of the subsections of S. 8(1) or S. 9. Therefore, it obligates the PIO to give an opportunity to be heard to the third party.

However many PIOs are rejecting information that pertains to a third party even when it is not considered confidential by that third party, and without giving any notice to the third party or giving any ground for rejection u/s.8(1) or u/s.9, as required.

Penalties :

The prescription that Rs.250 per day should be imposed as penalty might be appropriate for cases of delay, but is not appropriate for other categories of offences, like refusal to accept application, wrong-ful denial, giving false information, destroying information, etc. These offences cannot be measured in days. Therefore, it would be more appropriate if for these offences a minimum and a maximum penalty was prescribed, giving discretion of the quantum to the Commissioner. These could be a minimum of Rs.5,OOO and a maximum of Rs.50,000 to be raised in keeping with inflation.

It is also important that penalties should be imposable on public authorities if they violate the RTIAct. So, for example, a public authority that does not comply with S. 4 (suo moto) declaration provisions, or does not appoint PIOs and APIOs, or in any way violates the provisions of the RTI Act, should also be required to pay a penalty of a minimum of Rs.25,OOO and a maximum of Rs.5 lakhs.

 Use of the RTI Act and refusal  of information:

We have used the RTI Act over three hundred times in the last three years. A bulk of this has been as a part of our study to assess the implementation of the RTI Act. However, there are many other instances where we have filed RTI. One interesting case, where information was denied to us, related to our request for access to records regarding the appoint-ment of the Chief Information Commissioner and other Central Information Commissioners in 2005. Though the Central Information Commission or-dered that this information be given to us, it never was and our review petition with the Information Commission is pending for over a year.

We had also applied to the Prime Minister’s Office and to the Department of Personnel and Training for access to records pertaining to the Cabinet decision, in 2006, to amend the RTI Act. This was also denied to us because the Government claimed that as the matter was not yet over and was still under consideration of the Cabinet, it was exempt from disclosure.

RTI helps physically-challenged youth:

He had completed standard X in 1996 and possessed a conductor’s licence issued by the Regional Transport Authority. However, his name did not find place in the list of candidates eligible to apply for the post of bus conductor in Madurai Division of TNSTC.

When his enquiry as to why he was dropped from the selection despite necessary qualifications was not replied to, he submitted an application under the RTI Act. In reply, he was informed that physically-challenged persons were not fit to be appointed as conductors.

The reply helped the youngster file a writ petition in the Madras High Court to consider his candidature as enunciated in Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Justice K. Venkataraman pointed out that as per the Notification published in the Union Gazette on March IS, 2007, bus conductor was one of the jobs that could be occupied by persons with orthopedic disabili ties.

He agreed with petitioner’s counsel G. Prabhu Rajadurai that there was no reason for the Madurai Division to reject physically challenged persons to the post of conductor when other Divisions were not doing so.

The Judge directed TNSTC to consider the petitioners’ plea within four weeks.

Disclosure of Ministers’ assets:

The controversial issue  of disclosure of Ministers’ assets has been hanging fire for over a year. Applicant Subhash Chandra Agarwal had asked for information related to assets of Union Ministers and their kin.

In his order, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said “the information is not disclosable except with the permission of the Speaker”. This is with reference to the disclosure of information related to Ministers who are LS members. If there is any equivalent rule with regard to the Rajya Sabha, this may also be exercised. The CIC has stipulated a time period of 30 days.

According to sources, there has been precedent when the Speaker has allowed disclosure of assets of LS members. Rules framed by the Parliament committee stipulate that LS members must submit assets in a sealed cover to the Speaker. The information is kept confidential till such time the Speaker deems fit. So far, the Government has been reluctant to part with the information and the PMO holds the view that information sought is exempt u/ s.8 of the RTI Act.

Compliance of S. 4 of the  RTI Act:

Maharashtra Information Commission receives the highest number of appeals in this country. Nearly, 16000 appeals and complaints are pending before the State Commission, some of them as old as of 2006. It appears that if the inflow as is presently continues, it will never be able to cope with reduc-ing the pendency. Hence, SCIC Dr. Suresh Joshi has urged State Chief Secretary Johny Joseph to ensure that public servants uphold the spirit of implementation of the RTI Act. In a letter dated February 25, 2009, Joshi warns Public Information Officers (PIa) to implement RTI Act in its true spirit or face action.

In his letter, he writes: “We get the maximum RTI applications in the world and there is no reason why we should not be judged as the most transparent State. PIOs are the fulcrum of the Act. If they do not discharge their responsibilities properly, then there is a fine. If the PIa does not give information on time, it means he is a willful defaulter. He cannot then say tha”the did not know the Act or that he was not trained. We will strictly implement the procedure of the Act”.

Information on selection of Judges:

The Delhi High Court has stayed an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) asking the Government to disclose documents on the appointment of the Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice, after the Centre pleaded that such information about Judges can’t be revealed under the RTI Act.

Challenging the CIC order that had asked the Govt. to reveal documents and file notings on the appointment of Himachal CJ Jagdish Bhalla, whose promotion file was returned by the then President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam in 2007, Additional Solicitor General P. P. Malhotra pleaded that such information was beyond the RTI purview. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, after hearing his contention, stayed the CIC order and issued a notice to the RTI applicant on whose plea the Commission had passed the direction.

Numbers at CIC :

The following are the disposals of appeals/complaints at the Central Information Commission from October 2008 to January 2009 :

Data available with the Times of India (Tal), accessed through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, shows that the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) incurred damages of around Rs.3 crore in various riots that broke out in different parts of the State in the 32 months between April 2006 and November 2008.

The recent Bombay High Court observation, saying leaders of rioting political parties should be made to pay for their supporters’ violence, has come as a shot in the arm for the transport utilities. MSRTC Vice-Chairman O. P. Gupta told TOI “the transport utility would cite the recent Court order that put the onus on political outfits to pay for damages. The political parties should be made responsible and pay up for the damages incurred”.

VIP Gifts:

The Central Information Commission has given the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) 20 days to disclose the system of assessing gifts received by ‘political rulers’ and constitutional authorities, including the President of India, the Prime Minister and Judges of higher courts from foreign countries. Information Commissioner Annapurna Dixit directed the Central Public Information Officer of MEA to provide information about how the assessment of these gifts is done and the list of protocol order.
 
The decision came on an appeal filed by S. C. Agarwal seeking information on the “system fol-lowed on gifts received from foreign countries” by constitutional authorities and others, including the President, Vice-President, LS Speaker, PM, Ministers, Governors, Judges of higher courts, chiefs of three services and others in the protocol list. The appeal also sought a disclosure on whether these gifts were in their official capacity or kept in personal custody or deposited with the Government.

This crisis is not about an individual. It is not about any one party. It is not about one international economic showdown. And, it is not a crisis which will be necessarily resolved by the next general elections, or the ones after that. The crisis that we are in is that two fundamental pillars of our republic, governance and democracy, which should be complimentary, have become antithetical to each other. This was not a situation envisaged by our Constitution makers. Their presumption was that democratic election would throw up a party, or a combination of parties, which on the basis of a stable majority would govern effectively in order to give back to the people what they had promised.

Governance and democracy must be complimentary to each other. There could be better solutions to the one I have proposed. But the blunt truth is that we must find a solution. We cannot afford to lose any more time. The people of India will not wait anymore.

If all goes as planned, there will be no need to put an RTI application to get information about the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) as the civic body, in a year’s time, plans to digitise each and every document and put it up on their website for all to see. Not a small feat as they have over 80 Crore papers to be displayed online.

 “All these documents are important and they are so old that even turning pages can damage them. If we want to preserve these documents, getting them digitised is the only way,” said a senior civic official. “Once the digitisation is done, there will be no need to submit a right to information (RTI) application for obtaining information regarding the BMC,” said Sitaram Kunte, Municipal Commissioner.

Nagpur SIC:

On Saturday 16th March, Times of India reported: SIC heard three appeals and levied a fine of only Rs. 18,000 in all the last six months and so on. The State Information Commission (SIC) bench in Nagpur seems to be doing everything to blunt the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, a legislation that has empowered common people against the system. Next day on Sunday, 17th March, Times of India issued clarification as under:

The state information commissioner, Bhaskar Patil, has pointed out that the headline ‘Nagpur info chief clears 3 of 1,849 pleas in 6 months’ is incorrect. He stated that the SIC had heard and disposed of 1,978 appeals and complaints from June to December last year, out of which it levied monetary fine in three cases. The SIC had also recommended ‘disciplinary action’ on 41 cases out of 1,849 second appeals and 485 complaints. The error is regretted.

Corruption and RTI:

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has slammed the Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance and two of its key organs – the Central Bureau of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) – for shielding its allegedly corrupt senior officials.

In response to an RTI application filed by Economic Times, CVC has revealed the minutes of all annual review meetings held by it in 2012 with Central Vigilance Officers (CVOs) of various government sectors. The minutes of such meeting held on 27th July, 2012, with CVOs of the Revenue and Transport Sector reveal that CVC came down hard on the Department of Revenue, CBDT and CBEC for going slow against corruption. The minutes clearly state that CVC Pradeep Thakur said at the meeting that there is a “perceptible tendency” in the Department of Revenue of “trying to protect particularly senior officers” in the organisation. CVC asked Shashi Shekhar, the additional secretary (revenue) and CVO of Department of Revenue, to make concerted efforts to liquidate the pendency of corruption complaints, saying the commission was concerned over the inordinate delay in implementation of its advice for action.

Shielding top officers is a phenomenon in CBDT too, the minutes indicate. “CVC expressed its concern at the inordinate delays being caused by CBDT in finalising regular department action cases, implementation of CVC’s advice and in grant of sanction for prosecution. CVC stated that such delay indicated reluctance of the administration in taking action against senior officials and such delays, especially in grant of sanction for prosecution, are completely unacceptable. CVC also expressed its displeasure at the arbitrary fashion in which adjudicating officers are passing the orders while deciding cases of higher revenue implications,” the minutes say. CVC was similarly anguished about the large number of pendency of action against allegedly corrupt officials in CBDT, saying Supreme Court has recently made it mandatory for prosecution sanction to be granted within three months and officers intentionally delaying the same to be held accountable.

As per the CVC annual report for 2011, CBDT and CBEC were still to take action against a total of 474 corrupt officers against whom CVC advised action over six months ago. 330 such cases were pending in CBEC while 144 cases were pending in CBDT. In comparison, CBEC took action only against 69 of its officers last year while CBDT acted against just eight officers.

 “As we proceed into the eighth year of the use of the RTI we need to look – not only at the shortcomings which we always do-but at our immense gains. Not so much to compliment ourselves as to strengthen our resolve to carry on with millions of our struggles that its use has spawned. The RTI has forced the re-distribution of power, demanded participatory decision-making and specific accountability. It has legitimised questioning as a part of decision-making. It has questioned representative democracy and pushed the system to acknowledge, though reluctantly, that it has an obligation to the sovereign citizen.

Sometimes, one has the good fortune to be a part of campaign for an issue that has a seminal impact on the lives of people. In all our collective dreams we define a space where equality will be an accepted norm and justice accessible. We have all thought and expressed the desire of a corruption-free India, where arbitrary use of power can be questioned and addressed. The Right to Information Act has addressed and facilitated the realisation of some of these dreams.

There was to begin with the unstated understanding that even confronting corruption needed an equal emphasis on the arbitrary use of power. In other words, RTI was fundamental to a democracy, and democracy, in order to stay alive with its principles intact, needed the RTI.

Once the law was made, the NCPRI accomplished a basic objective and many of its constituent members withdrew to the background. Many users, groups and organisations have grown. All of us continue to be amazed at the number of users, and the thousands of ways in which the law has empowered people to access food, shelter and justice, individually and collectively.It has been and continues to be a revelation of the ingenuity of the concerned citizen-user. An acid test of any legislation is its continued use even after meeting with road blocks and deliberate attacks, in this case even on our lives. RTI has addressed that challenge with persistence and diligence. We always said the devil lies in the details. The RTI users have continued to pursue and conquer these devils! The RTI empowers the citizen, or citizens, as the case may be, to challenge and question the State as part of their regular life, activities and campaigns.

Individual users all over the country have already revolutionised the interaction with the State with their imaginative use of the RTI. If we manage to work together, our collective work may have a great impact on India’s ethical future. It may force the system to keep its constitutional promises and forever change the face of governance in this country. It is true that India is not one of the easiest countries to live in, nor one of the most efficient bureaucracies to deal with. Yet, we live and must claim our rights as citizens and continually challenge unethical action, from the individual to all of its citizens and in every aspect through which the constitution guarantees our sovereignty.”

Their contention before the High Court was that they are neither covered under items (a) to (d) u/s.2(h), nor under the ‘include’ part of that clause (h) as they are not owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. Hence they are not ‘public authority’!

It was their contention that in order to get covered under that ‘includes’ part of the clause (h) the society has to be one which is owned or controlled by the government and in any case that ‘control’ exercised by the government should be ‘deep and pervasive’ control inasmuch as the management committee of the school should be controlled by and large by government nominees or by government authorities.

The Court held that these institutions are not ‘public authorities’ as they are not owned or controlled or financed by the government. None of these petitioners owes its existence to a notification or order of the Government, therefore, so far as this part, as to whether the petitioners are ‘public authorities’ is concerned, the same stands settled and it is held that institutions, such as the petitioners are not ‘public authorities’ under the Right to Information Act.

The Court considered another aspect of these writ petitions, that is though the petitioners may not be a ‘public authority’ as defined u/s.2(h) of the Act, whether the education department of the government or any other government department, being a public authority, through its Information Officer or the Appellate Authority under the Act can compel the petitioners to furnish information, which is being sought from these public authorities. For example in case the Public Information Officer in the Department of Secondary Education of Government of Uttarakhand is requested for information which pertains to any of the petitioner schools, the question would be, whether the Public Information Officer of such a public authority can compel the petitioner to furnish this information to that public authority. The answer to this is also to be found in the Act itself. The petitioners here would fall under the category of the ‘third party.’

Section 11 of the Act deals with the subject of ‘Third party information’. The Court took the view that section 11 would apply where petitioners have already given certain information to a public authority, let us say the Department of Education or any other State department. In case the petitioners attach any confidentiality to such information, they must inform the public authority of their intentions. The public authority thereafter, whenever it wants to disclose such an information to any citizen, it must give a prior notice u/s.11(1) of the Act to the ‘third party’, which is the petitioners in the present case and u/s.11(1) of the Act, when this notice has been given, the petitioners shall have an opportunity to represent before the public authority. In case, the public authority still decides to go ahead and furnish such information u/s.11(3) of the Act, this decision must be communicated to the third party who then has a right to file an appeal against this decision u/s.19 of the Act read with section 11(4) and then a right to file a second appeal. Apart from this, the ‘third party’ also has a remedy to directly approach the State Information Commission u/s.18(1)(f) of the Act.

The Court also considered one more aspect, i.e., section 8(1)(j) which relates to personal information. The Court considered 2 situations: One when the information is already held by the public authority such as department of education. In such a case the Court held that provisions of section 11 must be complied with before the information held is provided to the citizen-applicant. Two, the information is not held by the public authority, e.g., department of education. In such case the Court asked: Can the Public Information Officer compel the petitioners to furnish certain information from the records of the petitioners’ office even though such information has not been furnished under any provisions of law by the petitioners before this public authority?

The answer to it, the Court stated would be in negative as it would be an invasion on the privacy of these institutes not being a public authority. Moreover, in case such ‘information’ is not already there with such public authority, it cannot be information ‘which is held’ by the public authority and therefore, it would not be covered under the definition of ‘right to information’ given u/s.2(j) of the Act.

Note: In the last part of this decision it is held that the information which is not on the records of the public authority is not ‘held’ and is hence not covered u/s.2(j) defining ‘right to information’. This part is in contrast to the decision of CIC reported in March 2011, BCAJ. I note that under the definition of ‘right to information’ u/s.2(j) what is covered is not only ‘held’ by but also ‘under the control of’ any public authority. I would imagine that Department of Secondary Education, Government of Uttarakhand has ‘a control’ over all the schools to get whatever information it needs. On that assumption, one needs to consider whether this part of the decision is correct or not.

[Asian Education Charitable Society & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., decided on 9-2-2010 {2010 (2) ID 552}]

Section 8(1)(g): Section 8(1)(g) reads as under: Section 8(1), Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:

(g) Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi (JPSC) filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jharkhand challenging the orders passed by the State Information Commission whereby it gave direction to JPSC to furnish the various information sought by the applicant.

The applicant had sought information regarding the names of the members of the interview board who selected candidates for the post of lecturers, etc.

The Commission directed JPSC to furnish the various information i.e., the names of the members of interview board, etc. to the applicant.

High Court of Jharkhand ruled as under:

“As regards the information regarding the names and identities of the members of the Interview Board, the same cannot possibly be furnished in view of the fact that confidentiality regarding the names and identities of the members of the Interview Board needs to be preserved.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the discussions made above, claim of the petitioner that the information sought for in respect of the names of the members of the Interview Board cannot be furnished since it would violate confidentiality, appears to be a reasonable objection.

[Jharkhand Public Service Commission v. State of Jharkhand and Others, decided on 19-5-2010. {RTI R1 (2011) 227}]

In the BCAS of July 2011, the Government’s Notification dated 09.06.2011 was reported under which the Central Board of Investigation (CBI) was exempted from the purview of the RTI Act (the Act) by including the CBI in the Second Schedule to the Act.

Above notification was challenged by a PIL before the High Court of Madras on the ground that it is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

According to the petitioner, in the light of the various scams, the country has become rudderless in the war on corruption and at this juncture, the Government instead of becoming more transparent has become reactionary by resorting to Section 24 of the Act by granting blanket exemption to the CBI. The petitioner further contended that respondents had over looked the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act under which information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation cannot be exempted under Section 24 of the Act. Further, Section 24 exempts only intelligence and security agencies and CBI which is an investigating agency cannot be granted a blanket exemption. It was also contended that the plea that investigative data requires confidentiality has been adequately taken care of in Section 8(1) (g) and (h) of the Act. It wass further submitted that Section 24(3) of the Act mandates that every notification issued under Section 24(2) shall be laid before each house of Parliament, and failure to do so renders the exemption null and void. It was the case of the petitioner that the exemption is bound to create chaos as several writ petitions will be filed challenging the orders passed by the Central Information Commission in their decisions against the CBI, since the CIC has no power to set aside the notification.

In reply, Union of India filed the counter affidavit inter alia contending that the exemption to the CBI under Section 24 is not a blanket exemption inasmuch as it is subject to the provisos to Section 24 of the Act. The exemption was granted after the Government received representation from the CBI stating that difficulty was being faced by it in its working and the legal opinion was received that opined that the CBI qualifies as a security and intelligence organisation under Section 24 of the Act.

The judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition runs into 21 printed pages and is very interesting. However, I herewith reproduce only the concluding part of it.

“We find no justifiable reasons to depart from such findings which appear to have been arrived at after considering all material placed before the Government, taken note of by the Committee of Secretaries and other authorities prior to issuance of the impugned Notification. Admittedly, there is no allegation with regard to the decision making process or that there was any arbitrariness in the procedure adopted so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent that Notification has been placed before both Houses of Parliament and would be taken up for consideration in the ensuing Session.

In view of the above, we hold that the impugned Notification is neither ultra vires section 24 of the RTI Act nor violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India.

In the result the Writ Petition fails and same is dismissed. No costs, Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”

[S. Vijaya lakshmi vs. Union of India & another w.p. 14788 of 2011 & M.A.1 of 2011 dated 09.09.2011.- Reported in RTI R1 (2012) 106-126]

In
a bid to ward off the alleged menace of “professional RTI
complainants”, four assistant commissioners of the BMC have adopted a
strategy. These officers, posted guards and got CCTV cameras installed
at various ward offices to check their entry into the premises.

These professional complainants have lodged their grievances on building violations at least 200 times in more than four wards.

Assistant
commissioners termed this as a moneymaking venture. “This has become a
business for them (professionals). They lodge complaints and extort
money from people. They try to create an atmosphere of fear by either
threatening the civic officials or the people.”

An advocate,
named and shamed in a list of “professional RTI complainant
(extortionist)”, prepared by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, has
been vindicated after the civic body apologised, saying that his name
had been wrongly included in the list.

“It is humiliating for me
to be branded as a professional complainant. I complained about this to
the BMC chief and the state’s chief information commissioner,” said
advocate, Pankaj Pande.

The BMC then gave a clean chit to Pande stating that his name was included in the list by mistake.

RTI Activists not dead:

AAP
Chief Arvind Kejriwal’s obituary reference to four RTI activists at a
large public gathering in Ahmadabad left his supporters red-faced as
three of them are alive.

He said the four were killed for asking
awkward questions and hailed them as martyrs for the cause of society.
Kejriwal got the first victim’s name right, Amit Jethava, who was killed
outside the high court, the other three- Bhagu Dewani (Porbandar),
Minakshi Goswami (south Gujarat) and M Bhambhani (Diu)-in fact survived
attacks provoked by their activism.

Sanjay Dutt’s parole:

The
Yerwada jail authorities have refused to disclose details of Sanjay
Dutt’s parole to an RTI applicant, saying the actor had requested that
the reasons supplied in his application for parole be kept private.

Oshiwara
resident, Ramesh Patil, had made an RTI application to the jail in
October last year, asking to know the specific illness for which Dutt
was granted a 14-day furlough in September, which was extended by
another two weeks.

The jail’s reply to Patil also said that Dutt
was a “third person” and that Patil had nothing to do with the actor,
and had no locus standi to ask for details of the actor’s parole.

This
forced Patil to move the Appellate Officer for RTI at the jail;
expressing his objection to the unsatisfactory reply he was given.

Following
this, Patil was called for an RTI hearing on 11th February at Yerwada
jail. At the hearing, the authorities merely repeated what they had
communicated to him earlier. According to Patil, he was also shown a
letter allegedly written by Dutt requesting that his personal details be
kept private from unknown persons.

“Dutt is not a third person
but a convicted criminal undergoing punishment in jail; how can the jail
authorities say he is a ‘third person’? On 21st March, when Dutt is due
to return to Yerawada Central Jail, he would have spent 118 of his 305
days of imprisonment-almost 40% of the time he is supposed to serve
either on furlough for the treatment of his leg pain, or on parole
sought citing his wife Manyata’s illness. This clearly means any convict
can now write a letter and can escape from imprisonment, and if this is
the law, then I think it needs to be amended immediately,” Patil said.

A City consumer forum has ruled that Complaints on RTI cannot be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act.

RTI & Political Parfies:

Political Parties, including the Congress and BJP, have ignored a four-week deadline set by the Central Information Commission (CIC) and could be liable for Rs. 25,000 fine or even de-registration.

The Commission had issued a showcause notice on 7th February to six national political parties – Congress, BJP, NCP, BSP, CPI and CPM – seeking an explanation on why they had not complied with its 3rd June order which mandated that the six parties came under the Information Act and must appoint public information officers to respond to RTI queries.

A full bench of the Commission had declared that the six political parties were substantially funded indirectly by the Central Government and they had the character of public authority under the RTI Act as they performed public functions.

The Commission had given them six weeks to comply with the RTI Act but so far none of the parties has followed the direction, prompting RTI activist Subhash Agrawal, who was one of the petitioners in the case, to file three non-compliance complaints before it.

Agrawal said the Commission should hold an early hearing and recommend stringent action, including deregistration of the parties, by the Election Commission.

The CIC can also fine the parties up to Rs. 25,000. The CIC inaction has been preceded by the government bringing a bill to exclude political parties from the ambit of RTI Act. Though the bill was tabled in Lok Sabha and received support from a House panel, it was finally not taken up.

The stringent opposition to “weakening” the Act and the message that political parties were against transparency led to the bill being put on hold. However, the CIC has dragged its feet in taking any action against parties clearly in violation its own order. (Courtesy: Times of India dated 10-03-2014)

Congress Manifesto:

Congress will release its election manifesto on 21st March; a document that the party believes will win it votes in the tough battle. Sonia Gandhi is scheduled to release the manifesto in the company of her son, Rahul.

One key issue is of reservation in the private sector, a poll promise from Congress in UPA-2. Congress also wants to hammer home its rights based approach like RTI, NREGA, etc., by promising those on health, pension and sanitation.

Maharashtra Information Commission:

With the appointment of new IC, Maharashtra now has 7 IC as under:

Maharashtra Information Commissioners

1. Ratnakar Gaikwad – Chief Commissioner, Mumbai
2. Ravindra Jadhav – Amravati
3. D. B. Deshpande – Aurangabad
4. Ms. T. F. Thekekara – Konkan
5. Ajitkumar Jain – Greater Mumbai
6. P. W. Patil – Nasik
7. M. H. Shah – Pune

The CMO, however, feels these OSDs are discharging important duties. “All these officers have contributed immensely in various projects and flagship programmes of the government and the chief minister monitors their performance personally”, the CMO reacted in a written note. It mentioned that governance programmes, such as Aaple Sarkar, Right to Services Act and War Room that led to “good and speedy governance” were handled by OSDs.

The state is also using modern communication platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp. These candidates are handling it for the government to make the state schemes and decisions reach out to people. The OSDs have played an important role in the recent Make in India Week. The CMO still has vacancy for two OSDs.

‘Make In India’ logo designed by foreign firm
The logo of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s much-hyped Make in India initiative, which aims to brand India as a manufacturing hub is designed by a foreign company’s Indian arm, reveals an RT I query. Replying to query by a Madhya Pradesh-based activist, Chandra Shekhar Gaur, Union Commerce and Industry ministry replied, “No tenders were invited for designing Make in India logo. In 2014-15, tenders were invited by the ministry for appointing a creative agency. And on the basis of this tender, Weiden+Kennedy India Limited, was chosen”.

While replying to another query, the ministry informed that Weiden+Kennedy India Limited was hired for Rs. 11 crore for advertising and promotion of Make In India campaign, for 3 years — Rs. 4.32 crore for financial year 2014-15, Rs. 3.6 crore each for 2015-16 & 2016-17, said the reply in the last week of December.

Speaking to TO I, Gaur said, “It feels good to hear about ‘Make in India’ and the campaign also talks good about our country. It’s a good initiative, but it would have been better and sent a stronger message if this was done by an Indian firm. There is no dearth of creative talent in India.”

HC refuses info under RTI for want of manpower
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Madras High Court Bench has refused to furnish information sought for by an advocate under the RT I Act, since “it is not readily available and collection of the same involves verification of voluminous records and huge manpower which is not possible.”

K. H. Elavazhagan, Registrar (Administration)-cum- PIO of the Bench, had said so in a written reply sent to the RT I applicant, A. Kannan, who had sought details of private cases filed by law officers representing the State government before their appointment to the posts of Special Government Pleader, Additional Public Prosecutor and Government Advocate in June 2011.

10 Janpath bigger than PM’s 7 RCR
Congress president Sonia Gandhi has one of the largest residences among politicians in the country, bigger than even the Prime Minister’s official abode at 7 Race Course Road in size. President Pranab Mukherjee and Vice-President Hamid Ansari are the only others who can boast of set-ups more palatial than the politically potent 10 Janpath. But while Rashtrapati Bhavan, the Vice- President’s residence and 7 RCR are official residences, Gandhi’s home at 10 Janpath is specifically allotted to her, irrespective of her status as Member of Parliament. The Gandhi residence is spread over 15,181 sq. m. while the Prime Minister’s is smaller at 14,101 sq. m., according to the Central Public Works Department.

Apex Court refuses to share pending ruling data
Fifteen years after its verdict that the confidence of litigants would be shaken if judgments were kept pending for years, the Supreme Court recently refused to share information under the RT I Act on the cases reserved for judgment. It also dismissed a plea to maintain the data on its pending judgments and make the information public under the RT I Act.

Closing the option for litigants and public-spirited persons to know details of cases which have been waiting endlessly for final decision, even though arguments are long over, the apex court refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court decision which said the court registry could not be directed to collect information on how long judgments on cases remained pending under the Right to information Act.

After a case is heard by a court, it reserves its verdict in the case. There is a certain time gap between this and declaration of the court’s decision or judgment. The case remains pending till the judgment is delivered. However, the Supreme Court’s refusal to be made accountable under the RT I Act is despite the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruling to disclose the number of pending or “reserved” judgments.

60% of discretionary fund used for Karnal, Gurgaon ignored

Haryana Chief Minister, Manohar Lal Khattar had released Rs. 14.30 crore for the state in 2014-15 under the discretionary fund. However, an RT I reply from the government has revealed that it has not spent a penny of this fund in Gurgaon.

The government in its reply said Rs. 8.76 crore, a whopping 60% of the entire amount was spent in Karnal, the CM’s constituency.

Chief Ministers’ discretionary fund is meant to provide immediate relief during calamities, disasters and other similar incidents when the other government machinery is slow and bound by rules and regulations. The apex court in 2011 had upheld this quota stating that the power of the chief minister to give monetary relief was power accompanied with duty.

While the funds in the CM’s discretionary quota are meant exclusively for an emergency, what is surprising is that Khattar has bestowed a major part of his largesse to only six villages in Karnal for development work.