Month: May

A very sad and no doubt unusual and unprecedented case has
come up before CIC Shailesh Gandhi.

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:

Correct and complete Information not provided within the
stipulated time. The PIO tried to shift the onus for providing the information
on some other public authorities and if the onus for providing this
information lay on them, why this application was not transferred to them.

In the decision dated 29.12.2009, the CIC directed the PIO
to give the appellant the length and breadth of the said plot after obtaining
it from the building department before 12 January 2010.The Commission also
directed the PIO to arrange a joint inspection of the area with MCD House Tax,
Building Department and Engineering Department with a copy of the sanctioned
building plan on 12 January 2010.

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).

On the basis of the above letter, the Commission registered
a complaint in accordance with Section 18(1)(f) of the RTI Act.

The Commission writes:

If the allegations made by the Complainant were true, it
meant that persons lawfully exercising their rights under the Right to
Information Act were being unduly harassed and physically assaulted. The
allegations that the assault was carried out in the presence of police and MCD
officials led to suspicion of a probable collusion. The Commission has been
given the powers to initiate an enquiry in a complaint under Section 18(2) of
the RTI Act, when enquiring into a complaint under Section 18(1). Section
18(3) of the RTI Act also confers the powers of a Civil Court on the
Commission when it is inquiring into any matter under Section 18.

Considering the gravity of the matter, the Commission wrote
letters dated 18.02.2010 to the Commissioner of Police (CP) and Commissioner
of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), informing them about the matter
and requesting them to inquire into the matter and submit a report to the
Commission before 24.02.2010.

The CP instead of inquiring into the matter and submitting
a report, filed a writ petition in the High Court against the direction of the
Commission. In the writ petition, the CP has challenged the power of the
Commission, stating that the Commission has ‘over reached the powers’
conferred on it under the RTI Act and the letter sent by the Commission to the
CP is bad-in-law. The Commissioner of MCD did not care to reply even despite
telephonic reminders to his office.

The Commission decided to call some of the people present
to understand whether a RTI Applicant was deliberately obstructed from
undertaking inspection, which had been ordered by the Central Information
Commission and whether the assault on the two persons was with the intention
of preventing them from undertaking inspection. It summoned 7 different
officers who were present on 12.01.2010 and the appellant and his
representatives.

During the inquiry, each person deposing before the
Commission was asked to come in one at a time and once they had finished their
account, they were allowed to sit and listen to the deposition of the others.
Each person was asked to narrate the sequence of events on the day of
inspection, starting from the time that they all met at the MCD Office and
then proceed to the inspection site and subsequent events. At the end, the
persons who had deposed were allowed to give their clarifications or
contradict the statements of the others.

The statements of 6 persons who were present were recorded
and two more were called in later, so 8 in all. The CIC made the following
observations on points common to the deposition of all:

• 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.

• The Right to Information Act is perhaps the most powerful legislation that empowers citizens to check on the functioning of public establishments. It has the ability to curb corruption, which is one of the biggest evils facing the country. Lack of transparency and accountability on the part of Government officials increases the propensity for corruption.

• Although the Right to Information Act is landmark legislation, it is just a stepping stone towards eradicating corruption and bringing about lucidity in the working of the Government. Right to information has to mature and translate into duty to inform. Just like businesses are accountable to investors, the Government too should be made accountable to citizens.

Thank the ancient Greeks for giving us the idea. Two thousand and six Hundred years on, trust the modern Greeks for showing the world how to mess up the idea of democracy. Today the “bailout” nation of the Eurozone is up for sale. literally: The cash-starved government is even selling state buildings; and the Emir of Qatar is buying six islands off Ithaca. Amidst the doom, the neo-Nazi party that promises salvation calls itself Golden Dawn. Greece is just one example of how the best form of governance is capable of offering the worst scenario of freedom to a people.

Narendra Modi (Gujarat Chief Minister) on governance:

“Democracy should not just be a five-year contract given to a leader by way of votes. It must be a participative process in which people work with the government to ensure better governance and greater development.”

Government is file, governance is life; Government is all about power, governance is about empowerment.

The judgment in Namit Sharma’s case had had resulted in stopping the functioning of five State Information Commissions.

Now the Supreme Court has passed the following order:

O R D E R I.A.NO. 6 in R.P.(C) No. 2309 of 2012

This is an application for stay of the operation of the judgment dated 13th September, 2012 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 210 of 2012 titled Namit Sharma vs. Union of India reported as 2013 (1) SCC 745 during the pendency of the Review Petition (C) No. 2309 of 2012 titled Union of India vs. Namit Sharma. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are not inclined to stay the operation of the entire judgment in Namit Sharma vs. Union of India but we direct that the following directions in sub-paras 108.8 and 108.9 quoted here-in-below shall remain stayed during the pendency of the Review Petition (C) No. 2309 of 2012.

108.8 The Information Commissions at the respective levels shall henceforth work in Benches of two members each. One of them being a ‘judicial member’, while the other an ‘expert member’. The judicial member should be a person RP(C) 2309/2012 etc. 3 possessing a degree in law, having a judicially trained mind and experience in performing judicial functions. A law officer or a lawyer may also be eligible provided he is a person who has practiced law at least for a period of twenty years as on the date of the advertisement. Such lawyer should also have experience in social work. We are of the considered view that the competent authority should prefer a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court for appointment as Information Commissioners. Chief Information Commissioner at the Centre or State level shall only be a person who is or has been a Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.

108.9 The appointment of the judicial members to any of these posts shall be made ‘in consultation’ with the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of the High Courts of the respective States, as the case may be”.

We further direct that wherever Chief Information Commissioner is of the opinion that intricate questions of law will have to be decided in a matter coming before the Information Commissioners, he will ensure that the matter is heard by a Bench of which at least one member has knowledge and experience in the field of Law.

We make it clear that subject to orders that may be finally passed after hearing the Review Petitions, the competent authority will continue to fill up the vacant posts of Information Commissioners in accordance with the Act and in accordance with the judgment in RP(C) 2309/2012 etc. W.P.(C) No. 210 of 2012 except sub-paras 108.8 and 108.9 which we have stayed. This is to ensure that functioning of the Information Commissioners in accordance with the Act and the Judgment is not affected during the pendency of the Review Petitions. We further make it clear that the Chief Commissioners already functioning will continue to function until the disposal of the Review Petitions. I.A.No. 6 is ordered accordingly.

IAC could not rent out the ground as it is not a registered trust. It then rented through Arvind Kejriwal’s NGO. Now through RTI query comes to light that MMRDA battled no similar compunctions in handing out discounts to the city Congress committee, also an unregistered body. In an RTI reply to Mumbai-based businessman Viren Shah, the MMRDA admits that in 2009, the Mumbai Regional Congress Committee (MRCC) was given concessions to hold political rallies on MMRDA ground twice. State BJP President Sudhir Mungantiwar said, “This is favouritism. Just because the Congress is the ruling party, doesn’t mean it can use the government machinery to favour its own, and that too during elections. If the Congress is given a concession, other parties should also be shown such considerations.”

• RTI query by 10-year-old girl

Aishwarya Parashar of Lucknow stumped PMO officials with her query on when and by what orders was the title of ‘Father of the Nation’ conferred on Mahatma Gandhi. Asked what prompted her to file the RTI application on Gandhi and send it to the PMO, Aishwarya said how the term ‘Father of the Nation’ had always “somehow excited and interested” her after she read it in her social studies text book.

The PMO replied that they had no such record whatsoever and directed the query to the Ministry of Home Affairs, which then referred the case to the National Archives of India (NAI).

The NAI”s Assistant Director and CPIO Jayprabha Ravindran also had no answers to the poser by the Lucknow girl, and responded with an invite to Aishwarya asking her to visit the Archives to find for herself if there were any such relevant papers.

[It is in public knowledge that Subhash Chandra Bose gave the title of Father of the Nation to Mahatma. He, in his address on Singapore Radio on July 6, 1944 had addressed Gandhi as Father of the Nation. Thereafter on April 28, 1947 Sarojini Naidu referred Gandhi with the same title at a conference.]

[Note: I have just talked with the mother of Aishwarya in Lucknow, an RTI Activist congratulating her for this great story. It is rarely that a minor furnishes the query under RTI. In Mumbai the episode has appeared in atleast in 3 newspapers.]

A thought of the month

Many of the areas which have actually seen systemic reforms have also seen the disappearance of corruption.

It is strange but true that Govt. of Maharashtra published in Gazette two notifications related to RTI dated 16-1-2012 and 31-1-2012 amending Maharashtra Right to Information Rules. The Govt. never informed citizens about it. It was only by chance, advocate Vinod Sampat saw that in March-end and communicated the same to all RTI activists.

All RTI activists are very much agitated. PCGT arranged a meeting with the Chief Minister (CM) where Mr. Julio Riberio, I and 7 other RTI activists invited by me met the CM on 10-4-2012. After 30 minutes dialogue, CM stated that he would look in to the matter. These notifications read as under:

The Maharashtra Right to Information (Amendment ) Rules , 2012, Dt. 16.1.2012

Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032, dated the 16th January 2012

Notification

Maharashtra Right to Information Rules , 2005.

No. CRTI./2009/C.R.398/09/VI. – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), the Government of Maharashtra is hereby pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2005, as follows, namely:-

1. These rules may be called the Maharashtra Right to Information (Amendment) Rules, 2012.

2. After rule 3 of the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2005, the following rule shall be inserted, namely:-

“3A. Request relate only to single subject matter:- A request in writing for information under section 6 of the Act shall relate to one subject matter and it shall not ordinarily exceed one hundred and fifty words. If an applicant wishes to seek information on more than one subject matter, he shall make separate applications.

Provided that, in case the request made relates to more than one subject matter, the Public Information Officer may respond to the request relating to the first subject matter only and may advice the applicant to make a separate application for each of the other subject matters.’’

By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra

Nandkumar Jantre
Secretary to Government

The Maharashtra Right to Information
(2nd Amendment ) Rules , 2012,
Dt. 13.1.2012

General Administration
Department

Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032, dated the 31st January 2012

Notification

Maharashtra Right to Information Rules , 2005.

No. CRTI. 2008/CR 356/VI. – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), and of all other powers enabling in this behalf, the Government of Maharashtra is hereby pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2005, namely:-

(1) These rules may be called Maharastra Right to Information (2nd Amendment) Rule 2012

(2) After Rule 3A of the Maharastra Right to Information Rules, 2005, the following rules shall be added namely:

3B. Procedure for seeking inspection of records: If after having considered the application filed by the applicant for seeking inspection of record under the s.s (1) of section 6, the Public Information Officer find it appropriate, the applicant may be granted permission inspect of the record and if he grants such permission the Public Information Officer shall requisition the record desired by the applicant for perusal, from the concerned section of the Department and shall give the same to the applicant for inspection in his presence or in the presence of authorised representative, during the office hours. While inspecting such record, the applicant shall be allowed to use pencil only and the information desired by the applicant shall be noted by him by pencil only and if applicant bring any writing instruments other than pencil, he shall deposit the same with the Public Information Officer and thereafter, he shall be allowed to inspect the record. The applicant shall not make any marking on the record by the pencil he is allowed to use during inspection.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra

Nandkumar Jantre
Secretary to Government

CIC feels RTI is dying in Maharashtra

Shailesh Gandhi, India’s feisty Central Information Commissioner and an early crusader for the Right To Information Act, believes that the RTI Act in Maharashtra is being pushed into a coma from where it may not be able to recover.

According to one version, pendency of cases pending as on 31-12-2011 is 22,000.

As per the report in Times of India acting State Information Commissioner Bhaskar Patil has stated ‘At the end of the 2011, about 1.07 lakh appeals were pending disposal’.

If any of the above is committed without any reasonable cause it is provided that the Commission shall impose a penalty on PIO at Rs.250 per day but not exceeding Rs.25,000 .

Issue that has been raised from time to time is whether word ‘shall’ makes impositionof penalty mandatory or ‘shall’ here means ‘may’ and it is optional for CIC to levy or not to levy the penalty.

On 11th April, 2011, CIC Shailesh Gandhi has ruled as under in the case of complainant Mr. Attar Singh v. PIO, Vivekananda College:

The RTI application was furnished on 04-02-2010. The information was provided on 08-04-2011 after the decision of CIC.

After the hearing in the matter of penalty, CIC writes:

If without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7, the Commission is duty- bound to levy a penalty at the rate of Rs. 250 each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in section 20(1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per section 19(5) of the RTI Act.

Decision:
As per the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Rajender Kumar Wadhwa, PIO & Administrative Officer. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalising Mr. Rajender Kumar Wadhwa Rs.25000 which is the maximum penalty under the Act.

The Chairman, Vivekananda College is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25000 from the salary of Mr. Rajender Kumar Wadhwa and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi-110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.5000 per month every month from the salary of Mr. Rajender Kumar Wadhwa and remitted by the tenth of every month starting from May 2011. The total amount of Rs.25000 will be remitted by 10th September, 2011.

[Mr. Attar Singh v. PIO, Vivekanand College, University of Delhi. Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000502/11484- Penalty]

Section 2(h): Public Authority
Madras High Court (Madurai bench) in a judgment delivered on 06-07-2010 has extensively discussed the words ‘includes’ and ‘substantially financed’ as they appear in section 2(h) which defines ‘Public Authority’.

R. Sivaprakasam sought xerox of the day book pertaining to a receipt of Rs.3, 00,000 received by Karanthai Tamil Sangam (Sangam). Same was denied to him. Subsequently, in response to RTI application made District Registrar, Thanjavur directed Sangam to furnish xerox of the day book as above. This direction is put to challenge in the writ petition.

Sangam submitted that information sought is not ‘information’ as defined u/s2(f), Sangam is not a public authority as defined u/s2(h) and in any case information sought is exempt u/s 8.

Hereunder, I am confining only to the part of the judgment deciding on applicability of section 2(h).

In one earlier judgment the Madras High Court had held as under:

The word ‘substantial’ is not defined in the Act. For the word ‘substantial’ it is not possible to lay down any clear and specific definition. It must be a relative one, however, ‘substantial’ means real or actual as opposed to trivial. ‘Substantial’ also means practicable as far as possible, hence the word ‘substantial’ not to be construed as higher percentage of the estimated amount or otherwise.

The Court then reproduced certain paras (NOs.15 to18, 21&23) from the said judgment as under:

“15. If we look at the definition of section 2(h), it is clear that the appellant-company does not come under the provisions of section 2h(a), (b), (c) or (d), but thereafter section 2(h)(d) of the definition clause uses the word ‘includes’. It is well known that when the word ‘includes’ is used in an interpretation clause, it is used to enlarge the meaning of the words and phrases occurring in the body of the statute. Reference in this connection can be made to G. P. Singh’s ‘Principles of Statutory Interpretation’ in the 10th edition of the said treatise, the learned author formulated that when the word defined is declared to ‘include; such and such, ‘the definition is prima facie extensive’ (page 175 of the book). In support of the aforesaid formulation, the learned authority has referred to a number of decisions. The latest decision referred to in support of the aforesaid proposition was rendered in the case of Associated Indem Mechanical P. Ltd. v. W. B. Small Industries Development Corporation ltd., AIR 2007 SC 788 of the report, the learned judges held as follows:

“10. The definition of premises in section 2(c) uses the word ‘includes’ at two places.It is well settled that the word ‘include’ is generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used those words of phrases must be construed as Comprehending, not only such things, as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include [see Dadaji al ias Dina v. Sukhadeobabu AIR 1980 1 SCR 1135, Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. AIR (1987) 2 SCR 1 and Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P. AIR 1989 SC 335: (1989) SCC 164.”]

16. Therefore, obviously the definition of bodies referred to in Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act would receive a liberal interpretation, and here the words which fall for interpretation are the words ‘controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.’

17. We are here concerned with the interpretation of the definition clause in the RTI Act. The Act has been enacted ‘in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority’. In the Preamble to the Act, it is made clear that ‘democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed’. From the Preamble to the Act it is clear that revelation of information may cause conflict with the other public interest including efficient operations of the Governments, but the Act has been enacted to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal.

18. The RTI Act thus attempts to inculcate openness in our democratic republic. It has to be accepted that one of the salience of openness in democracy is an access to information about the functioning of the public authorities.

21. The RTI Act is virtually enacted to give effect to citizen’s right to know. Citizen’s right to know has been construed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court a

BCAJ Admin

An investigation using the Right to Information Act by Mumbai Mirror has found out that the 19 ministerial bungalows situated on Madame Cama Road in Mumbai, next to the New Administrative Building of Mantralaya, are illegal.

The 5-acre plot had originally been earmarked for a public garden and, in 1979, the government had even promised that the bungalows would be demolished and the plot handed over to BMC for developing the garden.

This, however, was never done. The ministerial bungalows were constructed in the 1950s and are being maintained by the Public Works Department. When Mirror sought an explanation from PWD Minister Chhagan Bhujbal, he said, “It’s a very old case. I do not remember much.”

Several prominent citizens have opined that the government must hand over the plot for the garden. Among them, architect P. K. Das, whose firm had once prepared a plan for the makeover of Nariman Point, said, “In the Development Plan for Mumbai, the land is reserved for a garden and is meant for public use. This has been taken over and built upon. The ministers’ bungalows and sheds housing PWD offices must be cleared and the land utilised for its reserved purpose. There is a comprehensive redevelopment plan for this plot by the MMRDA, which was cleared by the state’s empowered committee which is headed by the chief secretary.”

The area’s citizens group is all for a garden. Atul Kumar of the Churchgate Nariman Point Residents Association said, “The city is starved of green spaces. The government must do away with these bungalows and develop a garden on the plot.”

• Eastern Freeway:

The third phase of the Eastern Freeway up to Ghatkoper, which is thrown open to motorists in April, has witnessed a 23% increase in cost ever since work started in 2007.

“The project’s cost rose from Rs. 847 crore to Rs. 1,106 crore because of delay in rehabilitation of project-affected people and slow execution of work,” RTI activist Anil Galgali said.

Galgali had sought information about the Eastern Freeway project from the MMRDA. The work on the stretch between Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya to Anik Junction was scheduled to be completed by 18th January, 2011 after the work order was issued in January 2008. “There was a delay of 29 months in executing this phase of the project,” Galgali added.

• RTI & Housing Society in Mumbai:

At a special general body meeting on Sunday 30- 03-2014, of the Salsette Catholic Society in Bandra, it expelled a member for harassment through the RTI Act.

54 of the 73 members present voted in favour of the motion to expel Leslie Almeida. Earlier, Almeida had not replied to a showcause notice issued by the society that said it would allow him to present his side. But at the meeting, the members did not give Almeida an opportunity to speak as they constantly interrupted him. The committee, however, made a 90-minute presentation on why he should be expelled.

Father Michael Goveas, parish priest at St Andrew’s Church, suggested an inquiry be set up to prove the allegations against Almeida. The society’s secretary, Cornel Gonsalves, said the society had been dragged into a personal dispute, and has been harassed with hundreds of RTI applications.

Chinese scientists gave environmentalism boost by inventing a printer that uses water instead of ink on rewritable paper This printer might trigger interest in India for an entirely different reason. Given the babus’ reluctance to allow the spirit of RTI legislation to prevail, they could use this invention in their line of work. What can an RTI petition achieve when the reply comes with blank pages?

• Sad story of RTI:

RTI Activist from Pune, Vihar Durve, Sought information from DoPT about the names & addresses of RTI Activists murdered/injured/harassed/assaulted etc. during 2005 to 2013. The information received is shocking. The number of persons affected as above in more than 8 years is as high as 151. The individuals murdered are 23, which includes Maharashtra 6, Gujarat 4 and 13 from other 9 States.

In 2014 also, the number of persons Killed/ Committed Suicide in Maharashtra as per my information is 2.

• Western India RTI Convention

Western India RTI Convention

Few RTI activists met in Mumbai last month to consider the proposal to organise such Convention in Mumbai. All the activists endorsed the proposal.

The BCAS Foundation (of Bombay Chartered accountants’ Society) offered to become a platinum sponsor by contributing at least 50% of the cost of organising the Convention to be incurred.

The Department of Civic and Social Justice of Dr. Ambedkar Center for Social Justice, University of Mumbai offered to host the convention at its campus premises and to provide many other complimentary facilities. Accordingly, we, the RTI activists of MUMBAI, are pleased to hold a twoday convention in MUMBAI, the dates fixed are 7th & 8th June.

We invite RTI Activists from Maharashtra, Gujarat & Goa and other States to join and be a part of this historic event.

The Convention Convener is Bhaskar Prabhu of the Mahiti Adhikar Manch. Shailesh Gandhi is the guide, Ms. Aruna Roy shall inaugurate the convention and be with us for both the days. Anyone Interested may join as delegate. For Registration form and other details please mail to: mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com or narayanvarma2011@ gmail.com

The Appellant through an RTI application dated 19-12-2012 sought certain information regarding a notification dated 15-09-2011 by which Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, public authority had invited the applications for dealership within the range of 2 kilometer of Bhaniyawala NH 72. The application made included queries such as how many applications have been received for the dealership; to provide name, address and telephone numbers of applicants; when was the site inspection conducted; to provide the name, strength and designation of the officers who were part of the Inspection Committee, to provide a copy of Inspection report and so on.

The CPIO furnished the information sought but the appellant was dissatisfied with the information supplied to him by the CPIO.

In the appeal before the CIC, the appellant not only requested that the full information sought be provided to him but also sought some additional information like, yardstick being followed for giving dealership in respect of highways; a copy of objection raised by the Site Inspection Committee in respect of yardstick etc.

During the hearing, the Respondents pointed out that the Appellant in his present appeal before the Commission has sought additional information which he had not sought in his original RTI application. At that stage, he is not allowed to seek information other than sought in his RTI application.

The Commission ruled:
“The Commission agrees with the Respondents that the information now sought by the Appellant in the present appeal did not form part of his original RTI application. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to allow the disclosure of the information which had not even been sought by the appellant in his RTI application. An information seeker cannot be allowed to expand the scope of his RTI enquiry at appeal stage. No disclosure can, therefore, be directed to be made in the present appeal of the Appellant. The Appellant, however, may file a fresh RTI application, if he so desires.”

[Harish Prasad Divedi vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Appeal No CIC/LS/A/2013/001477-SS decided on 28-01-2014: (RTIR I (2014)132(CIC)]

• Section 7(9) of the RTI Act:

Section 7(9) of the Right to Information Act reads as under:

7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.

In the writ petition, the petitioner sought expeditious disposal of petitioner’s appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as well as a direction to respondents to pay amount of ` 3,01,000/- as compensation. Petitioner had also prayed for a direction to take disciplinary action against respondent No.1.

The petitioner had sought the information under 23 different items. The petitioner stated that he is a financier who gives advances to various contactors working with Director General, Deference estates.

The Court held:
“Keeping in view the width and amplitude of the information sought by the petitioner, it is apparent that the prayers in the writ petition are nothing short of an abuse of process of law and motivated if not an attempt to intimidate the respondent.”

“In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates and Cantonment Board would come to stand still.” The court then reproduced the relevant Paragraph, from the Supreme Court decision in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, [(2011) 8 SCC 497].

Then it quoted para 39 of the Supreme Court decision in ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya, [(2011) 8 SCC 781], as under:

39. “We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling u/s. 4(1) (b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.”

Consequently, the Court deemed it appropriate to refuse to exercise its Writ Jurisdiction, and the petition was dismissed. This Court was also of the view that “misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this sunshine Act. A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.”

[Shail Sahni vs.Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. W.P. (C) 845/2014 decided by the High Court of Delhi on 05-02-2014. (RTIR I (2014) 220 (Delhi)]