RTI Applicants Left “High and Dry”
PRESS RELEASE: for immediate publication
Making use of an ‘overlap’ in RTI Act, information commissioners remand large number of cases back to public authorities, leaving aggrieved applicants high and dry
Or is this their way of addressing mounting arrears?
Should aggrieved applicants be ‘shuttled’ back to public authorities?
New Delhi, Oct30: When Maharashtra Information Commission came under public attack for slow disposal of cases and mounting arrears, it found a unique way to tackle pendency.
It is learnt that the entire information commission decided in a meeting that they would remand large number of cases back to the public authorities without hearings in order to increase their disposal. All cases where the first appellate authority (FAA) had not passed an order would be sent back to the public authority for adjudication. All cases where the FAAs had passed an order, but the order had not been implemented, would also be remanded back.
Naveen Kumar, one of Maharashtra’s information commissioners, subsequently remanded back 50% (almost 1500 cases) of the appeals and complaints that he had received, shows the nationwide study of information commissions conducted by National RTI Awards Secretariat.
Vijay Baburao Borge rejected or remanded back 3600 appeals/complaints (i.e. 78% of the total cases received by him). Vilas Patil rejected or remanded back 1000 cases. Almost 6000 cases were disposed of by these three Maharashtra information commissioners within a few months. Ramanand Tiwari and Suresh Joshi also remanded back a large number of cases, but did not share this data with the Secretariat.
Uttarakhand information commission remanded 60% of the total cases received in the year 2008. All remanded back cases have been treated as ‘anti-disclosure’ by the Secretariat in its nationwide study and analysis.
In a letter to the National RTI Awards Secretariat, Uttarakhand information commission has objected to such treatment of remanded back cases, saying that remanding back of cases, where first appeal has not been filed, is in accordance with law and should not be treated as ‘anti-disclosure’.
In its response, the Secretariat admitted that there was an overlap in two sections of the RTI Act, 2005 – i.e. Section 19(1) and Section 18.
“We completely agree with you that there is an overlap in the law. Section 19(1) of RTI Act and section 18(1)(c) and 18(1)(e) talk of exactly similar situations i.e. if a person does not receive any response or receives an unsatisfactory response within prescribed time period, he can either approach the Commission directly under Section 18 or he can file first appeal under Section 19,” pointed out the Secretariat.
This overlap in fact allows a choice to an aggrieved RTI applicant, which is to either go directly to an information commission without first appealing to the FAA or to first exhaust the first appeal and then approach the information commission.
Interestingly, information commissioners across the country have adopted a variety of different practices. On the one extreme are information commissioners like Naveen Kumar of Maharashtra who remanded back as much as 50% of his cases, on the other his own colleague Vijay Kuvlekar who did not remand back any case.
C D Arha of Andhra Pradesh remanded back 34% of the cases received by him. Within AP information commission, Dileep Reddy and K S Rao did not remand back even a single case.
In Haryana, on one hand, Meenaxi Anand remanded back 47% cases, her colleagues M R Ranga and Asha Sharma did not remand back even a single case. The entire information commissions of Assam, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand, including all its Commissioners, did not remand back even a single case. Karnataka, Punjab and Kerala remanded back negligible number of cases. At Central Information Commission, S N Mishra remanded back as many as 26% cases followed by Wajahat Habibullah and A N Tiwari who remanded back 18% cases.
Commissioners have forwarded interesting arguments depending upon the practice that they follow.
One argument is that the law gives an option to the appellant – whether the appellant wishes to invoke section 18 or section 19. Section 19 says that the appellant “may” file first appeal.
Section 18 says that it “shall be the duty” of the Information Commission “to receive and enquire into a complaint” received. Section 18 casts very strong duty upon the Commissions to act upon complaints received under section 18. Therefore, it is argued, that the Commission should respect the decision of the appellants, which section they wish to invoke, as this option has been given to the appellants by the Parliament.
The other extreme argument is that any complaint filed under section 18 should be returned back if there were no first appeal filed. That argument, however would render section 18 completely ineffective.
A middle path has been chosen by some commissioners. If an appellant does not receive any response from the PIO within 30 days, they entertain a complaint under section 18. But if an appellant is dissatisfied with the response received, they treat it an issue of adjudication or appeal and require first appeal to be filed in such cases.
There is a huge confusion in the minds of the people. What is the right practice? Within the same Commission, the Commissioners are following completely different practices.”
October 31st, 2009 at 4:10 am
Sir,
The law simlpy states that ‘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.’
Therefore it simply means that the PIO’S,CPIO’S and CIC’S are placed in their respective places to provide us the information that lingers in the files.
None of the government servants are supposed to apply their mind in order to furnish the information.
If the PIO’S or CPIO’S FAIL TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION,then the necessary penal can be applied and the information can be sought and furnished by the CIC’S.
ANY THING WHICH IS NOT DONE ACCORDING TO THE LAW IS BREAKING THE LAW.
Hence it is deemed that all the government servant who have thus far failed to furnish information are liable to be punished under the penal clause of the Act and are also subject to disciplinary proceedings.
So all the the government servant should read the RTI Act 2005 VERY CAREFULLY and act in accordance.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:52 am
I have had a very bitter experience while visiting Mr. Shailesh Gandhi CIC, New Delhi recently. On my question about seeking ” eligibility criteria ” related information, he said that it is not information. They do not allow us to ask questions from PIO/FAA. Then how can we curb the mal-practices of corruption from Govt. Deptts? when we cannot ask clarifiation on doubtful informations provided by the PIOs. Right to Information is a wrong name , it name should be ” Right to Available Information ” rather.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:07 am
Famous spiritual Guru “OSHO” once said in its book that “POWER ACCUMULATION” always creates its “MISUSE”. This quote is absolutely fit in the matter of decisions announced by various Information Commissioners at CIC, New Delhi. I have very minutely studied the whole RTI Act, 2005 and its provisions and it has not where been mentioned that ” we cannot ask the questions from PIOs/FAA to remove our doubts. In the definition of “Information” at section 2(f) , “opinion” is also treated/validated as a sort of information. But the Information Commissioners do not allow any appellant to seek clarification on the doubtful /incomplete information provided by corrupt PIOs/FAA with their vested interests. Is it not the FUN of this public friendly Act? The orders passed by the Information Commissioners should also be brought under scanner by an independent RTI Authority, for which a resolution must be enacted by the Parliament , in true public interest.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Copy of the Annexure sent to the Public Cause Research Foundation
Gahziabad UP (alongwith the Questionairre) on the RTI ACT.
1. I am constrained to say that the Karnataka Information
Commissioner Sri Tippeswamy acted in a very unfair manner by letting the Respondent PIO Dr.Nagaraj(Health Officer,MCC<Mysore) off the hook easily despite the fact that the latter had missed no oppurtunity to cock a snook at the RTI Act. It is pertinent to note here that the cause of action here was first the failure of the Respondent Nagaraj to accept the very Application dated 4-8-’07 sent to him by RPAD which impelled me to file a complaint with the KIC on 10/8/’07 U/S 18 of the RTI Act. The Commission took cognizance of the complaint (No.2457/2007)and summoned the Respondent for the 1st hearing which took place on 7th of Nov.’07 when Chief Information Commissioner Sri K.K. Misra viewed the absence and defiance of Sri Nagraj seriously. The Chief Information Commissioner further ordered the issue of Summons u/s 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure besides directing him to provide the relevant information/documents to me within 15 days .The hearing was adjourned to
14th of Dec.’07.
2. The errant PIO/Respondent Sri Nagraj again had the temerity not only not to provide the relevant documents/information to me but also to ignore the Summons served on him and absent himself again when the adjourned hearing took place at KIC Hqrs at Bangalore on 14th of Dec.2007 with Sri Tippesway, Information Commissioner in the chair. Given the fact that the errant PIO Nagraj had shown utter contempt to the provisions of the RTI Act and also to the orders/directions/Summons of none other than the Chief Information Commissioner Sri K.K.Misra, it was now time for action on the part of the KIC presided over in the instant case on the day by Information Commissioner Sri.Tippeswamy. However, the Information Commissioner chose to soft pedal on the errant PIO. The hearing of the case was taken up only after 5-30 P.M. When it became clear to the Information Commissioner that the errant PIO Nagraj had again shown utter contempt for the KIC and its orders/summons by not caring to show up, the Information Commissioner was keen on providing him a long reprieve by adjourning the hearing to 29th of Feb’08. To my mind, at this stage the Information Commissioner should have issued an arrest warrant u/s 32 of the Civil Procedure Court, since the errant PIO had already ignored the summons issued to him on 7th of Nov. u/s 30 of the CPC. But the Information Commissioner chose to go very soft on him by again issuing summons u/s 30 of the CPC and directing him to provide the documents/Information within 30 days.
3. Again on 29th Feb.’08, the Information Commissioner Sri Tippeswamy took up the hearing of the case ignoring my faxed plea to adjourn the same to another date eventhough I had pleaded with the Information Commissioner that the documents/information provided belatedly on 28th Feb.’08 by the Respondent Nagraj was incomplete/inadequate and even untrue. The Information Commissioner even went to the extent of incorrectly recording in his order dated 29-02-2008( that disposing off the complaint as having been ‘redressed’) the false submission of the Respondent Nagraj that the latter had provided all the information available on record within the stipulated time, though it was not borne out by the facts of the case
4. I am afraid the Information Commissioner Sri.Tippeswamy went out of the way to protect a most inept , irresponsible and errant PIO Nagraj . Even after running from pillar to post, I got a raw deal at the hands of this biased Information Commissioner which caused me a lot mental agony, inconvenience and waste of my precious time and resources in running up to Bangalore twice and also spending quite a bit on correspondence.
I suggest that a State Information Commission is presided over by a retired High Court Judge instead of a bureaucrat. The Information Commission should comprise non-bureaucrats as well as bureaucrats. And what is more, the Commission should be duly told that their task is not to absolve inept and corrupt Public Information Officers but to book them in the larger public interest.
M.Jameel Ahmed,
Manasa Gangothri,
Mysore.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:21 am
An applicant generally un satisfied from any FAA, after 2nd appeal filed the information commissioner has forwarded the case to the 1st Appellate authority (FAA) as interim decisions is it democratic function in Legal terms as per the RTI Act 2005?. these type of decision of function made/used at
Konkan Region (Maharashtra State).
November 5th, 2009 at 8:01 am
The Act of reverting back appellant’s 2nd appeal before Information Commission again to FAA is a demoralizing act, no doubt. When IC has full powers to decide then such mischiefs are made. This is like Supreme Court takes advice from High Court.Ridiculous.
November 7th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Sir , I am a sufferer of RTI decease as i could not get proper treatment from APIO Prasar Bharti P T I Building
Parliament Street New Delhi. It has been noticed that Sh George Kuruvilla CPIO is not taking any interest in going through the matter or the information sought,he is just dogding the rti here or there.
For instance No 1. I Put up a RTI seeking information from All India Radio Jalandhar and the concerned PIO did”t reply till today as it has passed a year when the matter reported to CPIO ND What he did is:-
First he forwarded the application to C E (NZ) who has nothing to do with RTI.The letter returned to CPIO with remark that it has got nothing to with it as information is sought from AIR Jalandhar.No 2. on receipt of letter from CE (NZ) he forwarded to Manager A & B without thinking any thing.The application has the same fate returned with remark that ” that this office does not have any information as the information is sought from AIR Jalandhar so jalandhar may asked to provide the same as it pertain to AIR Jalandhar..
Instanst No 2. Recently I sought one more information from CPIO ND by putting RTI asking information on my application which I have put up for counting the Military service which I have rendered during First National Emergency 162-68.What did Sh Kuruvilla did ? he simly forwarded my application to DDK Amritsar with copy to me .It was strage for me that DDK Amritsar has nothing to do with my information as it not been envolved .I served for last 5 yrs at ALL INDIA RADIO JALANDHAR and having communication over the matter since Dec 07 and I retired on 30 th May 08.
Now you can make out how CPIO is tryingh to hush up matter by unneccesary sending the application here & there ?
Kindly take action if possible or advise me how catch hold of this CPIO for providing the proper reply .Thanks
November 9th, 2009 at 3:50 am
I fully agree with the statement of Mr. Rajindera Chopra, in his 1st Nov., 2009. Such PIO/FAA must be punished exemplory who concealed the facts or give wrong , incmplete and unauthnticated inormation to the RTI applicants/ First appeal.Sita Ram Dhiman, RTI Activist, Himachal Pradsh, Shimla.