ICs wrongly closing cases
PRESS RELEASE: for immediate publication
Information Commissioners dispose of cases saying information has already been provided; applicants say never got the information
Nationwide, 60% appellants/complainants say they never got the information despite decisions by information commissioners that they had!
Where should the aggrieved appellants go?
New Delhi, October 27: Dayanand Pandey (09955325713) of Garhwa district of Jharkhand made an RTI request at the minor irrigation department, asking for the reasons of death of an employee who died while on job. When the case reached the stage of second appeal, Baijnath Mishra, the state information commissioner, closed the case saying that the information had already been provided despite the appellant submitting that he did not get any information.
Anil Kumar (09470183109) from Giridih asked for some information about some public toilets constructed out of MP’s fund. On not getting satisfactory information from BDO and First Appellate Authority, he filed an appeal at Jharkhand Information Commission. Again, Baijnath Mishra, despite protests from Anil Kumar closed the case saying information requested had already been provided.
Parmeshwar Rangnath Gitte (09860456228) of Beed district of Maharashtra had a similar experience. His case was about some information on ration licensees. Vijay Baburao Borge, the state information commissioner who is in charge of Aurangabad, dismissed his case with the observation that the appellant had already been provided the information. Gitte says he never received the full information and that Borge never gave him the proper hearing.
Information commissions across the country disposed of about 10,000 cases, or roughly 20% of the cases studied by RTI Secretariat, by saying that information had already been provided to the appellant or complainant. The question is: Had the appellants or complainants really received the information requested as was determined by the information commissions?
RTI Awards Secretariat wrote letters to each of those appellants and complainants, asking them whether or not they had actually got the information. Many of the respondents said they never received the information requested.
P. Faziluddin of Kerala, the Commissioner who has received highest ratings on the parameter of Overall Public Satisfaction (OPS), disposed of 72% of cases, saying the information had already been provided.
About 74% of the appellants or complainants, in whose cases Faziluddin made the determination that the information requested had already been provided, confirmed to the Secretariat that they had actually got the information and were satisfied.
That means there were still 26 per cent people who said they never received the information requested despite information commission making the determination that they had!
On the other extreme is an information commissioner like Baijnath Mishra, who closed 40% of the cases saying information had already been provided. However, only 17% of the appellants/complainants agreed with him. Eighty three percent of the appellants/complainants complained they had not got the information requested and their cases were wrongly closed.
At Central Information Commission (CIC), Shailesh Gandhi closed 50% cases by saying information had already been provided, followed by M M Ansari at 33%. However, almost 70% people said they had not got information.
Nationally, only about 40% people, in whose cases the information commission determined that they had already been provided the information, said they had actually received the information. Sixty per cent of the respondents in the study said they did not get any information and the case was closed by the Commissioner without adequately hearing them and by making a false remark that information had already been provided.
Prashant Bhushan, the well known Supreme Court advocate, says that the only way to prevent such possibilities is to video record all appellate proceedings. “Video recording has become very cheap now. The copies of these recordings should be available to people by paying cost of recording.”
EOM
Important note for the editors: Kindly insert the following lines in their reports based on this press release.
If an order was passed by any RTI Information Commission in your favour during the year 2008, did you finally get the information requested? Please mention your order number, name of appellant, name of commissioner, state, and send us your feedback at parivartan_india@rediffmail.com. You can also record your feedback at www.rtiawards.org
For more information on compliance of the orders of information commissions, refer to the findings of the nationwide study and rankings of the IC, which was first released on Wednesday, October 21, 2009, in Delhi.
Or Contact:
Kapil: 09811695609
Swati: 09968701659
Rishikesh: 09911483629
——————
RTI Awards Secretariat
Public Cause Research Foundation (PCRF)
A119 first floor, Kaushambi
(Near Meenakshi Hospital)
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
Phone: (0120) 2771017; 4559237; 4559701
Websites: www.pcrf.in
——————————————————————————-
About RTI Awards and Public Cause Research Foundation (PCRF)
RTI Awards have been instituted this year by Public Cause Research Foundation (PCRF), a Ghaziabad-based public trust engaged in promoting the use of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
PCRF was founded in 2006 by Arvind Kejriwal, who received the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Emergent Leadership in the same year for his work to fight corruption in public service.
The first RTI Awards will be presented on December 01, 2009 in three categories: (1) Best information commissioner (2) Best public information officers, and (3) Best RTI citizens.
The intention is to honour an information commissioner and two public information officers (PIOs) who have done commendable work in protecting the rights of the citizens under RTI Act, 2005.
Also honoured will be two citizens who used their right to information in the larger interest of the society.
You can gather more information about RTI Awards on www.rtiawards.org
October 29th, 2009 at 2:35 am
I could not get any information requested from Ordnance Factory Board under Dept of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence.Cases at CIC were disposed by S/Shri A.N. Tiwari, Satyanand Mishra, W. Habibullah & Shri M.L. Sharma recently (CIC/SM/A/2009/0010019/LS was heard on 21/10/09 but decision has not been sent/uploaded yet). Dept of Justice has not provided information despite order in CIC/AT/A/2007/00083. On approaching CIC many times, nothing was done for furnishing information. No action was taken on PIO for obstructing information. Shri Tiwari ordered that decision is binding and should be provided. (Mutatis mutandi)
October 30th, 2009 at 3:18 am
In my applications foir information to PIOs of Registration and stamps dept, all my second appeals were heard by andhra Pradesh chief information commissioner, , Sri CD Arha. in all cases he closed my cases as information is provided and in one case . this isa deemed refusal case. the 1st AA also not responded.Thew CIC does not even provided me time to put forth my arguments and closed my case.
RK Bheri
October 30th, 2009 at 5:10 am
The Information Commissioners are not giving judgements on merits rather they are pro-public authority. I had appeared personally before IC, ML Sharma in a appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000013 where clearcut wrong and misleading reply was given. I had quoted central Act to support the wrong decision, even public authority was aware that reply they sent is wrong but the IC had said CIC is not to decide about wrong or correct reply, we are concerned about information and courts can only decide wrong or correct reply which is complete defiance to RTI Act, but citizen are left to the mercy of IC decision and IC are try to save the skin of govt. servants. I anticipate a greater nexus between IC and Govt. servants as all the iC are retired IAS/IPS or other Govt. servants. There must be procedure for review of IC decision by larger bench or by RTI activist.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:01 am
The Government of India has enacted “The Right to Information Act 2005” to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of any public authority.
The right to information includes an access to the information which is held by or under the control of any public authority.
Mr Rakesh Prashar if seeking information that are in the files of public authority should be given a copy of the same.
The entire work force of the PIO/CPIO/AA/IC/CIC should strive to get the information.
This work force neednot apply their mind in getting any information.
They have to work routine to simply seek the information.
The post they hold is immaterial to us.
THEIR WORK IS CONCERNED ABOUT INFORMATION AND NOT JUSTICE,and they must strive to get it as soon as possible, the time limit of which is framed by LAW.