ICs rejecting large number of cases on petty technical grounds
PRESS RELEASE: for immediate publication
Information commissioners reject large number of appeals on technical grounds
‘No signature or photocopies of RTI application missing; so the application is rejected’
Technical rejections are badly discouraging information seekers, shows the study of information commissions
New Delhi, Oct. 28: Information Commissioners have found a unique way of dealing with mounting pendencies. Many commissioners – sometimes even their registries — reject the appeals or complaints on one or the other technical ground without holding any hearings, shows the nationwide study of information commissions done by National RTI Awards Secretariat.
Maharashtra Information Commissioner Vijay Baburao Borge tops the list of information Commissioners for rejecting maximum number of applications. He rejected almost 3604 appeals/complaints in the year 2008, i.e. 74% of the total cases received by him. His colleague Vilas Patil rejected 1008 cases, roughly 54% of the total cases received by him.
Andhra Pradesh Information Commissioners C D Arha and A S Rao rejected almost 50% of the cases received by them.
These cases were rejected mostly on technical grounds – that the appellant/complainant had not signed at appropriate place, each paper had not been self-attested, sufficient number of photocopies had not been attached, copy of the proof of filing RTI application or first appeal had not been attached, etc.
C D Arha and A S Rao would probably have one believe that their large numbers of rejections on technical grounds were because of very complex rules for filing appeals and complaints at the state information commission.
The same rules, however, have not compelled their own colleagues Dileep Reddy and K S Rao to reject appeals and complaints; Reddy and Rao hardly rejected any case on technical grounds.
Whereas, in rejecting appeals and complaints, the information commissioner directs the appellant/complainant to satisfy all technical objections before resubmitting his case, the study shows that very few such cases were filed back again. Many cases were rejected multiple times on one or another technical objection.
Central Information Commission (CIC) had been at the top about two years ago in rejecting cases on technical grounds. In April 2007, 57.96% of appeals/complaints received at CIC were rejected on technical grounds.
Rejection figures rose to 63.76% in June 2007. In the period from January to June 2007, 13,152 appeals and complaints were received by the CIC, out of which 8229 were rejected due to technical deficiencies. Only 4823 were registered! That means nearly two out of three appeals and complaints were not registered! Faced with a lot of criticism earlier, the CIC told the National RTI Awards Secretariat recently that they had stopped maintaining these figures!
With widespread illiteracy and ignorance about law in India, should the appeals and complaints of common citizens be rejected in such large numbers? Shouldn’t the information commissioners hand-hold the citizens in the spirit of the Right to Information Act, 2005? If Supreme Court of India can accept anything written on a post card as a writ petition, why should information commissioners remain hidebound by petty procedures and keep denying citizens their right to information?
October 29th, 2009 at 2:12 am
UIC has authorised his legal officer, Shri Joshi to scrutinize complaints/appeals. He remands back all complaints to complainants for filing 1st appeal and rejects complaints at his level if complainant insists for filing his complaint without going in appeal. Shri RS Tolia remands 2nd appeal back to the AA for his decision. He still considers himself the Chief Secretary and has never given a decision against Secretariat’s PIO.
October 29th, 2009 at 4:33 am
Thanks for this info.
Orissa Info Comm has also rejected some cases like this.
October 31st, 2009 at 4:49 am
Andhra Pradesh Information Commissioners C D Arha and A S Rao rejected almost 50% of the cases received by them.
That means that they should get only 50% of their pay.
Common GOVT OF AP, are you SLEEPING?
Get to act fast and make the Arha and Rao do some work.
Failing which withhold their pay.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:32 am
In my view Information Commissioners should not paid/given a fix pay/remuneration every month. They must be paid only after getting public opinion ( annually) and depending on percentage of obtaining passing marks. Below 50% consensus they must be asked to go back their home and do some religious work to improve their lok and parlok rather than disappointing the information seekers by denying their rightful and genuine informations.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:26 am
Seven appeals were rejected by I.C. as unmaintainable since I have not filed the appeals in the format given in G.O. No. 66 of AP Govt.Also Two appeals were rejected since I had filed First Appeals (unknowingly) to an authority /officer who is superior / higher in rank to the Appellate Authority.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:44 am
In my view the prominent Media journalists be appointed as “Information Commissioners” under the RTI Act, 2005 and not the retired IAS/bureaucrats/Ministry Personnels( who already have plenty of experience during their service tenure to dump the legitimate matters)
November 4th, 2009 at 2:26 am
The views of many RTI Applicants are very poor towards the present system of appointments.
Hence the job of procuring information should be out-sourced.
As right to information for citizens is only to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, this work can be entrusted like the courier work now done by the private agencies for the P & T Dept.
Only if the Govt wants to keep its corruption system intact should retd govt servants be involved in the RTI wORK.
i AM HAPPY TO INFORM YOU THAT OUR BELOVED PM HAS COME TO UNDERSTAND THE TRIBAL PROBLEMS AND LIKES TO TAKE CORRECTIVE MEASURES as reported by a news channel today.
He should likewise set understand the loopholes in the governance of the RTI Act and set it right.
For me the call of any govt servant is a call for settling a bribe.