Month: November

    Vide two RTI applications, the appellant had sought copies of various documents including her ACRs of 10 years, minutes of the meeting of Committee of Secretaries (COS) and certain other information concerning the process of empanelment.

    Both, her applications and appeals were rejected on the ground that the information sought for is personal and confidential in nature and, therefore, exempted from disclosure u/s.8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and also on the basis that information sought is of secret/ confidential in nature, therefore, exempted from disclosure u/s.8(1)(i) of the RTI Act.

    Interestingly, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) further invoked S. 8(1)(e) stating that the information is available with the Department of Revenue in their fiduciary relationship with officers who were under consideration during the selection.

    In her appeal before CIC, she made following submissions :

    (i) Both CPIO and Appellate Authority erred in denying her the information and the decision was announced without hearing her. Hence grave injustice has been done to her;

    (ii) Information has been used against her without disclosing the comments/gradation to her at any time. This is gross injustice done to her;

    (iii) The plea regarding secret and confidential nature of information does not hold force because the information relates to the appellant and that she is not seeking information in respect of any other person;

    (iv) The procedure and technique followed to determine any cut-off point should be disclosed to the aspirants. The action relating to the determination and application of cut-off points being a critical factor for an aspirant should be put in public domain.

    At the hearing before the full Bench of CIC, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue in the written submission argued that file dealing with selection of Members, CBDT contains various secret and personal information about the officials considered for selection. This information is exempted from disclosure in view of the provisions contained in S. 8(1)(e), (g), (h), and (j) of the RTI Act. At the time of hearing, the respondents also stated that what are being asked for are not DPC proceedings but proceedings of a Selection Committee consisting of senior Secretaries. All these proceedings are confidential and marked as such. They also submitted that these minutes are not with them but the Cabinet Secretariat.

    CIC in its order stated :

•      The object of RTI Act is also to bring in transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. RTI Act confers a right on the citizen to access information held by a public Authority and every public Authority is obliged to facilitate this right. ACRs do contain an objective assessment of an officer and non-communication of the same has been held to be arbitrary by the Court and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

•      In regard to the disclosure of Annual Confidential Report, it has been our view that what is contained therein is undoubtedly ‘personal information’ about that employee. Accordingly, in Shri Gopal Kumar v. Maj. Gen. Gautam Dutt, DGW, Army HQ, (Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00069 dated 13-7-2006), a Division Bench of Commission held that ACRs are protected from disclosure because arguably such disclosure seriously harms interpersonal relationship in a given organisation. Further, the ACR notings represent an interaction based on trust and confidence between the officers involved in initiating, reviewing or accepting the ACRs. These officers could be seriously embarrassed and even compromised if their notings are made public.

•      As regards the documents concerning DPC, the concerned Public Authority is directed to make available information in terms of request of the appellant but there shall be no obligation to disclose details concerning 3rd parties. The respondent Public Authority may suitably use the severability clause in S. 10(1) of the Right to Information Act.

    Note :

    Paras 1 and 2 in above order are contradictory to each other. In para 1, as stated, the Supreme Court has held that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries whether poor, fair, average, good or very good in the ACR whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service except military must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation. The Apex Court held that in their opinion this is the correct legal position even though there may be no Rule/G.O. requiring communication of the entry, or even if there is a Rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the principle of non-arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders.

    In para 2, inspite of above position, Commission has denied disclosure. It has taken the following view :

    There are, thus, reasonable grounds to protect all such information through a proper classification under the Official Secrets Act. This decision of the Commission has been followed in several other decisions also and the Commission has held that the disclosure of ACR is exempt u/s.8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 unless the Competent Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information.

    It is further noted that the Commission may change the hitherto held view if a full Bench of the Commission considering the matter in a couple of appeal/complaint cases decides otherwise. Presently, the matter is still considered as sub-judice by the commission.

    [Chief CIT-I, Ahmedabad v. Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00027 & 33; Decided on : 6-2-2009]

    (Full Bench Coram : Mr. Wajahat Habibullah, CIC, Prof. M. M. Ansari, IC and Mr. A. N. Tiwari, IC)

Whether co-operative societies are public authorities?

In September 2009 issue of BCAJ, in this column is reported the judgment of the Kerala High Court holding that co-operative societies are public authorities.

Similar issue has come before the H.C. of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) decided on 31-1-2009 in which the Court has held :

• It is well settled that general regulations under an Act, like the Companies Act or the Cooperative Societies Act, would not render the activities of a company or a society as subjects to control of the State. Such control in terms of the provisions of the Act are meant to ensure proper functioning of the society and the State or statutory authorities would have nothing to do with its day to day functions.

•     As pointed out earlier in the present matter we have to find out whether the petitioner-bank is controlled by the government, if ‘yes’ it will be ‘public authority’ and if ‘no’ it will not be ‘public authority’, because none of the other requirement to make an institution a ‘public authority’ are available in the present case. ‘Control’ does not mean regulatory or statutory control. In the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Sehracvardi, reported in AIR 1981 SC 487 three judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court had laid down the law and it was reiterated by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111 and the observations of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar v. Indian Institute were reiterated in the case of S. S. Rana v. Registrar Co-op. Societies. Thus, it is clear that the control must be particular to the body in question and it must be deep and pervasive. If it is – so found then such body is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of S. 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. When the control is merely regulatory; whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a ‘State’ or ‘public authority.’ In view of the full Bench authority of this Court in the case of S.V. Co. op. Bank v. Padubidri, (AIR 1993 Bom. 91) and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in several authorities, it is clear that, in absence of existence of deep and pervasive control with reference to the institution, it cannot be called a ‘State’ or ‘public authority’ within the meaning of the Right to Information Act.

•     In view of the fact and legal position discussed earlier, it must be held that the petitioner Bank is not a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of S. 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.

•     I find that the State Information Commissioner committed error in allowing the appeals filed by respondent No. 3. Therefore, it is necessary to intervence and set aside the impugned order”.

[Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The State Information Commissioner, W.P. No. 5666 of 2007; decided on 31-1-2009]

Author’s comments:

Similar to the decision as above of Bombay High Court, in more than one case, Karnataka High Court has. also decided on similar ground, that co-op. SOCIetiesare not public authority.

What distinguishes decisions of Bombay & Karnataka High Court v. that of Kerala HC is that the former is based on ‘control’ provision while the latter is based on ‘substantially financed’ part of the provision [So2(h)(d)(i) reads: body owned, controlled or substantially financed]. Kerala High Court has taken within its sweep all funds provided by appropriate Government from its own funds or funds which reach societies thru Government or with its concurrence i.e. financed directly or indirectly by appropriate Government.

I am of the opinion that the decision of Kerala High Court is eorrect and needs to be accepted by all. Other day justice D. Chandrachud said: “There must be wider norms for disclosure. Suppression of information must be the exception. He also said that time has come when RTI should not only cover just public bodies but also private bodies. In number of cases, Information Commission has stated: “Under this Act, providing information is the rule and denial is an exception. Any attempt to constrict or deny information to the sovereign citizen of India without the explicit sanction of the law will be going against rule of law”.

Part B : The RTI Act

Continuing from October BCAl, the summary of two reports:

One study by Price water house Coopers (PWC) as appointed by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT), titled as ‘Understanding the key issues and constraints in implementing the RTI Act.’ Its final report as Executive Summary is published in June 2009.

Second study by National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) and RTI Assessment Analysis Group (RaaG) in collaboration with number of other social bodies including TISS, Mumbai under the title ‘Safeguarding the Right to Information’ .

DOPT-PWC  Report:

Improving convenience in filing requests:

As determined by the survey, most of the applications (more than 70% of the people surveyed) for information are filed at the Government offices, a conducive and facilitative environment at Government offices is a necessary condition to ensure that citizens are able to apply and receive information in a convenient manner.

Key issues:

• As per S. 4(1)(b)xv-xvi, S. 6(1) and S. ‘5(3), the Public Authority is expected to proactively provide certain information/facilitate the citizens in accessing the information as per the RTI Act. However, during the study, it was noticed that there was a wide gap in ensuring convenience to the citizens in filing requests for information. There were also anecdotal instances where the citizen was discouraged to file for information requests (e.g., the form for requesting information is only a guideline, but at many places, the information requests were rejected if the applications were not in the prescribed format).

• Submission at the PlO office is the most prevalent channel. However, over 26% of the citizens had to pay more than three visits to submit applications and 17% said no sign boards were present to help them with the process.

• Lack of an updated list of PIOs, which leads to citizen inconvenience [providing updated list of PIOs as per S. 4(1)(b)(xvi)].

• Payment of cash is the most prevalent channel. However, it has the inherent limitation of requiring the applicant to be present physically, whereas as per the Act, there is no such restriction. Most of the payment modes accepted by the Public Authorities have this inherent limitation.

• Inadequate help was provided to applicants or the attitude of PIOs was non-friendly [assistance is expected from PIOs as per S. 5(3) and S. 6(1)].

• Approximately 89% of the PIOs were not using the provision of inspection of records by citizens, which led to delay in providing information. (As per S. 2(j)(i), ‘inspection of work, documents, records’ is a means to provide information under Right to Information Act).

• Over 75% of the information seekers were dissatisfied with the quality of information provided.

Encouraging accessibility to information is one of the major change management issues among Government employees. For a Government servant, there has been a significant shift from the ‘Official Secrets Act’ mindset to the ‘Right to Information Act’ mindset.

Recommendations:

In order to facilitate filing RTI requests / appeals, the following alternative channels should be considered :

Common Service Centers (CSCs) is a scheme of the Government of India under which 1,00,000 CSCs are being created. This means that there would be approximately 1 CSC for every 6 villages. These CSCs are expected to act as front-end/single window outlets for many Government services. These are being operated by private agencies under the Public-Private-Partnership model. It is recommended that these CSCs should be used to collect applications [to act as APIO, as per S. 5(2)] and facilitate Citizens in filing RTI applications.

Department of Posts (GoI) is already a designated APIO under the S. 5(2) for Central Government. It is suggested that the State Governments also accord the status of APIO to post offices and designate staff to assist citizens in drafting and forwarding the applications/appeals.

RTI Call Centers : these have already been implemented in some states or are in the process of being implemented (e.g. in Bihar, Haryana). This is a convenient channel wherein the RTI application is taken by the call centre and payment of fee is included in the telephone bill.

RTI Portal: In this case the information request can be made through the RTI portal. Various State Governments have already started planning the implementation of this recommendation. The RTI portal should contain links to all Ministry /Department websites of the appropriate Government.

• The Ministry/Departments should provide a comprehensive list of agencies/offices under its control and a link (or a webpage) which contains all the suo-moto information desired in S. 4(1)(b).

• These agencies / offices should be categorised as recommended in ARC report, viz. (i) constitutional body (ii) line agency (iii) statutory body (iv) public sector undertaking (v) body created under executive orders (vi) body owned, controlled or substantially financed and (vii) NGO substantially financed by the Government.

The RTI application is made online by choosing the relevant Public Authority on the website owned by IC/appropriate Government. The information seeker has the option of making the payment of fee through a payment gateway.

•     Also there are various e-Governance initiatives (such as e-District, e-Municipalities) which are proposed to have an RTI module in the software application being developed for this project. The role of e-District kiosks would be to act as APIOs for the other State Govt. departments.

•     Further, it is suggested that the appropriate Government amend relevant rules so as to facilitate ease in paying the requisite fees from any part of the country, as per S. 6(1). Some of the recommendations are as follows:

Define certain minimum channels for payment, some of which are convenient to people residing in other parts of the country. At the least, it should have the following channels:

    i) Indian  Postal  Order

    ii) Demand  Draft

    iii) Cash

    iv) Court  fee stamps

    v) Non-judicial  stamps

Introduce RTI envelopes, which would have an inbuilt cost of application fee.

Facilitate payment through Electronic Pay-ment Gateway while submitting RTI application on the web.

At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that some of the above channels may lead to revenue loss for the State Government (for example payment made through Indian Postal Order /RTI envelopes would result in revenue accruing to the Central Government, whereas the revenue should accrue to the State Government in case the RTI application is for a Public Authority under the State Government.

However, it may be noted that this loss would be insignificant and the revenue accruing to the Central Government would be utilised for strengthening the Act through awareness generation, Knowledge Resource Centre, etc.

Raag & NCPRI Report:

Current  status  and  preliminary findings:

(2) Urban survey:

RTI applications have been filed in Public Authorities (PAs) of the Central Government, 10 State Governments and Delhi. However, the current analysis is based on applications received by 305 PIOs in 6 States, the Central Government and Delhi. These applications are addressed to the sample of public authorities as listed and also included district level public authorities. The objective was to assess the ease of accessing information through the use of the RTI Act. The applications filed asked for lists of RTI applicants and appellants that have filed applications in the respective PAs, along with data on the total number of applications and appeals the PA received since 2005. The application also requested details of the nature of responses, and copies of all the applications, the appeals, and orders of the first appellate authority.

To assess the ease of applications, the RAAG team tracked these applications for four months to asses speed of responses, nature of response, process of accessing information based on the response and finally, the first appeal process.

Some interesting findings emerging from the Urban Survey’s RTI filing process are :

Response rates – Nearly three fourths of the applications filed received responses.
 
However, the responses were somewhat slow in coming. In only a third of the cases where the responses were received, were received within the stipulated time period of 30 days.

Access to information – Of the total responses received, three-fourths furnished information directly or upon receiving payments for photocopying.

About half of the total applications filed received positive responses. However, many difficulties were encountered in payments for photocopying and other fee demanded.

Variations    across Centre,  State and District PAs:

Overall, the central government responded much more quickly and shared much more information than state governments. The Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Railways stand out for speediest responses on a large number of applications. Nearly %th of the RTIs filed were responded to within 30 days and in over half the cases, information was furnished .

At the state level, Meghalaya stands out as the quickest, the most compliant, and also the politest amongst all the states surveyed, in responding to RTI applications – the largest percentage of responses with all the information requested were received from Meghalaya.

Overall, districts appear to be much slower, and much less efficient in responding to RTI applications than states. Meghalaya and Karnataka stand out for quickest responses at the district level.

PA level analysis suggests that the police department is overall the slowest to respond to RTI applications. The largest number of rejections also came from the police.

Interestingly most of these come from Delhi police. Revenue department and the women and child department come a close second to the police.

The RAAG Team’s practical observations on the RTI filing process:

In filing and appealing this vast diversity of applications, the RAAG team confronted four major challenges, which would certainly act to stymie RTI applications by those with less resources than we had.

Plethora of state rules and payment modes – As we discovered through hard experience, every State has its own set of RTI fee and mode of payment rules. In some States, the application fee is Rs.10 and can be paid by IPO; in others it is Rs.20 and can only be paid by Demand Draft or a court fee stamp issued in that particular state. Many of our applications were thus returned, and we had to pore over the plethora of differing State rules to ensure that we got it right the second time. Similarly, some States require that only treasury challans be used to pay for requested information, which required many trips to Government offices and officials, but without much success.

Poor information on First Appellate Authority – In many states, it proved very difficult, if not impossible, to find the name and address of the First Appellate Authority for the departments in which we filed RTIs. Almost none were listed on the departmental website, and many are not listed on the State RTI or SIC portal either. This was especially true at the district level.

Appealing deemed refusals – While the RTI Act binds the PlO to inform the applicant who the First Appellate Authority is in case of a rejection, the absence of publicly available FAA information becomes especially problematic in deemed refusals. Since, in such cases, the applicant receives no response at all from the PlO, he or she is constrained to appeal to the FAA. Thus, if FAA information is not easily available, it becomes a particular handicap in taking forward an application.

Unfamiliarity with the concept of a PlO – Confirming the rural survey finding that many PIOs do not know they are PIOs, many of our West Bengal district applications came back unopened. The post master’s remark was that the application had been rejected by the District Collectorate, because no such official existed.

Gender bias – Given the dominance of male applicants, PIOs appear to be convinced that anyone who files an RTI application MUST necessarily be male. Although RAAG RTI applications were all filed by women, unfailingly all the responses addressed us as ‘Mr.’ Equally amusing, but a poor reflection on attention to detail in public authorities, is that most responses completely miss-spelt and distorted our names, even though our RTI applications had all been typed to eliminate any such possibility. Bincy thus variously became Binoy, Vinay, Biceny, Binno, Bissy, etc. !

Part C : Other News

 RTI query shows how undertrials suffer in jails:

All those who have been locked up while being completely innocent or have served more than half the prison terms as an under trial of the prescribed maximum sentence for their alleged crime are very ordinary people, without influence to raise a stink or money to hire pushy lawyers. To begin with they were all bewildered by the charge being brought against them, and then terrorised by the relentless grind of the wheels of justice, and finally left rotting behind bars with their spirit crushed. There are as many as 14 under trials and five convicts in judicial custody in just one jail of Tihar for the past five years because their appeal is yet to be heard by the Delhi High Court. These facts have come to light thanks to flurry of pointed questions under the Right to Information Act by a public-spirited lawyer, Manish Khanna.

Hawkers in Mumbai  :

BMC wards give different answers to a query raised under RTI application like blind men trying to figure out the shape of an elephant. Jagdeep Desai wanted to know from the civic body as to what is the definition of ‘legal hawker’. But the confusing replies he got from different departments illustrate how clueless they are, and how lightly the BMC is treating the menace.

The Superintendent of Licence chose not to answer the query, stating that “the matter is sub-judice”. D/ ward and K/West Ward authorities replied that a hawker s a “person who sells goods kept on his head m ving around the street or road, and a legal hawke is one who has licence u/s.313 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act”. S/Ward requested Desai to collect required information/ documents on payment of necessary charges from respective senior inspector (encroachment) of the ward while B/Ward and E/Ward replied that “the necessary information has already been furnished to you by the Superintendent of Licence”.

Desai is perplexed that while one BMC official did not answer the RTI query citing legal obligations, other replied readily. This is a complete contradiction. It seems that the information is being held back on purpose, because they have an issue with the definition of a legal hawker. Otherwise, all the replies to questions raised in the application should have been the same.

Chief  Justice of India under RTI :

In many issues in past under this column, I have covered the huge controversy and litigation which was going on re. applicability of RTI Act to the office of CJI. After two years of stiff resistance, the Supreme Court finally replied to a Right to Information query, saying that its judges were declaring their assets to the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

President of India on RTI :

The 4th Annual RTI Convention hosted by Central Information Commission was inaugurated on 12th October by Smt. Pratibha Oevisingh Patil, the President of India. In her speech she stated:

“There is a fine balance which needs to be maintained between application under the Right to Information to public authorities and also ensuring that public authorities are not flooded with applications, some of them frivolous nature, which could over-whelm their ability to respond in time. She said that institutions were increasingly coming under” greater scrutiny and information was no longer the preserve of a few and there is greater emphasis on transparency of work and accountability”.
 
Elaborating on the initiatives taken by the government, minister of state for personnel, public grievance and pensions, Prithviraj Chavan said a policy on data sharing and accessibility was under’ active consideration’. He added, “A large amount of Scientific, technical and economic data is generated with public funds. The policy will encourage the data to be prepared in standardised, digital form so that all non-sensitive data can be shared for legitimate use”.

Statistics:

• Number  of RTI queries  filed in Maharashtra

2006   1.4 lakh2007   3.16 lakh
2008   4.16 lakh   2009   2.5 lakh (6 months)

• Projection  by the end of 2009 around  5 lakh

• 17-18 lakh queries  all across India

RTI’s  4th anniversary function on Monday, 12-10-2009 in Mumbai:

Private bodies should also be brought under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Bombay High Court judge justice Ohananjay Chandrachud said on Monday. “We cannot disempower our-selves, thinking that private bodies do not come under the purview of the Act.”

Celebrating four year of the sunshine act, RTI activists appealed that its scope be widened by including the private sector in the public service under it. “When the act is for fighting corruption, why not have it for the private sector too?” Ashok Rawat, an activist, asked.

“Disinvestment and deregulation have seen the government handing over public services to private hands. Now, private players are just as important as government. The RTI Act is not code to give information, but a constitutional right of a person to know about something. Right to Information is now beyond the scope of disclosure” said Chandrachud.

Introduced in 1766 in Sweden, the RTI Act has been adopted in 85 countries with varied levels of implementation. Activists also complained about the roadblocks public information officer (PIOs) created in their attempt to scuttle information. “The most common argument is that the information asked for does not come under the definition of the Act,” said Narayan Varma, a trustee of PCGT, an NGO working to spread the RTI awareness.

“Unfortunately, bureaucrats themselves train PlO how not to disclose information” said Rawat.

“One needs to understand that access to information is means to an end. This means should be eliminated as disclosure should be voluntary,” said Chandrachud.

“We are sensitising our officers. There is a need to institutionalise experience at the state level, jut as it had been at the Centre by making Shailesh Gandhi the Central Information Commissioner, so that there is a uniform pattern that will speed up the process of deliverance.”

Some NGOs, like Mahiti Adhikar Manch and PCGT, plan to set up a panel to ensure voluntary disclosure of information, which is part of the Act.

• Provisions of S. 19(8) of the RTI Act :

• Fee for certified copy of the information :

• Rule 4 does not prescribe the fees for certified copies, therefore, if an
  appellant needs certified copies, whatever rates are prescribed by BMC for
  certified copies should be charged.

• At many places under BMC schedule of rates separate rates for copy and
  separate rates for attestation has been mentioned. In such case, for a copy
  the fee prescribed under rule 4(b) i.e., Rs.2 per page, etc. should be
  charged and for attestation the fees prescribed under schedule of rates of BMC
  should be charged.

(ii) All co-operative banks since all such banks are registered as co-operative societies are also bodies controlled falling within the ambit of the definition of ‘public authority’ given at S. 2(h)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and, therefore, are public authorities.

(iii) In view of the above decision, all co-operative societies and co-operative banks are required to abide by the relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, particularly Chapter II thereof, dealing with obligations of public authorities, including providing information to the citizens, subject to the provisions contained in S. 8(1), S. 9 and S. 10 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The decision is challenged and pending before the Gujarat High Court.

The RTI Act is by now a three-year young Act, powerful and bringing solutions to many ills in society. However, no statistics of its implementation are available. It is funny to say that the Act to provide information does not provide information for its implementation! There have been many key issues and constraints in its implementation. In order to study the same, the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions have appointed Price Waterhouse Coopers Private Limited to conduct a study. PWC has issued a separate questionnaire for feedback from each of the six stakeholders identified by them.

Answers to these questionnaires shall provide to PWC various missing, unavailable information and views of the information providers and information seekers.

Some of the information, very essential to assess the success of the Act, but not available are:

• How many Public Authorities (AA) exist, how many of them have complied with their obligations.

• How many PIOs and AAs are there in these PAs.

• How many applications are made each year, how many go to the first AA and how many then give up and do not go for the second appeal to CIC/SIC.

• What is the level of awareness of the RTI Act in urban areas and rural communities.

• What are the major difficulties faced by information seekers in filing RTI applications, level of satisfaction or otherwise.

• Similarly, what are the major complaints of PIOs in terms of their obligations, time-bound responsibilities to attend to RTI applications along with other duties assigned to them.

Let us hope that the study enlightens various stakeholders – Governments, Information Commissions, Public Authorities, Public Information Officers/ Appellate Authorities, Nodal Agencies (appointed for training of PIOs, etc. and awareness building) information seekers, RTI activists, media, etc.

• RTI Helpline :

RTI activists in many cities of India run RTI helpline. Telephone helplines today are an increasingly common part of communication. They are very easy, less expensive and fastest medium of communication in India. With the advent of mobile phone, every 4th/ 5th citizen has access to mobile.

The Public Concern for Governance Trust’s (PCGT) Right To Information (RTI) Helpline in MUMBAI, launched on 2nd October, is purported to be an effective initiative of dealing with governance issues in which large number of people need personal counselling or information for filing RTI applica-tions. RTI Helpline could answer basic questions such as: what is the fee for filing applications, how to pay fees for an RTI application, among other things.

The main goal of PCGT’s RTI Helpline is to inform the public of the many issues of governance that we as a society face today, while also encouraging the citizenry to take up the struggle for governance at individual level. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “The real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few, but the acquisition of capacity by all to resist authority when abused”.

• RTI – on wheels:

An RTI-on-wheels facility started by the Gujarat Mahiti Adhikar Pahel, an NGO in Gujarat, was showcased in Mumbai and Pune by PCGT from 27th to 30th September. The mobile van is equipped with an LCD projector, screen and computer with internet, scanner, printer, copier and a small library. The vehicle showed films on RTI, distributed pamphlets and assisted people in filing RTI applications.

Thousands of individuals in Mumbai and Pune benefitted by the visit of this unique van to Maharashtra.

• Mumbai has lost more  than  25000 trees:

Data obtained under the Right to Information Act revealed that the Tree Authority had collected deposits of Rs.9,24,19,OOOfor granting permissions for removal of trees up to March 2006. In subsequent period, further deposit of around Rs.2 crores is received.

Nominated member of the Tree Authority Nilesh Baxi said, “One. thing is certain – out of around 30,000 trees transplanted since 2000, not more than a couple survived. To assume that 25,000 have not been replanted because refunds of the massive deposits are not claimed is one inference. But, in many cases, small-time builders who transplant trees don’t reclaim the amount after getting the no-objection certificate.

• RTI Appeals on BMC:

It is learnt that one Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai never even bothered to look at the pending 67 RTIappeals, a blatant violation of the RTI Act.

• Penalty for delay in answering RTI application:

The Maharashtra State Information Commissioner, Suresh Joshi has penalised PIa, attached to crime branch’s economic offences wing, for not providing information under the RTI Act within the stipulated period. In his order, [oshi directed that Rs.2,750 should be deducted from PIa S. B. Mohite’s salary as he provided the required information after a delay of 11 days.

• Special  Report in MIDDAY:

On 12th October 2008, The Right to Information Act completes three years. On this occasion, MIDDAY brought out a two-page special report which I had a privilege to edit. The report is available at BCAS Library for anyone to read. It contains articles by Arvind Kejriwal, Shailesh Gandhi, Julio Ribeiro and myself and one interesting story of 14-year young filing RTI application and bringing facilities to the town he resides in and much useful information.

Co operative societies not out of ambit of RTI

The manner and timing of reporting regarding Supreme Court’s (SC) judgement (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9017 OF 2013) about co-operative sugar factories (CS) is amazing. In many news papers they have published date of judgement as 15th October. Actually it was given on 7th October. At least people concerned with RTI knew about it but it was not discussed thoroughly. On 9th of October Anna Hazare and Medha Patkar alleged about Rs. 10,000 crore scam in the sale of the co-operative sugar factories purchased by the political leaders across parties in Maharashtra. After that, a lot of news items appeared in the media. That stunned the government as well as cooperative mafias .Then suddenly news appeared in the media “Cooperatives out of bounds of RTI, rules Supreme Court”.

If read carefully it is clear that SC has only decided about who should provide the information, and it has made it clear that Registrar of Cooperatives (RoC) is duty bound to provide the information irrespective of whether CS is substantially financed or not. Before one draws any conclusion let us study some of the paragraphs of the said judgement. In para 12 SC says, we are in these appeals concerned only with the cooperative societies registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, which are not owned, controlled or substantially financed by the State or Central Government or formed, established or constituted by law made by Parliament or State Legislature

It is very evident from the above para that this judgement is not applicable to only societies mentioned above. Then how one can say that due to SC judgement all societies have come out of RTI ambit.

In para 52, SC says Registrar of Cooperative Societies functioning under the Cooperative Societies Act is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act. As a public authority, Registrar of Co-operative Societies has been conferred with lot of statutory powers under the respective Act under which he is functioning. He is also duty bound to comply with the obligations under the RTI Act and furnish information to a citizen under the RTI Act.

Information which he is expected to provide is the information enumerated in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act subject to the limitations provided under Section 8 of the Act. Registrar can also, to the extent law permits, gather information from a Society, on which he has supervisory or administrative control under the Cooperative Societies Act. Consequently, apart from the information as is available to him, under Section 2(f), he can also gather that information from the Society, to the extent permitted by law. Registrar is also not obliged to disclose that information if those information fall under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. No provision has been brought to our knowledge indicating that, under the Cooperative Societies Act, a Registrar can call for the details of the bank accounts maintained by the citizens or members in a cooperative bank. Only that information which a Registrar of Cooperative Societies can have access under the Cooperative Societies Act from a Society could be said to be the information which is “held” or “under the control of public authority”. Even that information, Registrar, as already indicated, is not legally obliged to provide if that information falls under the exempted category mentioned in Section 8(j) of the Act.

Apart from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, there may be other public authorities who can access information from a Cooperative Bank of a private account maintained by a member of Society under law, in the event of which, in a given situation, the society will have to part with that information. But the demand should have statutory backing.

It is clear from above para that whatever information the register has and can gather from cooperative societies, he/she is duty bound to furnish it to applicant under RTI act , irrespective of whether society is substantially financed or not. The only binding on the register is to take into consideration section 8 of the RTI act. However that burden was already there. In para 53, SC says, ‘Consequently, an information which has been sought for 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, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, even if he has information, is not bound to furnish the same to an applicant, unless he is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, that too, for reasons to be recorded in writing’. From reading of above para it is well clear that SC has said that even if information is personal one if there is larger public interest RoC may provide that to applicant.

In para 40 SC says The burden to show that a body is owned, controlled or substantially financed or that a non-government organization is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government, is on the applicant who seeks information or the appropriate Government and can be examined by the State Public Information Officer, State Chief Information Commission, Central Public Information Officer etc., when the question comes up for consideration. A body or NGO is also free to establish that it is not owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government.

In para 41 SC says Powers have been conferred on the Central Information Commissioner or the State Information Commissioner under Section 18 of the Act to inquire into any complaint received from any person and the reason for the refusal to access to any information requested from a body owned, controlled or substantially financed, or a non-government organisation substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government.

From reading para 40 and 41 together one can easily draw the conclusion that if Cooperative society or NGO body is owned, controlled or substantially financed then PIO, Information Commission have powers to decide over that. In other words if they come to conclusion that concerned CS or NGO is owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government they can declare such organisation a public authority. Otherwise registrar of cooperatives is duty bound to furnish the information. 240 (2013) 45-B BCAJ In other words Supreme Court in its recent judgment has only decided about who should provide the information under RTI Act , is it Registrar of co operative societies or direct societies and also answered that RoC is duty bound to supply the information in case CS is not substantially financed or ask society to appoint PIO if satisfied.

Against above opinion based on analysis made by Shri Vijay Kumbhar, some hold the view otherwise. Finantail Express (dated 23.10.2013) has reported as under: Cooperative societies including coop banks will not fall within the definition of ‘public authority’ for purposes of the Right to Information Act, and hence the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is not liable to provide information to the general public under this law, the Supreme Court has held in the case, Thalappalam Service Cop Bank Ltd vs state of Kerala.

Against above opinion based on analysis made by Shri Vijay Kumbhar, some hold the view otherwise. Finantail Express (dated 23.10.2013) has reported as under: Cooperative societies including coop banks will not fall within the definition of ‘public authority’ for purposes of the Right to Information Act, and hence the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is not liable to provide information to the general public under this law, the Supreme Court has held in the case, Thalappalam Service Cop Bank Ltd vs state of Kerala.

It said that the powers exercised by the Registrar and others under the Cooperative Societies Act are “only regulatory or supervisory” and will not amount to dominating or interfering with the management or affairs of the society so as to control it. Besides, “the societies are not statutory bodies and are not performing any public functions and will not come within the expression ‘sate’ within the meaning under Article 12 of the Constitution of India,” it added.

Recognizing that the right to privacy was a sacrosanct facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, the apex court said that if the information 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, the Registrar, even if he has got that information, is not bound to furnish the same to an applicant, unless he is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, that too, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

In this case, various coop societies had challenged the full Bench of the Kerala High Court’s judgment that upheld the state government’s circular and brought coops within the RTI ambit. The state government claimed the circular to be in the larger public interest so as to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every co-operative society in Kerala.

Decision Notice:
A coordinate bench of this Commission in its order dated 18/06/2013 (File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000926 Sh. Ved Prakash Doda vs. ITO) has held as under:

“6. It has been the stand of the Commission that in respect of a tax evasion petition, once the investigation is completed, the appellant should be informed the broad results of the investigation, without disclosing any details. The appellant has a right to know as to whether the information provided by him was found to be true or false.

7. The Commission accordingly directs the CPIO to provide to the appellant, if investigation has been completed, the broad outcome of the investigation without divulging any details, within ten days from date of receipt of the order.” Following the ratio of above cited decision, the Commission directs the CPIO to respond to the RT I application and disclose the broad outcome of the TEP without divulging any details, to the appellant after the assessment is completed.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[CIC/RM /A/2014/001153/BS/8839 of 15.10.2015 in the matter of Md. Masoom Afzal vs. CPIO/ACIT, HO (Tech), Income Tax Department, Patna]

A
division bench of Justice S. C. Dharmadhikari and Justice G.S.Kulkarni
pointed out that the applicability of the RT I Act on information that
is with the Chief Justice in his fiduciary capacity is pending before
the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the petition filed by advocate
Mathews Nedumpara, challenging the orders of the public information
officer (PIO) and the appellate officer that the information could not
be furnished as the matter was subjudice before the Supreme Court.

PM’s foreign trips:
Prime
Minister Narendra Modi’s foreign trips cost the exchequer over Rs. 37
crore with his Australia trip proving to be the most expensive one.

Documents
accessed under RT I Act reveal that Indian missions in 16 countries
spent Rs.37.22 crore in one year. Modi visited 20 countries between June
2014 and June 2015.

Among the most expensive trips were those
to Australia, the US, Germany, Fiji and China while the cheapest trip
was Bhutan which cost Rs.41.33 lakh. In Australia, the mission spent
over Rs.5.60 crore on hotel stay for the PM and his delegation and
Rs.2.40 crore on hiring cars.

The PM’s trip to New York in
September 2014 resulted in a spending of Rs.9.16 lakh on hotel
accommodation for the SPG delegation and Rs.11.51 lakh for hotel rooms
for the PM, and official of the foreign ministry and the PMO. The
delegation stayed at the New York Palace Hotel.

Another Rs.39
lakh was spent on car rentals for the SPG delegation while Rs.3 lakh was
spent on Prasar Bharati for coverage of the PM’s visit. In Germany, the
embassy spent Rs.3.80 lakh on hotel accomodation, Rs.1.31 lakh on daily
allowances and Rs.19,405 on local travels.

RTI show on DD:
DD
programme “Janne Ka Haq” was the only TV show in India which for over
nine years was based solely on RT I and transparency related issues. Its
popularity was high, especially in rural areas and small towns. Most
institutions against whom RT I queries were posed were obviously
uncomfortable, since an ordinary individual could challenge the system.
Janne Ka Haq was suddenly discontinued a fortnight back before it could
complete its 10th anniversary in January next year. The order to cancel
the show reportedly came from the top.

Landmark Order of Chief SIC, Maharashtra:
In
a landmark order passed by the state information commission, all
offices of cabinet ministers and ministers of states will henceforth be
treated as public authorites. The order gives scope for more
transparency in these offices, by bringing the conduct of ministers and
their activities under the RT I ambit.

The order was passed by
state chief information commissioner Ratnakar Gaikwad on an application
made by Fort resident Govind Tupe. It directs the chief secretary to
appoint the required staff so that offices of ministers take RT I
applications. The order has to be complied with by October 31.

Chief secretary Swadheen Kshatriya said, “We will comply with the order.”

Tupe had submitted an application to the office of the social justice minister, which was not replied to.

After
the Act was implemented, barring the chief minister’s office, other
ministers’ offices gradually stopped accepting applications, saying they
should be sent to the department concerned and not the ministry. But in
such scenarios, unless the applicant categorically asked about a
particular detail regarding the minister/ministry, s/he wasn’t given
that information. And, with the ministers’ offices left out of the RT I
ambit, applicants would fail to get information that only the minister
and his/her ministry was in the know of. Now, recommendations made by
ministers, letters they write and other details, like their schedule is
expected to be made available.

“When political parties are under RT I, there is no reason why these people and their conduct can’t be included,” said Tupe.

“Recently,
some officers recommended by the Social justice minister were arrested
by the ACB. I wanted to know how many such recommendations were made and
to which departments. When I went to follow up on my application, the
minister’s staff refused to reply, saying his office is not under RTI.
So, neither could I get information, nor could I file the first appeal. I
then filed a complaint with the Commission.”

During the
hearing, the Commission stated, “Offices of ministers have been set up
by government…these perform several duties – receiving files from
various departments, applications from people and complaints from the
public, and correspond with authorities/offices…” “Sizeable staff is
also sanctioned by the government to these offices… They, therefore,
fall under the purview of section 2(h) (d) of the RT I Act, 2005.”

The Social justice minister’s private secretary has been asked to respond to Tupe’s application.

“There
is no doubt that ministers’ offices are public authority. They are
decision-making bodies and all their expenses, including ministers’
salary and perks, are taken care of by the government,” said RT I
activist Bhaskar Prabhu.

Education Minister Vinod Tawde:
The
state education board has rejected a Right to Information (RT I)
request about Education Minister Vinod Tawde’s mark sheets and
certificate because of political pressure, the NCP alleged.

NCP
spokesperson Nawab Malik claimed that Tawde had declared his educational
qualification as BE (electronics) from a bogus institute called
Dnyaneshwar Vidyapeeth. “It is believed that Tawde did not clear his Std
XII and hence an RT I query was made to clear doubts about his 10th and
12th standard education,” Malik alleged.

But the Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education rejected the
request after pressure from Tawde, Malik added.

Activist Anil Galgali had filed the application. In her reply, public information officer and joint secretary Ranjana Chaskar of the Mumbai Board said that documents such as mark sheets cannot be given to a “third person”.

Galgali appealed against the same, but divisional secretary C.Y. Chandekar also rejected his plea stating the same reason.

Malik said that if Tawde had nothing to hide, he should make public his Std X and XII mark sheets.

1) The DoPT has issued reasonably detailed guidance for Public Information Officers (PIOs) to help them send better drafted replies to RT I applicants. Every PIO is now required to include in his/her reply- the office number given to the request, name and contact details of the PIO including email address, detailed reasons invoking the relevant provisions of access to information is denied, name and contact details of the appellate authority whom the applicant may approach with a grievance within 30 days of receipt of the reply. This advisory is an outcome of the consultation on the subject that the DoPT launched in March this year.

This guidance also includes instructions as to how certified copies may be issued under the RTI Act by the PIO on request. The PIO will have to endorse the copy as follows: “True copy of the document/record supplied under RTI Act”, sign the copy with date and affix his/her seal containing his name and name of the public authority. If the requestor seeks documents that are numerous, then the certification of the copies may be done by any other junior gazette officer, but the reply must be sent by the PIO.

This communication has been dispatched to all Ministries and Departments, Secretariats of Parliament, President’s Secretariat, Prime Minister’s Office, NITI Ayog, Election Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General and the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories.

It is heartening to note that two issues about which clarity was required have been dealt with officially after 10 years of implementation of the RT I Act. Readers will remember that the issue of certified copies being sought by applicants under the RT I Act was discussed by the Kerala High Court in January 2014 in the John Numpeli (Junior) case. In this case the Court ruled that section 2(j) of the RT I Act does not take away the right of an individual to get certified copies under other laws such as the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Conversely, if an RTI applicant seeks certified copies under the RT I Act then the PIO must attest to the fact that the copies have been issued under the RT I Act.

A “genius” PIO in one of the northern Indian States had used the Kerala HC judgement recently, to deny certified copies to an RT I applicant. When a prominent RT I activist brought this case to my attention, I had sent him a copy of the judgement to help the RT I applicant. This episode reminded me of the saying in my native language crudely translated as follows- “what God proposes the priest disposes as he deems fit” (in Kannada – “devaru vara kottaru, pujari koda”)

Thankfully the DoPT has now issued this communication making it very clear as to how certified copies may be given under the RTI Act. Frankly, there is no conflict between section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act and section 2(j) of the RT I Act. In both laws, any person who has the right to inspect any public document/record, has the right to seek a certified copy from its custodian on payment of the relevant fees. Public authorities resistant to the idea of greater transparency in their working had created much confusion holding that certified copies can be given only under the Indian Evidence Act and not under the RT I Act. PIOs also pointed out that documents certified under the RTI Act could not be used as evidence in Courts. Thankfully, the Kerala High Court’s judgement and now the DoPT’s latest OM have brought closure to this controversy. PIOs henceforth must supply certified copies to RTI applicants on demand if the information is not covered by any exemption under the RTI Act. In my opinion, documents certified under the RTI Act can be used in Courts as evidence/exhibits by litigants.

I hope the General Administration Department in Jammu and Kashmir also takes this step to bring clarity about issuance of certified copies to RTI applicants under the J&K RTI Act, 2009.

2) The DoPT has also uploaded on its website its 2nd Compendium of Best Practices in implementing RT I across the country. There are several interesting initiatives documented in this compendium. I hope the DoPT will bring out a 3rd volume focusing more on how Government Departments and Ministries have brought about changes to their working due to RT I interventions of the citizenry. This is what many of us would like to hear when we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the RT I Act. Readers may go through the documentation of CHRI’s efforts to make transparency a reality at the grassroots level in the Panchayats of Gujarat in this Compendium.

Robert Vadra’s land deal in Haryana:
Gurgaon resident Dharamvir Yadav filed an RTI application in 2013, which revealed that separate building plans for both plots in May field Garden (N29 owned by Vadra and N30 by a private company) were approved in November 2010. But work on a single structure–the guesthouse– straddling both plots commenced in 2011. Yadav claims the building was completed by March 2014. After this, Satpal Thakran, another resident of the same township, filed an RT I query in May this year seeking more details on the plots, but these got stonewalled by authorities who cited Vadra’s request not to disclose details. The TO I is now in possession of correspondence between the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon and District Town Planner over Change of Land Use permissions and occupation certificates, which show how rules were bent at every stage.

The Times of India had reported on how RT I pleas to uncover details of a plot registered in the name of Vadra were stonewalled. ToI now has documents which prove that not only was a single structure built on two plots of land ( one owned by Vadra, the other private company), but also that a change of land permission from residential to commercial was sought only after the building was completed, both of which are in gross violation of the law.

Maharashtra State Police Transfer rules:
Under the state police transfer rules, officers cannot be transferred before they complete two years in one post unless under exceptional circumstances. But an RT I query shows that 147 of the 150 transfers this year, from January to September, were under “exceptional” circumstances. This was revealed following a query filed under RTI Act by former central information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, who asked for information on the number of deputy superintendents of police and officers above being transferred before their tenure was over this year. The data provided showed that only three out of 150 transfers were according to the law.

The transfers have raised questions about political interference in state policing with senior officers often found queuing up at politicians’ offices to choose postings. Some of the “exceptional reasons” cited are health problems and the distance between home and work place.

The data provided by the state police headquarters under RTI Act shows that 33 officers were transferred in February and 91 in June, just two months after the Parliament elections. On 23rd August, more officers were shifted, and all fell under the “exceptional” category.

Papers on First chief CIC’s resignation:
The Central Information Commission, entrusted with monitoring of record-keeping in government bodies, has lost the records relating to the resignation of the first Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah who headed the institution for nearly five years. In an RTI response, the transparency panel said the lost files related to Habibullah’s resignation are not readily traceable, raising questions about record-keeping in the CIC. “The concerned file containing the communication relating to then Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah regarding his resignation are not readily traceable though efforts have been made. The information will be provided as an when available,” Sushil Kumar, Deputy Secretary at the CIC, said in response to RTI application filed by Commodore (retd) Lokesh Batra. Batra told PTI that around 20th October, 2009 Habibullah had resigned to join as Chief Information Commissioner of Jammu and Kashmir.

Ajit Pawar makes RTI application:
NCP leader Ajit Pawar made use of the Right to Information (RTI) Act to scrutinise a large number of files that former chief minister Prithviraj Chavan had cleared in just 15 days.

Pawar, who was Chavan’s deputy in the Congress-NCP government, said that he had already filed RTI queries over the files from the urban development department. “Files stuck for a long time were suddenly cleared in the past 15 days. What suddenly happened?” he said. “As an ordinary citizen, I have sought information about the decisions taken in the urban development department.” [Source – news items published in The Times of India]

RTI Rules:
India has one Right to Information (RTI) Act but 118 separate sets of rules formulated independently by states, courts, information commissioners, Parliament and state assemblies that run a maze around the legislation.

The rules dictate varied fees, application format, number of words, type of identity proof required and mode of payment making the process of seeking information a complex one.

For instance, 34 states and union territories have prescribed application fee of Rs. 10. But cost of pursuing an RTI application could range between Rs. 50 to Rs. 100 excluding cost of information. Haryana charges Rs. 50 for all RTI applications while Arunachal Pradesh charges Rs. 50 for most applications but Rs. 500 for information related to bids, tenders or business contracts.

Only Andhra Pradesh has cut down on the fees—Rs. 10 for cities, free of cost for village level and Rs. 5 for subdistrict level. Sikkim charges Rs. 100 for both first and second appeal, while filing a first appeal in Madhya Pradesh costs Rs. 50 and a second appeal Rs. 100. While the central government has mandated Rs. 2 per photocopy, Chhatisgarh has limited the number to 50 pages while Arunachal charges Rs. 10.

To complicate things further, inspection of documents is allowed free of cost by some states for the first hour and then charges of Rs. 5 are levied in Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Sikkim and Uttarakhand. The cost of inspection of documents in Daman and Diu is Rs. 100 a day for a maximum of 3 hours and if the information sought is older by a decade or more, the public authority can charge an additional Rs. 25 an hour. States have also placed odd restrictions on the format of the application. In Karnataka, Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra the length of the RTI application cannot exceed more than 150 words while the Centre has mandated a 500 word limit.

There are similar inconsistencies in rules related to proof of identity required by public authorities. While the RTI act does not mandate any proof of identity section 3 does say that only Indian citizens can use the law. This has led to states like Goa, Gujarat, Odisha, Sikkim insisting on identity proof of the applicant.

RTI users & where do they live:
Maharashtra Government’s notification:

On 17th October, the Maharashtra Government issued a notice directing all government departments not to part with information unless it is in “public interest.” “The notification violates the RTI Act and seems to be designed to promote corruption,”

(Author’s Note: Compare this with the judgement reported under part A in this issue. I believe that the notification is against the spirit of the RTI Act and is also illegal)