SUGGESTIONS AND OBJECTIONS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN RULES OF RTI ACT 2005

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: PONNIAH ESAKKIMUTHU <pesakkimuthucitu@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Subject: SUGGESTIONS AND OBJECTIONS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN RULES OF RTI ACT 2005
To: usrti-dopt@nic.in

Dt.20.12.10

From

P.Esakkimuthu,

RTI Activist,

17C-Masilamanipuram IInd Street,

Thoothukkudi-628008

Tamilnadu

To

Sri R.K. Girdhar

Under Secretary (RT1)

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions

Department of Personnel Training

North Block, New Delhi-110001

By Email to usrti-dopt@nic.in

Dear Sir

Sub: Amendments in Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 and the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005-suggestions and objections filed-reg

I am submitting the following suggestions and objections on the subject matter which may kindly be taken note of while finalizing the proposed amendments on the subject matter

4. Request for Information

The words” one subject matter and shall be limited to two hundred and fifty words, excluding the address “ is highly unwarranted and it will defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act.The Public and common man are not trained to count the words. It will be very easy to the CPIOs to reject the application if the words are more than 250 and the requested subject is more than one. The purpose of Sec 6(3) will be meaningless. This amendment would be anti-transparency, anti-accountability, anti-right to information, and hence to be dropped in all its seriousness.

5. Fees for providing information: The following amendments are unwarranted and it will defeat the very purpose of RTI Act. The CPIO will fix the cost/amount unilaterally and it will be normally supported by Appellate Authority and it will pave way for accumulations of Second Appeal before the CIC which is already loaded with heavy workload.

(a) rupees two for each page in A-3 size or smaller size paper;

(c ) actual cost or price for samples or models;

(d) for inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and fee of rupees five for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof);

(g) the actual amount spent by public authority on hiring a machine or any other equipment, if any, to supply information;

(h) Postal charges, in excess of rupees ten, if any, involved in supply of information

Under Rule (a) The fee for copies of document is now fixed at Rs.2/- per page.This fee is high when compared to the actual expenses incurred in this connection. Now zeroxing a page cost paise 50/- in many places and Re.1/- in some places. In some places it is less than 50 paise. Hence the Rules may be amended suitably to fix the additional fee for documents at Rs.1/- per page.

Under sub (d)-For inspection of records fee can be fixed for every completed hours and fraction thereof may be ignored.

Under (g)- actual amount spent for hiring machine or any equipment may be deleted as every public authority is provided with infrastructure meant for offices.The CPIO may resort to hiring machine wantonly under the pretext of office machine under repair thereby demand charges heavily with a view to deny the documents asked for.

Under (h), the entire postage must be born by the PA and it should not be transferred to the shoulder of the information seeker. The CPIO and FAA started charging fees for postage, the purpose of RTI Act would be defeated. It will rather discourage the information seekers on the ground of bearing postages. After all no PA is going to spend from his own pocket. It is the expenditure of the Govt/PA’s Account. This amendment would be anti-transparency, anti-accountability, anti-right to information, and hence to be dropped in all its seriousness.

6. Payment of fee: Under this rule the following words may be substituted in the place of “Provided that a public authority may accept fee by any other mode of Payment “

“Provided that a public authority shall accept fee by any other mode of Payment chosen by the applicant including Money Orders and it shall be applicable to additional fee meant for documents”

This substitution will make easy the common citizen to pay the fee as he wishes to make the RTI Act easily accessible to him

7. Appeal to the first Appellate Authority: In this rule provision to make first appeal is formulated.Rule should not circumvent the main provisio of the Act. In this rule, first appeal is provided for non-disposal of application which is in contravention of Sec 18 which provides for a complaint to the CIC for this type of non-disposal by the CPIO and to penalize the CPIO for disregarding the application seeking information. Hence the word “ or non-disposal of his application by the Central Public Information Officer within the prescribed time, “ may be deleted as it would go against the spirit of RTI Act.

Similarly no format for first appeal is warranted. It is sufficient that first appeal is made against the order of CPIO while making first appeal. Hence the word” in the format as given in the Appendix” shall be deleted as it would render difficult to common man to make appeal and the CPIO to reject the first appeal if the format is slightly different or altered.

8. Documents to accompany first appeal to the first Appellate Authority:

This is also NOT required as the FAA is an authority superior to the PIO and when the FAA is housed in the same office/building. If the FAA is located in different area , such amendment may be insisted. Hence the following amendment in the existing amendment may be made

“Every appeal made to the first Appellate Authority shall be accompanied by the following documents, if the FAA is located/housed in different area/building”

The following may be substituted in the place of “ duly authenticated and verified”

“duly self attested by the appellant”

10. Documents to accompany Appeal to Commission: In this rule The following may be substituted in the place of “ duly authenticated and verified”

“duly self attested by the appellant”

11. Admission of appeals: (1) In this rule the words “On receipt of an appeal, if the Commission is satisfied that it is a fit case for consideration, it may admit such appeal” may be deleted and the following words may be substituted

“All complaints/appeals should be admitted and disposed off on merit. Within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt”

There must be time limit for disposal of the appeal by the CIC like the time limit given to CPIO and FAA or otherwise the CIC is as on date keeping pending of cases without trial for more than one year etc. If this time limit is not provided for the CIC, the RTI Act will loose its importance, meaning, spirit and significance and the applicant will have no faith in the functioning of CIC.

12. Procedure for deciding appeals & 14. Personal presence of the appellant before the Commission &15. Presentation by the Public Authority

The appellants are now finding it very very difficult to attend the personal hearing/video conferencing. Hence the compelling the appellant for personal hearing /video conferencing must be dispensed with. Alternatively, the reply/counter of the CPIO/FAA may be obtained by the CIC and on the basis of second appeal and the reply/counter, the CIC shall pass orders on merit, after giving a chance to the appellant to offer any remarks/rejoinder to the reply/counter of CPIO/FAA within a time frame. If no reply /counter is received from the CPIO /FAA, the matter may be decided exparte. In case of penalty of whatever nature, opportunity shall be given to the CPIO/FAA as the case may be .Hence this rule may be amended as above to make the proceedings before CIC as summary proceedings unlike from the present time consuming and difficult procedures

A new rule may be added after Rule 18 as follows

Review on the order of CIC: A review of order of CIC shall lie if the order is passed by a single Information Commissioner and the review petition will be heard by more than single Information Commissioner and the appellant alone is entitled for a review

The above suggestions/objections shall be considered by the rule making authorities in the interest and well functioning of the RTI Act.

Yours truly,

P.Esakkimuthu

Put all new FIRs online: Delhi HC

Put all new FIRs online: Delhi HC

In a major move towards transparency in police functioning, the high court has directed the Delhi Police to start uploading all First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in the city onto its website within 24 hours of filing. The police are required to implement the order from February 1, 2011. The landmark order, passed by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Manmohan, said it's the duty of the police to provide information and the accused does not need to move court to get a copy of an FIR. "Fair and impartial investigation is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and presumption as regards the innocence of an accused is a right. Therefore, a person booked under criminal law has a right to know the nature of allegations so that he can take necessary steps to safeguard his liberty," the bench said. Earlier, additional solicitor general A S Chandiok and amicus curie Arvind Nigam submitted their suggestions on the matter.

Don't reject RTI applications without prescribed fees: Govt

Don't reject RTI applications without prescribed fees: Govt

The government has asked all the ministries and departments not to reject the RTI applications which are without the prescribed application fee of Rs 10. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has asked all Central government ministries to treat such applications "sympathetically", sources said. Sources said that officials have been asked to take a sympathetic view and see if the applicant is needy by enquiring about the person, and then waive the Rs 10 application fee. However, a final decision by the concerned public information officer (PIO) will be binding. The government has also asked all the departments to use the RTI logo make the concept popular and earmark and identify PIOs and CPIOs appointed to answer the RTI applicants, sources said.

Open to scrutiny: A landmark ruling by the CIC

http://www.frontline.in/stories/20101022272108200.htm

ON August 30, a three-member Bench of the Central Information Commission (CIC), New Delhi, gave a ruling that has the potential to bring under public scrutiny crucial aspects of the functioning of the Central and State governments that have remained hidden from the public glare all these years. The Bench, comprising Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah and Information Commissioners Satyananda Mishra and Deepak Sandhu, did this disposing of a complaint from Venkatesh Nayak of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi, against the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India.
The CIC held that exemption under Section 8(1) (i) of the Right to Information Act (RTI) would not apply to deliberations leading to the formulation of a policy framework until such time as the draft was submitted to the Cabinet Secretariat, with all its necessary attachments for submission to the Cabinet. Thus when a Cabinet note is finally approved for submission to the Cabinet through the Cabinet Secretariat, Section 8(1) (i) will apply. Once approved by the Cabinet, it will also qualify for exemption under Section 8(1) (c). The CIC also recommended that the Cabinet Secretariat consider amending its circular issued in 2002 to allow for public consultation in an appropriate form.
Under Section 8(1) (c), the governments are exempted from giving information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State legislature. Under Section 8(1) (i), there is no obligation to give any citizen Cabinet papers, including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers and Secretaries and other officers. This section has a proviso which says that the decisions of the Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken and the matter is complete. Another proviso says that those matters that come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed.
In March, Nayak requested the DoPT to place the draft Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers (PIDPI – as the whistle-blower Bill was then called) Bill on its website. When the DoPT did not respond, he complained to the CIC against its failure to disclose proactively the contents of the Bill as required under the RTI Act. When the CIC heard his complaint on August 3, the Bill was already a part of the Cabinet note submitted to the Cabinet Secretariat by the Department. The Department took the stand that it would place the Bill on the website after the Cabinet decision and its introduction in Parliament, and until that time the government could not be said to have any policy in this matter that would warrant public disclosure.
The CIC rejected Nayak's complaint on August 3, as under the RTI Act the government is not bound to disclose information relating to Cabinet papers. But it constituted a three-member Bench to decide the question whether the government could refuse to disclose proactively draft Bills. This Bench heard the case on August 20 and gave its decision on August 30.
The process of legislation involves a number of steps, including consultation with the public. Although Members of Parliament act as lawmakers and have the legitimacy to enact laws through Parliament, their ability to influence the law-making exercise is greatly limited in practice. It is the governments that prepare and introduce Bills in Parliament and State legislatures which eventually get enacted. Members, in their individual capacity, can introduce private members' Bills, but these usually do not see the light of day in the absence of government support.
Government Bills are often rushed through with members spending less and less time discussing them because of time and other constraints. Bills are referred to standing committees for detailed examination and report, but the media are barred from reporting the proceedings of these committees, with the result that the cloak of secrecy over these Bills is ensured right from the drafting stage to their eventual enactment. No doubt, Bills are in the public domain after they are introduced in Parliament or State legislatures and the public is free to discuss them. But this phase cannot be construed as offering space for public consultation, as public opinion cannot hope to influence the government to make the required changes in the Bills once they are introduced in Parliament or the State legislatures.
The degree of public consultation over the draft Bills prepared by the government, therefore, is indicative of the government's preparedness to democratise the law-making exercise. On this, the attitudes of the governments at the Centre and in the States have not been consistent. The Central government, for instance, permits certain draft Bills to be placed in the public domain to invite suggestions and comments. But certain departments of the government do not believe in this transparency. They take shelter under Sections 8(1) (c) and 8(1) (i) of the RTI.
Proactive disclosure
Nayak's complaint against the DoPT has to be understood in the context of his similar complaint against the Delhi government, which Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi had disposed of on July 7. In this complaint, Nayak had sought proactive disclosure, under Section 4 (1) (c) of the RTI Act, of the contents of the draft Delhi Police (Amendment) Bill, 2010, prepared by the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. When the government ignored his plea, he filed a complaint with the CIC. Following the complaint, the Delhi government placed the Bill on its website, and invited comments from the public.
In his decision, Shailesh Gandhi said: "The citizens individually are the sovereigns of the democracy and they delegate their powers in the legislature. The RTI Act has recognised this and Section 4(1) (c) is meant to ensure that the citizens would be kept informed about proposals for significant legislative and policy changes." The CIC directed the Chief Secretary of the Delhi government to develop a credible mechanism in all departments for proactive and timely disclosure of draft legislation/policies and amendments thereto or to existing laws/policies in the public domain, during the process of their formulation and before their finalisation.
The government introduced the whistle-blower Bill on August 26, while the Cabinet approved it on August 9. It claimed before the CIC that the Cabinet note annexing the draft Bill had been approved for submission to the Cabinet on August 2. This means that the government ought to have placed the draft Bill on the DoPT's website anytime before August 2, inviting comments from the public, as the draft Bill was being formulated.
Although the CIC's decision does not go into it, opinions differ on whether the governments can legitimately refuse to share the contents of a draft Bill, submitted for Cabinet's approval, until it is introduced in Parliament or in a State legislature. A draft Bill could only be an annexure to a Cabinet note. If the same Bill is already in the public domain by virtue of the requirements of proactive disclosure, the same cannot be withdrawn once it forms part of the Cabinet note. Both Nayak and Satyananda Mishra had agreed during the August 20 hearing that parliamentary privileges – which have not been codified so far – could not be the grounds for denying information about a draft Bill, but Habibullah felt parliamentary privilege would be violated if the government shared the contents of a Bill that had been approved by the Cabinet but was yet to be introduced in Parliament. This perhaps explains why the August 30 decision is silent on the question of parliamentary privilege being the grounds for not disclosing Bills approved by the Cabinet.
Nayak is optimistic. He said: "We await the government's reaction to these decisions at the systemic level. We hope the Central government will not appeal against these decisions in the Delhi High Court as no public interest is negatived by the disclosure of draft Bills. The DoPT must issue office memoranda instructing all Ministries to create mechanisms for public consultation on draft Bills before they are finalised for introduction in Parliament.
The RTI users and activists in the States could use these decisions to get their State Information Commissions to rule in favour of the disclosure of draft legislation before it is tabled in the legislature or draft rules before they are gazetted. Democracies, despite being largely representative in form, cannot shy away from public consultation."

From:	vishalkudchadkar Add to Contacts
To:	HumJanenge

Furnish details of poor patients treated in private hospitals: CIC

NEW DELHI, October 3, 2010

In order to ensure that EWS beneficiaries receive better treatment in government-aided private hospitals, the CIC has asked the DHS to disclose and upload details of poor patients on a daily basis. File photo: K. Gopinathan

The Central Information Commission has asked the Directorate of Health Services to disclose and upload details of patients being treated under the Economically Weaker Section category in private hospitals.

In order to ensure that patients under the EWS scheme received the benefit, Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi has directed the DHS, Delhi that it should publish the name, father’s name, address and bed number of all patients treated under the category on a day-to-day basis in all the private hospitals which have been allotted land by government at subsidised rate.

The list should be published at their website daily with effect from October 1, Mr. Gandhi said in his order.

Earlier, the DHS only disclosed the number of beds available or empty for beneficiaries of the EWS patients in private hospitals who have been allotted land by government at subsidised rate.

“How could one ensure that hospitals are actually treating the EWS citizens and not anyone who did not need it”.

With this information on the website, one could check if the hospital was in anyway falsifying its record on this matter,” Mr. Gandhi said.

The order came after a resident of Uttam Nagar, Dinesh Kaushik filed an RTI application to DHS seeking information on the matter from a private hospital here.

the hindu dt 3.10.10

THIRD PARTY ENTITLED TO KNOW THE MARKS OF OTHER-JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

http://judis.nic.in/chennai/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=57128

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 13/09/2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

W.P.(MD)NO.4815 of 2008

R.Ramasamy .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary,

Ministry of Higher Education,

Chennai.

2.The Registrar,

T.N.Dr.Ambedkar Law University,

Chennai.

3.The Controller of Examination,

T.N.Dr. Ambedkar Law University,

Chennai. .. Respondents

This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the

third respondent to produce answer manuscripts of M.L. Degree exam Code Nos.PDE,

PDF exams held in December, 2007 written by the petitioner in Reg.No.0049 and to

direct to revalue the same answer papers in the court supervision and to declare

the results before the forthcoming exam on 9th and 11th June 2008.

!For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Ramasamy (Party in person)

^For Respondents ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, GA for R-1

Mr.P.Thiagarajan for RR2 and 3

- - - -

:ORDER

Heard the petitioner appearing in person, Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned

Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.P.Thiagarajan, learned

counsel for respondents 2 and 3 University.

2.The petitioner was a Post Graduate student in Law under the second

respondent University. He joined M.L. with Transfer of Properties which is an

optional subject. He wrote his final year M.L. Examination and appeared for

Public Trust and Charities (PDE) and Land Reform Laws and Leases (PDF) with

registration No.0049. But he was unsuccessful. Though he asked for photostat

copies of his answer sheets, the same were not provided. Therefore, he filed the

present writ petition, seeking for a direction to produce the answer sheets for

the examination wrote by him with code Nos.PDE and PDF for the year December,

2007. Further the court should direct the authorities to revalue the answer

sheets under the court supervision and also to declare the results before the

ensuing examination in June, 2008.

3.On notice from this court, the respondents have produced the photostat

copies of answer sheets. A counter affidavit, dated 3.7.2008 was also filed by

the second respondent. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it was averred

as follows:

"5.I submit, with regard to the averments made in Ground 3 to 6, till now there

is no provision for revaluation of M.L.Degree answer scripts in this University.

Since, in normal practice P.G. Degree answer scripts are being valued by

different Examiners (Double Valuation), the question of revaluation of answer

scripts of the P.G. Programme does not arise. However, the copies of the answer

scripts of the Petitioner, viz., (1) Public Trust and Charities (PDE) and (2)

Land Reform Laws and Leases (PDF) were forwarded to the petitioner on 07-06-2008

as per his request."

4.This court by an order, dated 15.6.2010 allowed the petitioner to write

the examination held in June, 2010 making it clear that in case he succeeds in

the writ petition, the results obtained in this writ petition will be binding on

parties.

5.After perusing the answer sheets, the petitioner has come up with

an additional affidavit, dated 6.11.2009. He had stated that for the U.G.

Course, the University has system of revaluation and there is no reason why they

should deny the petitioner's request. It was also stated that the other

universities in Tamil Nadu have adopted revaluation procedure even at the P.G.

Level. Therefore, there is nothing wrong for this court ordering revaluation. He

further submitted that he has done very well in the examination.

6.A perusal of the PDF paper shows that it has been valued by two

different examiners and after working out an average of two valuations, he had only secured 37 marks. Likewise, in PDE paper, it has been valued by two examiners and an average worked out to 28 marks. It must be noted that the petitioner had not alleged any malafide.

7.with reference to non furnishing the copies of answer sheets, the

conduct of the University cannot be appreciated and without driven the parties to approach this court, the University ought not to have given copies.

8.When a question arose whether such an information is in public domain and the persons are entitled to know the marks obtained in the answer sheets, this court vide its judgment in The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, rep.By its Registrar Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and others reported in 2010 (1) CWC 816 has held that even under the provisions of the Right To Information Act, a third party is entitled to get such an information.

9.With reference to the prayer for revaluation, it must be stated that the petitioner had obtained marks bordering very near to pass mark. Very recently,

the Supreme Court dealt with an issue regarding the court's power in ordering revaluation, vide its judgment in H.P.Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another reported in 2010 AIR SCW 3636 = 2010 (6) SCC 759. It is necessary to refer to paragraphs 24 to 26 of the said judgment which is asfollows:

"24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984(4) SCC 27), wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under: (SCC pp.39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16)

"14. ? It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate

to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute can best

be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. ?

* * *

16. ? The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be

lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act."

25. This view has been approved and relied upon and reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission(2004 (6) SCC 714) observing as under: (SCC pp. 717-18, para 7)

"7. ? Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for revaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks." (emphasis added)

A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-Ul-Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of

J&K State (1984(4) SCC 24), Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda(2004(13) SCC 383), Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar(2007 (1) SCC 603), W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das(2007 (8) SCC 242) and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences(2009(1) SCC 599).

26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of

any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation."

10.In the light of the above, there is no case made out to entertain the

writ petition. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs.

vvk

To

1.The Secretary,

Ministry of Higher Education,

Chennai.

2.The Registrar,

T.N.Dr.Ambedkar Law University,

Chennai.

3.The Controller of Examination,

T.N.Dr. Ambedkar Law University,

Chennai.

“Information prior to 2005 cannot be denied”

MADURAI: The Madras High Court Bench here has rejected the argument that public authorities dealing with applications under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 were not liable to provide details related to the period before the enactment of the legislation. Dismissing a writ petition filed by a government-aided arts and science college in Tuticorin against an order passed by the State Information Commission, Justice R.S. Ramanathan said that the college could not refuse to part with details sought by an individual about its activities since 1999. The judge disagreed with the petitioner's contention that compelling an authority to part with information prior to 2005 would amount to giving retrospective effect to the Act. He said that it was a substantial legislation which recognises the right of every person to obtain information. “The purpose of enacting the legislation itself would become meaningless if the Court accepts the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no information or documents earlier to 2005 can be asked for by an RTI applicant… A citizen is entitled to call for information related to any period,” the judge said. He also rejected the petitioner's other argument that the State Information Commission had violated the principles of natural justice by not giving an opportunity to the college explain its stand before directing the institution to provide information sought by the RTI applicant. The Act does not require the Commission to issue notice before ordering disclosure of information. “Further the question of violation of principles of natural justice would arise only when a person is affected by the passing of an order or any civil consequences followed by that order,” the judge added. He also held that the petitioner college, being a government aided institution, was liable to provide the information as directed by the Information Commission. http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/14/stories/2010091462360600.htm

__._,_.

Details of Form 10 should be made public: CIC to EPFO

04/09/2010
Details of Form 10 should be made public: CIC to EPFO
New Delhi, Sep 3 (PTI) The details of Form 10 submitted by an office to Employees'' Provident Fund Organisation, which consists of information about workers who have resigned, should be disclosed under the RTI Act, the Central Information Commission has held.
The CIC directed the EPFO to disclose the Form 10 details submitted by a leading newspaper group which were demanded by an RTI applicant.
It is mandatory for organisations to file Form 10 every month as per Provident Fund (PF) norms. The form has details of employees who have left the organisation and ceased to be PF contributors.
Gurkirat Singh Dhillon of Patiala has sought to know from EPFO the details of form 10 submitted by the newspaper group for a particular period.
The EPFO refused to disclose the details saying the records have been held in "fiduciary capacity", exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, by the Regional PF Commissioner and cannot be made public.
"The Form-10 given by employer to the PF Department is in fulfilment of a statutory obligation and this does not qualify as information given in a fiduciary relationship. In view of this the Commission rejects the contention of the PIO that the information is exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act," Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said.
"The PIO is directed to provide the information to the appellant before September 25, 2010," he said.

Property statements are not 'confidential' info: CIC

---

Property statements are not 'confidential' info: CIC New Delhi, Aug 26 (PTI): Property statements filed by civil servants are not confidential information and can be disclosed after taking the views of concerned officials as per the provisions of the RTI Act, the Central Information Commission has held. Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah rejected the plea of Department of Personnel and Training that these records were held "in confidence" by the government and are hence exempted from disclosure. "It is clear that the property statements are statements regarding private individuals serving in government and (they) become part of Government records," he said. Habibullah said by no means these records can be treated as information held "in confidence" by the government. He said these records come in the category of "personal information" the disclosure of which could amount to invasion of privacy and would attract section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. There are 10 exemption clauses provided under the section 8(1) of the RTI Act which exempt disclosure of different categories of information. Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information from disclosure unless larger public interest is demonstrated by the RTI applicant. The case relates to an RTI application filed by Shyam Lal Yadav where he sought details of property statements filed by bureaucrats and their relatives. Habibullah said in cases where information of personal nature is sought, section 11 (1) of the Right to Information Act also applies. As per the provision, it is appropriate to make such disclosure after reference to officials about whom information has been sought. "Issue notice to third parties within five working days of receipt of this decision notice and proceed to disclose the information sought by appellant Shyam Lal Yadav, if no viable objection based on exemption under section 8(1) is received within 10 days of the date of issue of such notice," he said. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/91580/property-statements-not-confidential-info.html

Youth suspects foul play in death; RTI Act comes to aid

Youth suspects foul play in death; RTI Act comes to aid

Mohamed Imranullah S.
MADURAI: The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 has proved to be of great help to A. Bakrudeen Ali Ahamed, of Karaikudi in Sivaganga district, who suspected foul play in the death of his 22-year-old sister at her in-law's residence in Gomathipuram here within nine months of her marriage.

The youth could not believe that his sister Rabia Banu could have committed suicide on February 18 and his suspicion was strengthened by not one but two ligature marks on her neck. He immediately made arrangements to take pictures of the corpse before burying it in their native place.

The Karuppayurani police here initially registered a case under Section 174 (enquiring a suicide case) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and subsequently altered it to Section 304-B (Dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code. The husband of the deceased was also remanded to judicial custody.

However, not satisfied with the probe, Mr. Ahamed wanted the police to register a murder case against the culprits. He also believed that his sister's father-in-law, a retired Joint Director of Prosecution having a good rapport with many police officials, was influencing the investigation officer to weaken the case.

The bereaved brother tried to obtain a copy of the post mortem certificate in order to cross-check the injuries recorded in it with those found in the photographs of the corpse. But he could not get hold of the certificate from the judicial magistrate's court as it was supposedly missing from the case bundle.

It was then that he filed an application under the RTI Act and obtained the certificate from the Dean of a medical college where the autopsy was conducted.

Thereafter, he moved the Madras High Court Bench here seeking transfer of investigation to some other district police other than Madurai.

Satisfied with the submissions made by his counsel R. Paul Sukumar and after perusing the post mortem certificate as well as the photographs, Justice R. Mala said: “I am of the opinion that the deceased could not have died of asphyxia due to hanging since there were two external injuries on the body.”

The judge directed the Inspector General of Police (south zone) to withdraw the case from the present investigation officer and hand it over to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirumangalam Sub-Division, to reinvestigate the matter afresh on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner.

The Revenue Divisional Officer was also ordered to exhume the body and make arrangements to conduct another autopsy by a team of doctors. The IGP was further directed to depute the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, to supervise the reinvestigation and file a final report in accordance with law.

Pvt schools not exempted from RTI Act: CIC

Pvt schools not exempted from RTI Act: CIC

New Delhi,

PRIVATE recognised schools cannot claim exemption from disclosing information to the Education Directorate (ED) under RTI Act, a full Bench of the Central Information Commission (CIC) has held thus virtually bringing them under the ambit of transparency law.
“The issues relating to management and regulation of schools responsible for promotion of education are so important for development that it cannot be left at whims and caprices of private bodies, whether
funded or not by the government,” it said in its order deciding on disclosure of service records of a teacher employed at a private school. Bindu Khanna, a teacher at Pinnacle School at Panchsheel Enclave, had filed an RTI application with the ED seeking to know her service records. But despite orders of the ED to provide the details, the school maintained that it was a private body and hence the act was not applicable to it. It cited sections of the law which exempt the disclosure of personal information.
The commission said various clauses of Delhi School Education Rules 1973 say that all records of a private recognised school are open to inspection by any officer authorised by the director or the appropriate authority at any time. The commission said various clauses of Delhi School Education Rules 1973 say that all records of a private recognised school are open to inspection by any officer authorised by the director or the appropriate authority at any time ■ PTI

RTI AWRDS PUBLICATION1

FOR the daily wage workers at the Kovilpatti Agricultural Producers Coop Marketing Society, Thuoothukud -based P Esakkimuthu was a godsend not only because he fought for their legal right to insurance cover under the ESI Act, but also because he showed them how powerful a tool RTI can be to expedite government work.

T hough the issue was raised earlier and the branch manager in Kovilpatti was manager in Kovilpatti was directed by the insurance inspector to carry out the work, the case was gathering dust due to unnecessary delay.

It was only because of the efforts this 59-year old president of District Cooperative Employees Union that the file pertaining to their insurance cover under the ESI Act was taken up for action and the loading/unloading workers at the society office got their due.

Esakkimuthu has also used it in the past to help the labourers at a BPCL plant know whether their contractor had remitted the EPF & ESI recoveries made from the contract workers for a year for which they hitherto had made futile struggles between various offices. Esakkimuthu swears by the RTI and keeps on using this time and again to get his personal tussles cleared as well, thus setting a strong example for the other citizens who could benefit from the RTI Act in a similar manner.

Sharing his personal experience he claims, "Public authorities act only after the receipt of an RTI application. The RTI Act is really a boon to the citizens in as much as it stimulates officials for early settlement of long pending grievances of the public." He further adds, "In the absence of the RTI Act, the various representations and reminders will fall on deaf ears. With the help of the RTI Act, issues get settled within no time as compared to past and this is a victory for the RTI Act."

His was one of the interesting nominations received by the RTI Awards Secretariat in the Best RTI Citizen category.

The common man can become the champion of the RTI by using it to address any malpractice occurring in the system known to him and thus help in making the government more accountable towards handling public money and bring transparency in the system.

RTI AWRDS PUBLICATION

Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee comes under RTI :HC

NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has held that Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (DSGMC) is a public authority making it mandatory to reveal information under the RTI Act.

Justice S Muralidhar dismissed the plea of the committee for not bringing it within the ambit of the transparency law.

The committee had approached the court after the Central Information Commission had directed it to reveal information sought under the RTI Act and set up the necessary infrastructure for the purpose.

"This court concurs with the view expressed by the CIC that DSGMC is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act,'' justice Muralidhar said.

The committee contended that it should not be directed to comply with the provisions of RTI Act as it did not get any finance from government.

Rejecting its contention, justice Muralidhar said the public authority under Section 2(h) (a) to (d) need not be necessarily, directly or indirectly, substantially financed by funds provided by the appropriate government.
ooted after servant drugs family

Bank defaulters' names to be made public

NAGPUR: In a huge boost to transparency in banking sector, Chief Information Commission (CIC) has asked banks to make public the details of their loans write off. So far banks were not revealing the names of defaulters saying it would result in breach of trust with the borrower.

The ruling may lead to bank's customers and public knowing who was causing losses to banks and even lead borrowers to demand an equal treatment with defaulters whose loans had been forgiven. A person who makes the query under RTI Act, will now have to be provided all details like name and address of the borrower, names of partners/directors, date and amount of loan written off as well as the name and designation of the official who sanctioned the loan and who decided to write it off.

Observers say that similar data for the loans other than those mentioned in the query may also have to be put on the public domain by the banks though their website or any other medium accessible to the public also.

CIC Satyananda Mishra gave this ruling while hearing a second appeal after a RTI query was refused by Bank of Baroda. The ruling in the first appeal held that the information could not be disclosed as it was held in commercial confidence and fiduciary position. Disclosure of such data is exempt under Right to Information Act.

Quashing this order, the CIC said that the reason “this data does not come under the exemption provisions is that it relates to only those accounts which the authorities had written off. The confidentiality which was implicit in the loan transaction between bank and the borrower came to an end as soon as borrower stopped repayments," he ruled.

தகவல் தர மறுக்கும் அதிகாரியை கைது செய்யலாம்

DINAMANI : 12 Jul 2010 02:42:28 AM IST

Last Updated :

சென்னை, ஜூலை 11: தகவல் பெறும் உரிமை சட்டத்தின் கீழ் கோரப்படும் தகவல்களை அளிக்க மறுக்கும் பொது தகவல் அதிகாரியை கைது செய்வதற்கு தகவல் ஆணையத்துக்கு அதிகாரம் உள்ளது. சட்டத்தில் இதற்கான வழிவகை உள்ளது என்பதை நாட்டில் முதன்முறையாக அருணாசலப் பிரதேச மாநில தகவல் ஆணையம் நிருபித்துள்ளது. தகவல் பெறும் உரிமை சட்டம் குறித்த விழிப்புணர்வை அதிகரிப்பதற்காக பி.சி.ஆர்.எப். அமைப்பு ஆண்டுதோறும் பல்வேறு பிரிவுகளின் கீழ் விருதுகளை வழங்கி வருகிறது. இதில் நாடு முழுவதும் இருந்து சிறந்த தகவல் பெறும் உரிமை சட்ட ஆர்வலர், பத்திரிகையாளர், பொது தகவல் அதிகாரி, தகவல் ஆணையர், தகவல் ஆணையம் உள்ளிட்ட பிரிவுகளில் இந்த விருதுகள் வழங்கப்படுகின்றன. இந்த ஆண்டு இவ் விருதுகள் பெறுவதற்காக விண்ணப்பங்கள் பெறப்பட்டு வருகின்றன. இதற்காக நாடு முழுவதும் இருந்து ஏராளமான விண்ணப்பங்கள் வந்து குவிவதாக பி.சி.ஆர்.எப். அமைப்பினர் தெரிவித்தனர். இந்த சமயத்தில் கடந்த ஆண்டு சிறந்த தகவல் ஆணையமாக தேர்வு செய்யப்பட்டு விருது பெற்ற அருணாசலப் பிரதேச தகவல் ஆணையத்தின் பணிகள் குறித்து பி.சி.ஆர்.எப். அமைப்பினர் கூறியது: நாடு முழுவதும் தகவல் பெறும் உரிமை சட்ட ஆர்வலர்கள் மத்தியில், இந்த சட்டத்தின்படி 2-வது மேல்முறையீட்டுக்காக செல்லும் போது, தகவல் ஆணையங்கள் தங்களது அதிகாரத்தை முழுமையாக பயன்படுத்துவதில்லை என்ற குற்றச்சாட்டு நிலவுகிறது. இத்தகைய சூழலில், அருணாசல பிரதேச தகவல் ஆணையம் 90 சதவீத மனுக்களை விசாரித்து உரிய இறுதி உத்தரவுகளை பிறப்பித்துள்ளது. இது நாட்டில் உள்ள மற்ற ஆணையங்களை விட மிக அதிகமான அளவு என்பது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது. 2006-07 ஆண்டில் தகவல் அளிக்காத 25 அதிகாரிகளுக்கு அபராதம் விதித்த இந்த ஆணையம் 2008-ம் ஆண்டில், 18 சதவீத மனுக்களின் மீதான விசாரணையின் போது அதிகாரிகளுக்கு அபராதம் விதித்து உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது. குறிப்பாக, மனுதாரருக்கு தகவல் அளிக்காமல், அது தொடர்பான மேலதிகாரியின் உத்தரவை மதிக்காமல் இருந்த சில பொது தகவல் அதிகாரிகளை கைது செய்ய ஜாமீனில் வெளிவரக்கூடிய கைது ஆணைகளை பிறப்பித்துள்ளது. தகவல் பெறும் உரிமை சட்டம் 2005-ன் 18(3) பிரிவின் கீழ் இத்தகைய அதிகாரம் தகவல் ஆணையத்துக்கு உள்ளது என்பதை இந்த ஆணையம் நாட்டுக்கு நிரூபித்து காட்டியுள்ளது. இதுவே இந்த ஆணையம் நாட்டிலேயே சிறந்த தகவல் ஆணையத்துக்கான விருதுகளை பெற முக்கிய காரணம் என்றும் பி.சி.ஆர்.எப். அமைப்பினர் தெரிவித்தனர்.

தகவல் பெறும் உரிமை சட்டம்: சிறந்த ஆர்வலர் விருதுக்கு தமிழகத்தில் இருந்து 28 பேர் மனு

DINAMANI 14 Jul 2010 02:32:51 AM IST

Last Updated :

சென்னை, ஜூலை 13: தகவல் பெறும் உரிமைச் சட்ட சிறந்த ஆர்வலர் விருது பெற தமிழகத்தில் இருந்து 28 பேர் மனு செய்துள்ளனர். தகவல் பெறும் உரிமை சட்டம் (ஆர்.டி.ஐ.) தொடர்பாக மக்களிடம் விழிப்புணர்வை ஏற்படுத்தும் விதமாக தில்லியை தலைமையிடமாகக் கொண்டு செயல்படும் பி.சி.ஆர்.எப். அமைப்பு பல்வேறு பிரிவுகளின் கீழ் விருதுகளை வழங்கி வருகிறது. இந்த ஆண்டு சிறந்த ஆர்.டி.ஐ. குடிமகன், சிறந்த ஆர்.டி.ஐ. பத்திரிகையாளர், சிறந்த பொது தகவல் அதிகாரி உள்ளிட்ட பிரிவுகளில் விருதுகள் வழங்கப்பட உள்ளன. இதற்கான இந்த ஆண்டு நிகழ்வில், தி நியூ இந்தியன் எக்ஸ்பிரஸ், தினமணி உள்ளிட்ட இதழ்கள் பங்காளர்களாக உள்ளனர். ரூ. 2 லட்சம் ரொக்கப் பரிசு மற்றும் பாராட்டுப் பத்திரத்துடன் இந்த விருது வழங்கப்படுகிறது. விருது பெற மனு செய்வதற்கு ஜூலை 15 கடைசி நாள் என்பதால் நாடு முழுவதும் இருந்து ஏராளமான மனுக்கள் வந்து கொண்டிருப்பதாக பி.சி.ஆர்.எப். அமைப்பினர் தெரிவித்தனர். தமிழகத்தில் இருந்து இந்த விருது பெறுவதற்காக மனு செய்வதில் தகவல் பெறும் உரிமை சட்ட ஆர்வலர்கள் மத்தியில் நல்ல ஆர்வம் காணப்படுகிறது. இதுவரை தமிழகத்தில் இருந்து 28 ஆர்வலர்கள் விருதுக்கு விண்ணப்பித்துள்ளனர். சிறந்த ஆர்.டி.ஐ. பத்திரிகையாளர் பிரிவில் விருது பெற 3 பேர் மட்டுமே விண்ணப்பித்துள்ளனர். இருப்பினும், தமிழகத்தில் இருந்து சிறந்த பொதுத் தகவல் அதிகாரி விருதுக்கு விண்ணப்பிப்பதில் அதிகாரிகள் மத்தியில் ஆர்வம் காணப்படவில்லை. கோவில்பட்டியில்...: சிறந்த ஆர்வலர்களுக்கான பிரிவில் விண்ணப்பித்தவர்களில் சிலரது சாதனைகள் அவ்வப்போது விவரிக்கப்பட்டு வருகிறது. இந்த வகையில் தூத்துக்குடி மாவட்டத்தை சேர்ந்த பி. இசக்கிமுத்துவின் சாதனைகள் தற்போது விவரிக்கப்படுகிறது. மாவட்ட கூட்டுறவு பணியாளர்கள் சங்க தலைவரான இசக்கிமுத்து, தகவல் பெறும் உரிமை சட்டத்தைப் பயன்படுத்தி கோரிய விவரங்களால், கோவில்பட்டி கூட்டுறவு வேளாண் உற்பத்தியாளர்கள் சங்கத்தில் பணிபுரியும் தொழிலாளர்களுக்கு இஎஸ்ஐ சட்டப்படி பலன் கிடைக்க வழிவகை ஏற்பட்டது. இது இந்த சட்டத்தின் பணிகளில் குறிப்பிடத்தக்க சாதனையாக கருதப்படுகிறது. இதையடுத்து இவரது மனு சிறந்த ஆர்வலர் விருதுக்கான பரிசீலனை பட்டியலில் சேர்க்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. தருமபுரியில்...: இதேபோல, தருமபுரியில் தொட்டில் குழந்தைகள் திட்டத்தின் கீழ் அமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ள வரவேற்பு நிலையங்களில் இருந்து, வெவ்வேறு இடங்களில் உள்ள ஆதரவற்றோர் இல்லங்களுக்கு அனுப்பப்படும் பெண் குழந்தைகளுக்கு உரிய வசதிகள் கிடைப்பதை தகவல் பெறும் உரிமை சட்டத்தின் கீழ் உறுதிப்படுத்தியதாக டாக்டர் எல். ரவிச்சந்திரனின் மனுவும் சிறந்த ஆர்வலர்களுக்கான பரிசீலனைப் பட்டியலில் சேர்க்கப்பட்டுள்ளது என பி.சி.ஆர்.எப். அமைப்பினர் தெரிவித்தனர். விருதுக்கு விண்ணப்பிக்க விரும்புவோர், அது குறித்த மேலும் விவரங்கள் பெற தொடர்பு கொள்ள வேண்டிய தொலைபேசி எண்: 9717460029.

Vice President launches RTI Portal

Vice President launches RTI Portal Developed by IMG at Thiruvananthapuram 18:14 IST The Vice President of India Shri M. Hamid Ansari has said that the RTI Act imposes new obligations on all stakeholders. The government is called upon to be more transparent and accountable in decision and policy making, and manage its records better. Addressing at the launch of “RTI Portal developed by Institute of Management in Government (IMG)” at Thiruvananthpuram (Kerala) today, he has said that the civil society is expected to be an informal clearing house for information to help common citizens understand and use this new instrumentality. This makes possible the participation of citizens in governance beyond elections. The Vice President has said that Initiatives such as the RTI Knowledge Portal play an important role in capacity building of those who seek, and those who provide, information under the Act. It is also heartening that efforts are being made to disseminate information and provide training in Malayalam. Section 4 (4) of the RTI Act mandates that “all materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area”. Taking the message of RTI to the citizens in their own languages is the first step in meaningfully empowering them. Following is the text of the Vice President’s address : “It gives me a great pleasure to participate in today’s function in launching the Knowledge Portal on the Right to Information that has been developed by the Institute of Management in Government. The Institute has over the last three decades played an important role in developing managerial skills and leadership qualities in personnel employed by the government, private and public sectors. It has also been recognized by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India as the Nodal Agency for Capacity Building in RTI for officials and the general public. The RTI knowledge portal launched today is expected to perform an important function. It would go beyond being a website providing comprehensive information related to RTI in the state. Its real utility would be its function as an e-learning portal enabling online training in RTI and consequent certification as trainers. The Institute has also embarked upon utilizing distance learning tools such as Video Conferencing facility to train staff in remote locations on the RTI Act and update them about emerging issues and case law. The RTI Act represents a legislative recognition of the view of the Supreme Court that the right to information was a fundamental right under the Constitution. It was also an acceptance by the Executive that it is answerable to the people not just once in five years but every time an RTI application is filed, which is hundreds of times a day. It has given a new meaning to citizen engagement with governance. The RTI Act imposes new obligations on all stakeholders. The government is called upon to be more transparent and accountable in decision and policy making, and manage its records better. The civil society is expected to be an informal clearing house for information to help common citizens understand and use this new instrumentality. This makes possible the participation of citizens in governance beyond elections. Initiatives such as the RTI Knowledge Portal play an important role in capacity building of those who seek, and those who provide, information under the Act. It is also heartening that efforts are being made to disseminate information and provide training in Malayalam. Section 4 (4) of the RTI Act mandates that “all materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area”. Taking the message of RTI to the citizens in their own languages is the first step in meaningfully empowering them. The Portal has added significance in the state of Kerala which has cent per cent literacy and where many citizens are comfortable with digital media. I am confident that this Knowledge Portal would go a long way in achieving the aims and objectives of RTI Act. I thank Chief Minister, Shri V. S. Achuthanandan for inviting me to this function. ”