An appeal to fellow RTI activists and friends
Dear friends and fellow-activists,
Thank you for your responses to our draft report evaluating the performance of Information Commissioners. The large number of bouquets and brickbats that we have received show that there is enormous public interest. We salute your refusal to accept our opinion blindly; healthy dissent and debate is not only inevitable, but essential for a healthy participatory democracy.
The biggest question that everybody seems to be asking is – why did we place such and such Information Commissioner above or below another one in ranking? Our answer is: My colleagues and I at PCRF exercised no control over the ranking of any information commissioner. The ranking was done on an objective basis based on the available data and statistics, my colleagues and I were hands-off in this process. Commissioners were ranked by autonomous teams of researchers, based on the statistics generated by the orders of various Information Commissioners and public feedback. After assigning the work and the system parameters to the researchers, my colleagues and I stood back from the entire process, and let the process do its work without any interference. Rest assured, neither the primary data collected nor the statistics generated from this data was “cooked”. As a result, this study was quite an eye opener for all of us at PCRF, because our own beliefs about some Commissioners known to us were proved wrong. If you find some of the conclusions disturbing and startling, please believe us when we say that so do we!
Let me briefly describe the process of conducting this study:
- Around 52,000 orders passed by various Information Commissions across the country were collected. Some orders were on their websites, but others, we collected by filing RTI applications and sometimes making many trips to the concerned SICs. By and large, we got cooperation from all SICs, but there were some exceptions. For instance, we were unsuccessful in persuading Lucknow bench of UPSIC to give us copies of their orders.
- Each order collected was read and analyzed by a team of 12 persons over a six-month period.
- Around 34,000 orders were classified as pro-disclosure. So, we wrote letters to each of the appellants, asking whether they had received complete and satisfactory information. A team of 25 persons worked for three months to write letters and get replies.
- We received written responses from around 6000 people. According to statisticians, this was a reasonably good sample.
- However, this was not uniformly distributed over all commissioners. Response in some cases was inadequate. To rectify this, we contacted these commissioners and asked for phone numbers of appellants from their appeal files. Most commissioners agreed to provide this information.
- Our teams visited Guwahati, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh and many SICs to collect appellants’ phone numbers. In the case of Arunachal Pradesh, the phone numbers did not work due to bad connectivity. So, our team personally met as many appellants as possible in Arunachal Pradesh to get their feedback.
- Thus, we tried to ensure that we had feedback from at least 20% of the appellants in whose cases pro-disclosure orders were passed. In the case of a few commissioners, we could not reach 20%. In some other cases, we got more than 40% feedback. With the help of a statistician, we are now working out the error margin in the case of each commissioner with the available sample size and population size.
The five parameters for our study are:
- Two parameters of our study viz. Pro-disclosure Factor and Deterrent Impact, came straight from analysis of orders, and not from appellants’ feedback.
- The other two parameters viz. Overall Public Satisfaction and Effectiveness came from public feedback.
- Pendency and disposals is a fifth parameter, which we have added belatedly.
How does one interpret these parameters to evaluate a particular commissioner? One has to look at all parameters together to get a meaningful picture. For instance, if a commissioner issues a large number of pro-disclosure orders, but cannot get his orders implemented (low effectiveness), there is an overall failure on his part in procuring information for the citizen.
All our raw data has been put up on our website www.rtiawards.org . We urge you to understand and cross-check our data and analysis, and point out mistakes so that we can correct them. Also give us more feedback on Information Commissioners’ performance.
Activists in many states totally accepted the findings, including Bihar, MP, AP, WB, Haryana and Arunachal Pradesh. Some of these activists independently released it to media, taking ownership of the report findings.
Activists of some states like Orissa and Kerala disputed our findings. Some Information Commissioners such as R S Tolia and Prof M M Ansari sent us a written response. A few others let us know their views on phone. Their letters and our response thereto are on our website.
We are grateful to Pradeep Pradhan from Orissa and Mr C J Karira from AP for pointing out specific mistakes. We have either already corrected them or will do so before finalizing this report. We are also grateful to Major Ravindran and Col Kurup from Kerala for giving us important feedback and inputs on the performance of Kerala commissioners.
We do realize that our methodology and parameters need further refining. The study has indeed left out some key aspects of the functioning of Information Commissioners, which we shall include next year. Please bear in mind that this is just the beginning of an important process, which must be carried out year after year in order to empower citizens with data, and give meaningful feedback to Information Commissioners to enable them to reflect upon and improve their own performance.
Some interesting findings:
- Not a single penalty has been imposed by 25 Information Commissioners and 4 state commissions!
- A large number of show cause notices remain pending for years. Over 90% show cause notices remained pending for long periods in many commissions!
- Nationally, just two percent of recorded violations were penalized! And a commissioner who imposes just 11% penalties is the top-ranking commissioner according to this parameter!
- Some commissioners remand back a large proportion of orders to first appellate authorities, or reject them outright. Some commissioners in Maharashtra remand back as many as 50% cases.
- A number of appeals are rejected on completely frivolous grounds (such as the absence of appellant’s signature on each page of the appeal). More than 30% cases in AP are rejected like this.
- State Information Commisssion of Arunachal Pradesh is making relatively better use its civil-court-like powers conferred by Section18 of RTI Act, sometimes even issuing arrest warrants! We personally visited Arunachal Pradesh and met many appellants in Itanagar, the capital city. Appellants are overwhelmingly praising their commission. The public authorities are quite scared of appeals going to commission as they result in stringent penalties, and therefore they do their best to sort it out at their level. As a consequence, compliance with RTI Act is relatively high.
- One of the front-runners for the post of Chief Central Information Commissioner, Prof M M Ansari, ranked very poorly on all the parameters. This has publicly put a big question-mark on his candidature. With what face would the government appoint him as Chief CIC when he has been publicly found wanting?
The big picture that emerges from such aggregated data enables us to engage with the individual commissioners and state commissioners, discuss the shortcomings in their work and find solutions. For instance, after the release of this data, the activists and media in West Bengal repeatedly and publicly questioned the Commissioner, and he was forced to admit, for the first time, that the performance of the SIC was unsatisfactory.
Some friends feel that no awards should be given. As the overall data was not very encouraging, we too felt that the jury may decide not to give any award this year. However, we are upbeat about the strict approach taken by Arunachal Pradesh. Let us see what the jury has to say.
We are in the process of preparing our final report. Please send us your inputs at the earliest. If your inputs can be incorporated, even at this late stage, we assure you they shall be, so that together, we can say that this study belongs to all of us.
Through this exercise we are building up a mechanism for citizens and activists everywhere to oversee the work of Information Commissioners. It is your mechanism. Please improve it and use it; don’t tear it down with destructive criticism. Make efforts to address its shortcomings and see that this fledgling initiative survives and thrives. Help it to emerge as a strong voice for oppressed RTI applicants and appellants in all corners of the country, who were until now helpless and voiceless.
With Warm Regards
Arvind Kejriwal
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:25 am
Dear Mr. Kejriwal,
The public authorities have many excuses for not providing the information under RTI Act, 2005. One of them and most common is that ‘only available information can be provided’. Even the CIC is supporting this stating that ‘if information is available, it is to be provided, else not’. In fact, CIC must punish the persons who delay information and make lame excuses. A stricter attitude of CIC towards errant public authorities can do wonders.
With regards,
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Why CIC is afraid of the Comprehensive analysis done by PCRF? If they doubt on the statistical analysis done and final results published by PCRF, CIC should come out with their own analysis and counter PCRF ranking. CIC should be the trend-setters to the all other ICs in the country.
If CIC feel that there existed some lopsided study in the final
outcome of the PCRF’s ranking, instead of finding faults and doing
destructive criticism they must come-out with PIN-POINTED faults of
the PCRF methodologies rather then CIC rejecting such a comprehensive
analysis, done first time.
CIC being the chief watch-dogs of transparency should evaluate their
own records and assess themselves: Are they right in their decisions?
Are their decisions consistent and un-biased? Are their decisions
serving the masses and society rather than simply making media
headlines? MOST IMPORTANTLY: IS CIC TRANSPARENT? There existed many
more such questions?
I cite a few of the salient features of a case running in its 4th year
under RTI Act, with CIC. I leave it to CIC to evaluate on their own
their effectiveness. The case relates to the robbing of rightful
rights of 994 students, the most talented teenagers, of this country,
to seek admission in the prestigious IITs. It is the life-time dream,
of almost every youth of this country to have such a dream. The youths
which are suffering are NOT YET AWARE OF THEIR VICTIMIZATION DUE TO
DELAY IN PROVIDING INFORMATION BY CIC?
To cite a few of such instances: (i) At one point at the height of
this controversy, CIC unilaterally closed the case, on 17 September
2007, by issuing a notice, signed by one of its JS? (ii) The case is
running in its 4th year, with many tens of the hearings done, many
tens of the notices issues, the respondent (IITs) even challenged
CIC’s orders in the Hon’ble Court, repeated warnings “that CIC will
invoke all its powers under law” have been issued, though NO ACTION
yet. Yet the respondents have not supplied all the information as
requested completely and correctly; incorrect, contradictory, and
wrong information is being supplied; information supplied is kept on
changing with time; IITs are keeping on destroying records and the
information of consequence; at times, on CIC’s insistence, IIT submit
letters that they do not have any more have the information (which is
already being destroyed by them during the pendency of the case)?
After making tens of requests, a hearing at CIC is being called, in
which, 4-5 members of IITs will attend the hearing by air-travels,
will earn their DAs/fee on public exchequer, then CIC will issue one
another order with a request to release the information by this date.
And that’s all. The appellant is running from pillar to post for
fighting for the cause for the past 40 months.
Not a single penny of penalty is imposed. Not any clause under
Sections 18, 19 and 20 of RTI Act is imposed. The violations of RT Act
by the same respondents are increasing like habituals. Not a single
RTI Application, among a dozen RTI applications, in the past 3y plus
submitted, is provided with complete information yet or disposed off
yet. Not a single individual/organ in the complete hierarchy of the
Indian system (to add the fourth, the Transparency), has shown any
accountability yet.
This case cannot be compared with any other case involving corruption.
This case many more dimensions — how responsive are our Chief
Education Managers of the Country? How sensitive are the Chief
Executives incluidng Top-Educators, Judiciary and Politicians to the
suffering? Many more can be added . . .
True, when CIC says that CIC’s should be complimented for their work,
Yes They must be, there is no doubt. They are the Chief watch dogs of
transparency. Without which, nothing would be accomplished. They ahve
many more responsibilities too.
The above case is presented for CICs’ self-appraisal? For Public’s
appraisal too.
===========================================================
November 24th, 2009 at 7:39 am
The CIC take the interpretation of RTI provsions at their own way on this line : that not prescribing any procedure means exemption from all procedures .
As in RTI Manual there is nothing any single mention that query cannot be asked. Moreover, under section 2(f) “OPINION” is also validated as “Information”. But when the ICs himself disregard the appellants by saying that ” no query question or clarification” then what the RTI activists can do ? The culprits in India are not so “Honest” that they will provide us information in a ” Delicious Thali of Food”.
Kindly think over it .
November 25th, 2009 at 7:31 am
To me and to many of my other fellow Indians, the enactment of the RTI Act is like a Second Independence of India, this time from the clutches of a corrupt, lethargic, indifferent and inept body of Public Servants, who had been engaged to serve the People of this country. Unfortunately, thanks to the enormous power and access to public wealth but utter lack of accountability, these Public Servants had become virtual masters of the masses resulting into submission of the latter to their whims and fancies and unleashing unbridled corruption. The common man was suffering indignities not vastly different from those of the colonial rule.
The RTI Act is a tool of empowerment handed down to the People of India to ensure transparency and thereby accountability of the public servants. The Act aims at eliminating this scourge of officials’ whims to make the life of an average Indian more livable.
The success of the Act will largely depend upon how an average educated Indian uses its provision and asserts his rights. It should be only be expected that the officialdom which is likely to be affected, and whose unfettred freedom is now being questioned will not give in without a fight. They are well fortified and may have overt or covert sympathisers even amonng the ICs. They will try all means and methods to frustrate the common man whose perseverance will be put to test repeatedly.
Based on my own experience, I have faith and confidence that if struck repeatedly with doggedness, the corrupt will finally give in and the objectives of this legislation to give a billion plus Indians a fair deal at the hands of its own servants will be achieved sooner than later.So freinds, just keep hammering because the corrupt are basically cowards.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:51 am
For the information of the readers, I am reproducing exerpts from a second appeal recently made by me to the CIC, New Delhi about the conduct of the officials of Bank of Baroda, where I was working as a senior manager and which Bank had removed me from service following my stand against corruption in the Bank.
” My experience so far with the officials of Bank of Baroda, to whom I have addressed a number of applications under the RTI Act, has been that the Citadel of Power that the officials had come to build around themselves over the years, behind which all opaque, arbitrary and corrupt transactions may take place, will be defended by a concerted action by all means, methods and might, the RTI Act notwithstanding. The means and methods range from outright denial of information on frivolous grounds to giving vague, evasive and incomplete information, to tossing applications from one office to the other and then another, without any justification and finally denying information much after lapse of the statutory period.
The Bank’s Nodal officer under the RTI Act, Mr. R.K. Bansal, who seems beset with the colonial mindset, has also evolved a unique method of playing with the Act. He sends his replies by ordinary post, receipt of which by the applicant, of course, will depend upon the fact whether these letters/ replies are actually posted or not. Despite my specific requests to him that all replies should be sent by Registered / Speed Post, he refuses to pay heed. And when I go in for the first appeal on the ground of non-receipt of information / reply within the stipulated time, a copy of the “ reply” is mailed to me by the FAA, again by ordinary post, saying that the application has already been disposed of by a reply which I never received. This is an extraordinary way of defeating / circumventing the provisions of the RTI Act in respect of the time limits set under the Act.
Such an innovative but dubious practice invariably results in the appellant having to take recourse, after much waste of time, to the Second Appeal to the Commission thereby unnecessarily increasing the workload at the Commission and resultant inconvenience to the appellant. I have already been forced to go in for 8 Second Appeals so far ( and many more are likely to follow ) all of which could have been avoided had these officials followed the provisions of the Act in letter and spirit.
Exasperated at the attitude of defiance and obstruction by these officials, I have written a letter to the Bank’s CMD on 30. 7. 2009 stating, inter-alia, the negative attitude of these officials and requesting him to intervene to ensure respectful compliance of the RTI Act by them. I am still awaiting a response. Extracts of my letter are reproduced as under :
“During the last 3 months or so, I have written over 2 dozen letters to various officials of the Bank seeking information under the Right to Information Act 2005. Many of these informations were earlier denied to me. I am sorry to say that despite the RTI Act being in existence, almost all the officials of the Bank approached so far are still in a denial mode, are being vague and evasive in their responses, and are denying me the information, lest the truth should get unveiled. The pretext is that records are not available, files are not traceable etc. On many occasions, lies are being openly told, records appear to be falsified and facts are either being concealed or twisted. I do not know if the Bank has a system of bringing to book those who lie to the public officially under the RTI Act. Is there no Code of Conduct for those who are entrusted with thousands of crores of public money? As a citizen, I am concerned.”
These officials seem to be labouring under the impression that they will go scot-free for their willful defiance and obstruction of the Act which will be defended by their Institution with Public money.
It is therefore my earnest appeal to you Sir, that looking to the sustained attitude of defiance by the officials, particularly the Nodal officer, Shri R.K Bansal, exemplary and strict action should be initiated under the Act so that the purpose of achieving transparency in public life is realized and these officials are not allowed to play around with the hard earned RIGHT TO INFORMATION.”
Friends, as I said before, the corrupt will not give in easily but surrender they will, sooner or later. I want to share with you that it was only my persistent quries under the RTI Act, that the Bank which was delaying payment of my Provident Fund illegally for over 8 years on frivolous grounds, finally gave in and paid me my PF albeit incomplete and much less than what was due to me recently. Thanks to the RTI Act.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
In my opinion, the best SIC is Bihar and worst is Jharkhand. I do not have any hasitation to write it here that the RTI act-2005 in the sate Jharkhand is not working, the PIOs of District and state levels do not care to reply and provide information, even the SIc is not bothering even after several reminders. i have a bitter expreince with the Dc cum PIO, Deoghar and SIC, Ranchi.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:37 am
MAHENDRA GAUR
B.E., P.G.D.M, LL.B.
ADVOCATE
B-90, SARASWATI MARG,
BAJAJ NAGAR, JAIPUR-302015
T/FAX 0141-2705901, PHONE: 09829059018
mahendragaur@gmail.com
November 26, 2009
Dear Mr. Arvind Kejriwal,
I have got this mail through [rti4empowerment] yet, I venture to send my unsolicited comments.
The credibility of every Institution in this country including NGO [झोला] is at low ebb and you have added no glory to the institution that you so painstakingly nurtured for so many years. ‘The desire for fame is the last infirmity of the noble mind.’ This saying from antiquity has a more profound meaning than may be evident at first glance. It is an indication that individuals do not regard their own individuality in a sufficiently serious manner. Your survey, & Mr. Ansari’s response are both rooted in this saying to a very large extent. Some people seek fame by soliciting awards, others by rejecting awards, and third category by raising controversy, when none exists. Both you and Mr. Ansari jointly fall in the third category.
Though I am not an admirer of Mr. M. M. Ansari, his reference in this letter w.r.t his candidature for the post of CCIC is in a bad taste. More so, when you are publicly championing the cause of Ms. Kiran Bedi for the same post. Mr. Ansari’s letter reflects that you targeted him in the survey and now using this report to to kill his chances as CCIC. The PCRF is in business for past six months but Mr. Ansari saw virtues in contesting the methodology of PCRF only when he saw a ray of hope in Mr. Wajahat Habibullah’s resignation. Thus all his objections are motivated therefore deserves to be ignored. Moreover his letter reflects that he has no faith in the branch of Mathematics called statistics.
As regards PCRF, you have to disclose the methodology in Advance (not when the report is final). Once you have collated Data, analysed it, you have no right to modify the rules of the game. You can show skewed results separately (may be with a rider) rather than tampering with the criteria. Likewise the methodology has to be consistent and not discretionary, such as at some places you made personal contacts, at other places you sent letters, and third places you relied on telephonic feedback. As a brother Mechanical Engineer (though being a graduate from REC I am your poor cousin) I am sure you are aware that statistical analysis does not require such a large sample size. Moreover responses of every Tom Dick and Harry do not court. I feel that you should have adopted the criteria that only those persons who have appeared before at least 5 Information Commissioner would be eligible to answer the Questionnaire. In case of states like Rajasthan where we have only one Information Commissioner, the alternative criteria could be appearing before PIO of five different organisations. This would eliminate those persons (applicants) who file multifarious applications against same Public Authority for reasons best known to them.
You will agree that collecting 52,000 Judgments, Reading and Classifying them by 12 persons (again their credential would come into play) sounds like a multi-starer 70 mm Movie of 1970s but without a script. I wish instead of keeping it as a closed door activity among the chosen few you had sent invitations (like this letter) to volunteers for screening the judgments and giving their valued comments. A sample size of 500-750 was good enough and that should include PIO, RTI Applicants, Activists, Information Commissioners, MPs, so that it reflects the opinion of the society. The design of Questionnaire is the most important aspect of a good survey, which was lacking in PCRF study. It is almost 20 years since I have made any comments on statistical analysis, so some of my comments are more commonsense than technical.
Your choice of ONGC as sponsor is baffling. It tantamount to giving them the title of best RTI Organization by PCRF without a poll/survey? I wish you had chosen some philanthropic institution to sponsor the awards. Even Channels have political leanings [NDTV (congress), Aaj Tak (BJP), Sahara (Samajvadi Party)] . Instead of tying up with NDTV (exclusive??) you should have tied up with all channels as the issue is of great public importance. Lastly instead of going for decorative pieces for Jury Memberships, I wish you had placed emphasis of knowledge about RTI as the principle Criteria. I am a great fan of Amir Khan the Actor, but wonder what is he doing on the Panel (no disrespect to him qua other jury members). Is he going to decide whether Mr. Wajahat Habibullah has done a good job or not. Your panel is more Glamorous than FilmFare Awards panel.
I don’t think that your survey though a laborious one leads to any logical conclusion. It would be a welcome step if the jury decides not to award any of the Information Commissioners or PIO. As regards the RTI applicants there is only ONE candidate who selects himself, and he deserves to be recognized. Even if you don’t recognize him it hardly matters since his contribution shines more than the awards. I need not name the person?
with regards,
Mahendra Gaur
cc. rti4empowerment and other Groups.
cc. All persons connected with RTI.
Expression of Interest:
(1) I was an applicant in self-nominated category in ‘RTI Applicants Awards’ for PCRF awards.
(2) Mr. M. M. Ansari has decided a number of RTI Appeals against me.
(3) A civil suit titled Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Mahendra Gaur (255 of 2008) for damages worth Rs.50 lakhs for causing defamation of Indian Oil (read Mr. M. M. Ansari) is sub-judice before Bombay High Court.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:48 am
Dear Mr.Kejriwal,
Many thanks for your efforts to make the RTI ACT more efficient and for interacting with the citizen/activist through this post inducing in them a dream for a healthy participatory,vibrant democratic India. I face the same type of problems from the public authorities like that of Mr.C.M.SEN who has given his experience in some above post. The hitherto corrupt public officials in spite of mending their out moded ways have begun to invent ways and means as to how to defeat and circumvent the provisions of the act. As ground level fellow citizen and activist we face many difficulty while dealing with these experienced and cunning public authorities in between the filing of the RTI application, complain case or second appeal and deliverance of the decision in tne matter of i.attending the commission, ii.strategic communication sent through ordinary post iii.frequent dates and calls to complainant to attend the commission etc. etc. In such a situation the activist naturally feels the need for active guidance of an expert to show him the way to carry forward his fight till the desired goal is achieved with out being dis tracked half way. Therefore I would suggest to PCRF to start a HOTLINE to help guide the activists in their difficult situation when called upon to do so.
REGARDS,
Siddharth.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:21 am
dEAR Friends,
The Right to Information Act, 2005, now stands for The Right to Ignore Act, 2005. Even the Information Commissioners are supporting the said fact. I have attended atleast 16 appeals before different Information Commissioners, but I have not got the true, fair and correct reply even after the direction of the hon’ble Commission. I am badly failed to understand, if the government is interested to solve the problems of the spciety, peoples suffered due to the mis-management, then they should have to fix the RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CLERK TO OFFICER. BUT, there is nothing. If one file pending with the clerk, he is least interested to see it, even after a complaint made. One official admitted right before me, I am ready to pay the fine, as I have enough income. Moreover, if I attends the proceedings before the commission, then the department also pays me TA/DA, then I am not in a loss.
Therefore Government has first to fix the responsibility of the clerk, officer, how much time is required to complete the filing work and scrap the Commissions, as it is unnecessary a LOSS TO THE NATIONAL EX-CHEQUER. WE HAVE TO SAVE IT. THANX
December 4th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
COMPLAINT AGAINST DET & GMT BSNL, AMRITSAR FOR HIRING DSP MAJOR SINGH PPS ESPECIALLY FOR THREATENING.
Dear RTI Users,
I have been threatened by DSP Major Singh PPS claimed to in Vigilance Bureau in the case of rti related to the scam in Tarn Taran District of BSNL SSA Amritsar, Punjab and in the said information the DET-Jagtar Singh [Ist cousin brother of DSP] & GMT-RKDabra [best friend of DSP] were in trouble. That on 14/9/2009 at about 10.50 a.m.the said DSP Major Singh visited my office and enquired about the rti. Complaints were sent to the DGP, Punjab, Chief Director Vigilance, Punjab & The Secretary Vigilance Punjab and also to the CIC,CVC,CBI,CAG,SFIO,New Delhi for necessary action. But nothing has been done so far in this connection. However, The Chief Director State Vigilance Bureau,Chandigarh has informed vide his letter no.41076-78/VB/S-1 Dated 26/10/09 addressed to DGP, Punjab and copies of which were endorsed to the ADGP Crime Punjab, The Secretary Vigilance, Punjab and to me. Please extend your assistance and co-operation especially to eradicate the corruption.
thanx a lot
P.C.SHARMA
ADVOCATE