So many posts will fall vacant. What should be the process of their appointment? The law is silent on that. Barring prescribing the composition of a selection committee (consisting of PM, Leader of Opposition and one Cabinet Minister), the law does not lay down the procedure that this committee should follow to invite names and process them.

Documents obtained under RTI from DOPT and PMO reveal how intense lobbying takes place before every appointment to the posts of Central Information Commissioners.

Ravi Shankar Singh is a journalist with The Tribune. His name was recommended by none other than Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Chief Minister of Haryana himself through a personal letter written to the Prime Minister. Hooda writes – “He is well known to me for the last more than twenty years. … I would be highly obliged if you kindly consider his name for the post of Deputy Information Commission in the Central Information Commission.”

Ravi Shankar’s name was also recommended by Kumari Selja, Minister of State and two MPs namely Naveen Jindal and Dr Karan Singh.

Likewise, 7 MPs recommended the name of Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony.

Interestingly, neither Ravi Shankar nor Dr Anthony’s names were even put up to the selection committee, which comprises of Prime Minsiter, Leader of Opposition and a Cabinet Minister.

Before every set of appointments, the word spreads around. Several people either apply themselves or are recommended by others. Recommendations are found to have been made by very influential people including Chief Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Supreme Court Bar Council etc.

The names for selection are put up to selection committee through an agenda note. The agenda note is prepared by DOPT. However, none of these recommendations or applications was ever put up to the selection committee.

Interestingly, the names which made it to agenda note and who were finally selected, never applied nor were they ever recommended by anyone, according to records provided by DOPT and PMO.

For instance, in August 2008, the selection committee cleared the names of four people in its meeting on 27th August 2008, namely Annapurna Dixit, M L Sharma, S N Mishra and Shailesh Gandhi. Before this meeting, the following applications/recommendations were received by the PMO and DOPT:

• President of Bar Council of India recommended the name of Sudhanshu Ranjan (a journalist) to the Prime Minister and DOPT.
• 7 MPs names, Nakul Das Rai (MP), Shivanand Tiwari (MP), Sukhdeo Paswan (MP), Rajniti Prasad (MP), Ganesh Prasad Singh (MP), Lalhming Lian (MP) and Alok Kumar Mehta (MP) recommended the name of Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony.
• Bhupinder Singh Hooda, CM Haryana,  Naveen Jindal (MP), Dr Karan Singh (MP) and Kumari Selja, MOS recommended the name of Ravi Shankar Singh, a journalist

However, the agenda note prepared by DOPT did not contain any of the above names. The agenda note was prepared by S K Sarkar, the then Joint Secretary in DOPT. He included the name of his own boss S N Mishra (the then DOPT Secretary), and the names of Mrs Annapurna Dixit, Ashok K Mohapatra, R B Shreekumar, M L Sharma and Shailesh Gandhi. Whereas Shailesh Gandhi’s name was proposed by several RTI activists through an open letter to the Government, but where did other names come from? According to records, none of them applied for these posts, nor were their names recommended by anyone. This means that something is happening outside the files. Who called up these people and asked them for their CVs? Why were only these people contacted?

Several questions arise. Firstly, how were the people like Ravi Shankar Singh, Sudhanshu Ranjan and Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony found unfit and not even put up to selection committee? Who did their assessment and on what basis? Who decided that these names should not be put up to the selection committee?

The agenda note is prepared by DOPT. Obviously someone in DOPT decided to reject these names. Does DOPT have these powers under RTI Act to reject names? No. DOPT merely acts as secretariat to the selection committee. It neither has the powers to reject anyone nor select anyone.

Next question is – how did the bio-datas of S N Mishra, Annapurna Dixit, Ashok Mohapatra, R B Shreekumar and M L Sharma make it to the file? How did these names make it to agenda note? How was it decided to include these names and not others?

It is surprising that the names recommended by MPs, Chief Ministers and Cabinet Ministers are not even put up to the selection committee. But some other names make it to agenda note.

Interestingly, S N Mishra was the then DOPT Secretary. All this was happening under his nose. He shamelessly includes his own name in the agenda note and excludes those of others.

It appears that the DOPT has become de-facto selection committee and selection committee provided in the law has been reduced to an endorsement committee. The selection committee merely endorses the names put up to it.

In its first meeting on 5th October 2005, 5 names were put up to selection committee and it cleared all the five names. In its next meeting on 27th August 2008, six names were put up and it cleared four of them. In the next meeting on 6th April 2009, only one name was put up and the same was cleared. In the meeting on 25th August 2009, four names were put up and it selected two of them. DOPT, by rejecting all names and presenting a very short list of names, creates a situation of fait accompli for the selection committee, wherein the committee almost endorses what is presented to them.

For instance, Omita Paul, who is known to be quite close to Pranab Mukherjee and has worked with him for many years, was working as Advisor to him before last Parliamentary elections. After the announcement of elections, the selection committee met specially on 6.4.09 to clear her name for the post of Information Commissioner. Only one name was presented to the selection committee and the committee cleared that name.

Interestingly, this was done in violation of model code of conduct. Though the Joint Secretary, in his notings, warned his seniors that model code of conduct was in operation and permission from Election Commission would be required, however, the permission was never sought. One wonders what was the hurry for appointing her? Omita joined on 13th May. Interestingly, as soon as UPA came to power, Omita resigned within a month on 26th June and went back and joined Pranab Mukherjee again.

What emerges from all this is that DOPT has become de facto selection or rejection committee. It rejects the names of all those who either apply or are recommended by others. It then prepares its own list of names (sources of which are unknown) and includes in this list, the names of its own bosses. The selection committee provided in RTI Act has been reduced to an endorsement committee of DOPT.

What does the law say? The law prescribes a selection committee consisting of the PM, Leader of Opposition and one Cabinet Minister. Then it says that the incumbent should be a person of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. He should not be a Member of Parliament or Member of any Legislature or hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.

The law does not provide for any procedure how nominations would be invited and how would they be processed. DOPT had a duty to make rules under section 27 of RTI Act to lay down procedures. However, DOPT has not made any rules so far.

Selection Committee meeting on 5th Oct 2005:

1. G C Srivastava, IAS (Retd) – he applied himself.
2. Shri Lakshmi Chand, IAS (Retd) – – he applied himself.
3. Shri R Ganesan, (IPoS:69), Secy & DG, Chairman, Postal Service Board, Department of Posts – he applied himself.
4. Shri G Mohal Kumar, (IPoS:69), Member (Personnel), Postal Service Board, Deptt of Posts – he applied himself.
5. Shri P R Devi Prasad (IES:82) – he applied himself.
6. Shri K Jaikumar, Dir (IT) in D/o AR&PG no specific post mentioned – he applied himself.
7. Rameshbhai’s name recommended by Nirmala Deshpande, MP to the PM
8. Smt Neena Ranjan, Secy, Ministry of Culture – she applied herself.
9. Prof Akhtarul Wasey (Dean, Jamia Milia Islamia)
10. Pradeep Kumar Balmuchu (trade union leader from Jharkhand)
11. Nripendra Mishra
12. Mohan Kanda (Chief Secretary to Government of AP)
13. Dinesh Chandra Gupta (former Finance Secretary)
14. Prof Dr B K Chandrashekhar (former Education Minister, Karnataka)
15. Akhtar Majeed (Dean, Hamdard University)

Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:

(None of the above names were put up)

1. Wajahat Habibullah
2. Dr O P Kejariwal
3. A N Tiwari
4. Prof M M Ansari
5. Padma Balasubramanian

Names selected by Selection committee:

All the above five names were selected.

Selection Committee meeting on 27th August 2008:

Who applied?

1. Sudhanshu Ranjan (a journalist) recommended by the President of Bar Council of India to PM and DOPT
2. Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony recommended by Nakul Das Rai (MP), Shivanand Tiwari (MP), Sukhdeo Paswan (MP), Rajniti Prasad (MP), Ganesh Prasad Singh (MP), Lalhming Lian (MP) and Alok Kumar Mehta (MP)
3. Ravi Shankar Singh (a journalist with The Tribune) recommended by Sh Bhupinder Singh Hooda , CM Haryana; Naveen Jindal (MP); Dr Karan Singh (MP) and Kumari Selja, MOS

Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:

(None of the above names were put up)

1. Mrs Annapurna Dixit
2. Ashok K Mohapatra
3. R B Shreekumar
4. M L Sharma
5. Shailesh Gandhi
6. S N Mishra

Names selected by Selection committee:

1. Shailesh Gandhi
2. S N Mishra
3. Annapurna Dixit
4. M L Sharma

Selection Committee meeting on 6th April 2009:

Who applied?

Meeting held suddenly. No one came to know about it. No names found on the file.

Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:

1. Omita Paul

Names selected by Selection committee:

1. Omita Paul

Selection Committee meeting on 25th August 2009:

Who applied?

1. Smt Sushma Singh, Secretary (I&B) recommended by her own Minister Anand Sharma, MOS (External Affairs and I&B) to the PM.
2. Dr C V Ananda Bose recommended by Vayalar Ravi, Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs.
3. Saroj Bala, Member (R), CBDT directly applies herself.
4. Mr Choubey recommended by M Veerappa Moily. Mr Moily also writes to Mrs Sonia Gandhi.
5. Adm Pradeep Kaushiva recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
6. Lt Gen Mahajan recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
7. Amitav Tripathi recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
8. Neelam Deo recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
9. Maja Daruwala recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
10. Krishan M Sahni recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
11. Chitra Chopra recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
12. Suman Dubey recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
13. Ishtiaq Hussain recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
14. Sudhanshu Ranjan, a journalist recommended by Sadanand Singh, former Chairperson, Bihar Legislative Assembly. He writes both to Mrs Sonia Gandhi and to the PM.

Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:

(Only Sushma Singh’s name was picked up from the above list. Why only Sushma Singh?)

1. Deepak Sandhu
2. Sushma Singh
3. Mahendra Kumavat
4. R P Agarwal

Names selected by Selection committee:

1. Deepak Sandhu
2. Sushma Singh

If you want copy of any order passed by UP Information Commission, it charges Rs 10 for each order. UP commission is the only commission in the country to do that. All commissions not only send copies of their orders to the concerned parties free of cost, they even upload them on their websites so that others could also read them and can know commission’s position on various issues.

The Act does not give any powers to the commission to charge money for copies of its orders.

Who authorized UP Commission to charge for its orders? When asked under RTI, the papers provided by UP Information Commission tell an interesting story.

The first document on record in this regard is a letter dated 17th July 2006 written by some Mata Prasad to Secretary to the Commission. The letter states that “as per oral orders of the Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner”, the Commission has been providing certified copies of its orders at the rate of Rs 10 per page.

Subsequent is an order dated 7th August passed by the Chief Information Commissioner stating that copies of orders of closed cases shall be provided free of cost. Copies of ongoing cases shall be provided on payment of prescribed fee.

On 18th December 2008, Gyanendra Sharma, the then Chief Information Commissioner passes an order that court stamp of Re 0.50 need not be pasted for obtaining copies of orders. However, the fee of Rs 10 per order to obtain copies of interim orders would continue as earlier.

Where does the commission draw its powers to impose this fee? Can any commission or authority impose any fee on the public on its own? According to legal experts, you need statutory authority to impose any kind of fee.

RTI Awards Secretariat is analyzing the orders passed by all commissioners in the country. Barring UP and Jharkhand, it has received copies of all orders passed by the all other commissions in the last financial year. UP claims to have passed 22152 orders last year. It has demanded Rs 2,21,520 to provide copies of all orders! Did the Commission actually pass that many orders? When asked to provide a list of all these orders, the commission demanded Rs 33,300 to prepare that list! When asked to allow inspection of these files, the commission asked to deposit Rs 2,21,520 at the rate of Rs 10 per file for inspection. As per rules, inspection is free for the first one hour and then they can charge Rs 5 per 15 minutes. There is no rule to charge Rs 10 for inspection of each file.

One wonders why is the commission so desperately trying to keep its orders under wraps?

Section 4(1)(b)(iv) of RTI Act says that every public authority shall suo moto publish “the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions” within 120 days of enactment of RTI Act. When asked through an RTI application to provide a copy of these norms, the commission says that such “information is not available”. Does this mean that the commission has not even set out norms for its own functioning or are they hesitating in providing the same?

The commission refuses to provide copies of its annual reports. They do not even disclose whether they have prepared any such reports, which they are obliged to do under section 25 of RTI Act. Such reports have been provided by the commissions of almost all other states.

Did the commission receive any complaint of victimization or threat from any RTI activist? What action did the commission take on such complaints? The Commission refuses to provide this information saying that the information has not been compiled.

The commission even refuses to provide the number of cases which were disposed off without any hearings. The commission does not even have the details of the number of cases in which penalty show cause notices were issued. One wonders that if the commission does not maintain this basic detail, how does it subsequently pursue those cases. It creates an opportunity for the officials to “misplace” the penalty file. What controls does the commissioner have?

Similarly, the commission does not even know in which cases orders of the commission have been reserved. Again, if the staff misplaces such files, how would the commissioner know that he had to pass an order in such case?

The Commission does not know the number of cases in which RTIs have been filed in their own office. Then, how does the commission ensure that replies are given within 30 days. Besides, this information has to go in annual report. How does the commission provide this information in its annual report?

Is it complete anarchy in Jharkhand Information Commission? Naturally, its commissioners do not have the courage to impose penalties or issue arrest warrants against guilty officers from other departments when the commission itself is lacking in transparency.

An RTI query was filed with all Chief Ministers, state governors, PMO, DOPT and President’s Secretariat asking for copies of all complaints received against Information Commissioners and action taken thereupon. The President received 14 complaints since RTI Act became effective. TN, Uttarakhand and Haryana Governors received five, four and seven complaints respectively, however, those in HP and most North Eastern states received none.

The complaints have been filed by citizens against various Information Commissions complaining either about their misbehaviour or to the illegality of their orders.

What action was taken on these complaints? The President and most governors routinely forward these complaints to the government. The governments either sit on it or seek explanation from respective commissioner. Obviously the commissioner would defend his actions. The complaint is then merely filed.

The Act says that a commissioner can be removed by the President or Governor if on an enquiry by the Supreme Court, the charges of misbehaviour or incapacity were proved. However, these complaints are not even being forwarded by the President or Governors to the Supreme Court. Instead, they are being forwarded to the government causing direct conflict of interest.

The Governments may opt to proceed against an inconvenient commissioner. They could also keep others on their toes by keeping action on complaints against them hanging.

This is already happening in UP. Complaints against former Chief Information Commissioner Justice M A Khan were forwarded to the Supreme Court. Pending enquiries by Supreme Court, the chief commissioner was suspended. It is intriguing why the balance hundreds of complaints received by Governor or CM have not been similarly forwarded to Supreme Court for enquiry.

Interestingly, whereas Governors of most other states have provided copies of these complaints, UP Governor’s office has refused to provide them quoting some sections of RTI Act.

Section 27 requires each government to make rules to implement the provisions of RTI Act. However, neither the states nor central governments have made any rules on how such complaints would be dealt with. Till then, the survival of any commissioner would be hostage to the governments whose transparency they are required to ensure.

In its meeting held on 30th and 31st January, the committee laid down the process and criteria for awards in each category.

“It is an honor and an inspiration for those officers who are working for transparency within the system,” said Dr Lalit Narayan Mishra, winner of last year’s Best RTI officer award.

There are six awards in four categories – an Information Commissioner who enforced RTI Act strictly, two Public Information Officers, who provided correct and complete information according to law, and two citizens, who used RTI and created substantial public impact. A new category of awards has been added this year to honor one journalist who used RTI extensively in their reporting for highlighting public issues. A person can apply himself or can be recommended by someone else.

Among the Jury members are eminent personalities such as actor Aamir Khan, Chief Mentor of Infosys NR Narayana Murthy, Former Chief Justice of Supreme Court Justice JS Verma, Former Chief Election Commissioner of India JM Lyngdoh, Constitutional Expert and Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman, Padma Bhushan Awardee Mallika Sarabhai, Padma Shri and Dronacharya Award Awardee Pullela Gopichand, Author Madhu Trehan, Chairman of NDTV Dr. Pronnoy Roy, Editor and CEO of Dainik Jagran Sanjay Gupta.

Though there are two awards in citizens’ category, the jury last year was so overwhelmed with the work of all finalists that they decided to give awards to all 19 finalists. Likewise, they decided to honor all the three finalists in PIO category. Where would the money come from for so many winners? Mr Narayana Murthy and Aamir Khan donated money on the spot for all additional winners.

Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission was adjudged the best information commission. It is the first commission to have issued arrest warrant against an erring PIO for violating commission’s orders. Nationally, only 38% of orders passed by various information commissions get complied with. Yet, no other commission invoked these powers against the erring officers.

Dr. Lalit Narayan Mishra won the Best PIO award. He provided complete and correct information to all appellants within the stipulated 30 days time. No appeal was filed against his decisions and 100% of the appellants reported satisfaction with the information provided by him.

“Though no one works for awards, however, such recognition strengthens the voice of the movement,” says Akhil Gogoi of Assam who won Best RTI citizen Award last year. He exposed leakages in Public Distribution System, which also resulted in suspension of many corrupt officers.

This year, an RTI Awards Committee (RAC) consisting of sixty-five eminent RTI Activists from almost all states has been set up. The committee would be responsible for monitoring the RTI Awards process as well as taking all decisions related to RTI Awards.

Nomination forms can be downloaded online from www.rtiawards.org. Last date for filing nominations is July 15, 2010.

Each award in Citizen, PIO and Journalist Categories consists of Rs. two lakh, a citation and a plaque.

Some activists like Col Kurup and Major Ravindran from Kerala and Mr Arasu from Tamil Nadu could not attend the meeting but had sent their written comments. Mr Shekhar Singh and Mr Milap Choraria from Delhi attended the meeting for half a day but sent their written comments. All these comments were read out in the meeting.

The following decisions were taken:

General

1. Friends from Andhra Pradesh felt that the information commissioners should just be ranked on various parameters but there should not be any award for them. On the other hand, friends from Himachal Pradesh felt that the awards for Information Commissioners and PIOs were fine, but the citizen category awards should be discontinued. This issue was discussed in detail and the general consensus was that the RTI Awards in all categories were important. However, it was decided that information commissioners should not be given any cash as award, though the best commissioner should certainly be honored.
2. There were demands to create new award categories like RTI pressure group award, RTI cartoonist award, RTI bravery award, RTI journalists award, best RTI governed state, Best First Appellate Authority award, Best Public Authority award, Best RTI advocate, RTI trainer’s award, etc. Whereas the importance to start awards in some of these categories cannot be overstated, however, it was decided to start one more category this year, i.e. Best RTI Journalist Award.
3. Some friends suggested that the awards should be named after those RTI activists who died fighting for RTI. However, the general consensus was that we should invite the families of all such activists and the RTI movement should honor their sacrifice and contribution at RTI Awards ceremony but the awards should not be named after anyone.
4. A friend from Manjunath Trust also attended the meeting. He explained that Manjunath Trust had been giving Integrity Awards annually since the past few years, in the memory of Manjunath, to those individuals, who had done exemplary work in fighting corruption. He said that most of the past winners had been RTI activists. Therefore, Manjunath Trust felt that this was leading to duplication of efforts and Manjunath Integrity Awards should be merged with RTI Awards. But most people present at the meeting felt that Manjunath had made a supreme sacrifice fighting against corruption. Merging the two awards would diminish the importance and value of Manjunath’s work. It was, therefore, extremely important to maintain a separate identity of Manjunath Award. All RTI Activists present at the meeting expressed complete support of RTI Movement to Manjunath award in terms of logistics, identification of potential nominees etc. It was even suggested that Manjunath Trust may use the RTI Awards media partners, use PCRF secretariat and even have a common awards ceremony, if they like. However, the separate identity of Manjunath Award should be preserved.

Formation of RTI Awards Committee

1. It was decided to form an RTI Awards Committee (RAC), which will consist of a few RTI activists from each state. The committee shall oversee, actively participate and encourage participation of activists from across the country in the entire process of RTI Awards.

Information Commissioners

1. Some friends felt that comparing those commissioners who had disposed a few cases in a year with those who had disposed hundreds of cases was incorrect because those who were disposing larger number of cases were bound to have lower public satisfaction levels. Therefore, it was suggested that we should have separate bands for comparisons of Information Commissioners depending upon the number of appeals received by them and the state population. However, many friends opposed this idea. Can higher disposal rate and a higher pendency be treated as a legitimate excuse for lower public satisfaction rates, lower compliance rates and non-imposition of penalties? Sometimes, a higher pendency could be a negative attribute because, in some measure, non-imposition of penalties contributes to higher pendency. If a commissioner does not ensure compliance of his orders because he/she is disposing larger number of cases, it amounts to injustice in almost all cases. Larger disposals become meaningless in such cases. However, the importance of commissioners disposing reasonable number of cases every month cannot be overstated. Therefore, quantity of disposals needs to be combined with their quality, compliance and deterrence. How do we do that? A solution could not be found immediately in the meeting. Therefore, it was suggested that we should capture data on all parameters, prepare combined charts on each parameter and present it to RTI Awards committee for final discussions and decision.
2. Should an Information Commissioner get extra points for creating awareness? There was an overwhelming consensus that it should not be done. It is not the duty of the Information Commissioner to create awareness. It is the duty of state government. Some commissioners, in the name of creating awareness, are seen to be traveling most of the time without attending to their appeals, thus leading to mounting pendencies. Some commissioners, in the name of creating awareness, are also entertaining hospitality of departments, whose cases they are adjudicating. Many participants gave examples of how public authorities are also misusing this practice. They gave examples of how a public authority, when faced heat from a commissioner, invited him to give a lecture to its officers. The commissioner was given a royal treatment by the public authority including expensive gifts. This affected commissioner’s orders subsequently.
3. Should an Information Commissioner get extra points for making First Appellate Authority accountable? Many commissioners remand back large number of cases thinking that this would make the institution of First Appellate Authority functional. However, experience shows that rather than making First Appellate Authorities accountable, remanding back large number of cases leads to huge hardships to appellants as they are just tossed from one authority to another. The RTI Act itself does not give any powers to Information Commissioners to proceed against First Appellate Authorities. But if a commissioner, on his own, recommends disciplinary action against First Appellate Authority without remanding the case back, he should certainly be commended for this.
4. Should there be some norms for qualification of a commissioner to be considered for the award of information commissioner? For instance, in some states, it is seen that the commissioners take long absence from work or are present for very few hours during the day despite huge pendencies. Shouldn’t RTI movement express strong disapproval of such practices by disqualifying such commissioners? Harinesh bhai from Gujarat, Karira sahib from AP and Bhaskar from Maharashtra offered to prepare draft norms for consideration of RTI Awards Committee.

Feedback:

10.  Last year, the feedback was obtained from appellants only on one point i.e. whether the appellant received complete and satisfactory information after approaching information commission? The unanimous feeling among the attendees was that the feedback from the appellants should be obtained on many more points rather than just one point. It was decided that the feedback form should be drafted after inviting comments from a wide cross section. The RTI Awards Committee (RAC) shall then finalize the same.

11.  Quantum of feedback: An important issue that came up was – how much feedback should be obtained from the appellants, what should be regarded as a good sample size, how much feedback would be considered adequate? Last year, letters were written to all appellants, in whose cases orders were passed in favor of disclosures. Many of them were also contacted on phone and through emails. Finally, it was ensured that at least 20% feedback was received for each commissioner assessed. In the meeting, many good suggestions were made on this issue. Mr Shekhar Singh suggested that if we write to 100% appellants and consider only those cases where appellants write back to us, there could be a possibility that only those people write back who are disgruntled. Therefore, he suggested that we should take a random sample of say 10% appellants and approach each one of them personally, even if we have to visit their addresses physically, rather than writing to all 100% appellants. He suggested a practical idea to implement this. That we should select any one district (which is representative in terms of illiteracy, backwardness etc) in each state and physically approach all appellants from that district for their feedback. This suggestion was debated at length in the meet. Some of the arguments raised were –this method may throw up warped results if some NGO’s or activists are working in the chosen district or if no NGOs or activists are working in that district. Many felt that it looks unlikely that only disgruntled people sent in their feedback because a large number of positive feedbacks had also been received for many commissioners. Also, this is more of an inter commissioner comparative analysis. Bias, if any, would even out. An overall view was that we should continue sending feedback forms to all 100% appellants. Presently, the feedback was ensured from 20% of the appellants. By involving local groups, we should try and increase this percentage much more next year.

12.  Mode of obtaining feedback: Last year, feedback was obtained through letters, phone calls, emails, etc. Some people had objected that the feedback should be obtained only through one mode. However, the overall view was that if we were asking the same questions through each mode, then there was no problem in seeking feedback through multiple methods. It was agreed that the most cost effective mix of all modes should be employed.

Parameters:

13.  It was decided that we should continue to rank commissioners on each parameter. However, an overall parameter should be calculated by giving weightage to each parameter. The weight-ages should be decided by the RTI Awards Committee.

14.  Last year, the data was captured only on penalties. It was decided to capture data on compensations and disciplinary actions also.

15.  Mr Shekhar Singh suggested that if part information has been provided by a commissioner in any case, that should be treated as half point. This was accepted.

16.  For pro-disclosure factor, we should mention the departments being handled by each commissioner. Some departments are likely to have higher denials. Mentioning the departments would help in partly explaining reasons for higher or lower pro-disclosure factor of a particular commissioner. This was suggested by Mr Shekhar Singh and was accepted.

Qualitative analysis:

17.  Quality of orders: Orders passed by some commissioners are neither speaking orders nor contain any detail like – what information was sought by the appellant, what information had already been provided, reasons for dissatisfaction of the appellant, justification of the PIO in either denying information or not replying within prescribed time, various dates (like date of application, date of first appeal, date of second appeal, date of PIO’s response) etc. It was decided that we should also capture data on each commissioner on quality of orders passed by him.

18.  It was decided that wherever information was denied by a commissioner either in part or in full, reasons for denial in each case should be captured.

19.  Some commissioner reject large number of cases with remarks “whatever information was available has been provided”. The order does not mention why the balance information cannot be provided – are the records missing, does it need extensive compilation, is the information sought for imaginary and does not exist? It was decided to separately capture the number of cases rejected on such grounds.

20.  Some cases are dismissed for completely illegal reasons. It was decided to separately record such reasons. Some such reasons were identified at the meeting:

• If the commissioner allows charging of fee by a public authority in violation of prescribed charges or if collection of fee is allowed even though 30 days are over or if collection of fee is allowed from BPL families.
• When information belongs to some other department and the commissioner, rather than reprimanding the PIO for failing to transfer it under section 6(3), dismisses the case.
• When information is denied on the plea that it is voluminous information. Kerala High Court has said that information cannot be denied on this ground because RTI Act does not mention any such ground for denial. If an appellant is willing to pay prescribed charges, the information ought to be provided.
• When information is rejected saying that it is third party information. Under the law, information cannot be rejected on this ground. Rather the opinion of third party ought to be sought and a speaking order ought to be passed either accepting or rejecting the plea of the third party.
• When information is rejected saying that it is a frivolous RTI. No such ground for rejection is mentioned in RTI Act.
• When information is rejected saying that it is misuse of RTI. No such ground for rejection is mentioned in RTI Act.
• When information is rejected saying that the case is pending in court. Mere pendency of a case is not sufficient ground for rejection, unless the court has specifically barred disclosure of that information.
• When information is rejected by saying that investigations are pending. According to Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh case, mere pendency of an investigation is not sufficient ground for denying information. Public authority ought to show how disclosure of information would impede investigation.
• When information is denied under section 7(9) – Information cannot be denied under this section. Whereas information in all cases has to be compiled and provided in the form sought, however, if compiling information in such form is likely to divert disproportionate resources of public authority, it may not provide it in the form sought. But information ought to be provided in the form in which it is available with the public authority.
• Many a times, an appeal is dismissed by saying that the appellant is seeking redressal of his grievance. Under section 6(2), the Commissioner does not have the powers to go into the reasons why an appellant is seeking information. Even if a person is seeking information to get his grievance addressed, information ought to be provided. In fact, there is some grievance behind most RTI applications.
• Many times, a case is closed if appellant is not personally present. It is the choice of the appellant whether he/she wishes to be present or not. If the appellant is absent, the case ought to have been decided on merits on the basis of material available on record rather than dismissing it.
• When motivation or intention of the appellant is questioned – As mentioned above, under section 6(2), the Commissioner does not have the powers to go into the reasons why an appellant is seeking information.
• When information is denied because it relates to service matter – RTI Act does not say that information related to service matters cannot be obtained.
• When information is denied because there is no public interest – RTI Act does not say that information which is not related to public interest would not be provided (barring section 8(1)(j))
• When applications filed by NGOs or other artificial juridical persons is rejected. Now, there are several judgements of CIC and many other commissions that artificial juridical persons can seek information.
• If complaints under section 18 are returned back on the plea that first appeal has not been filed.

21.  It was decided that rejections or dismissals by a commissioner on technical grounds should be separately captured. The reasons for each one of them should also be recorded. This would enable us to know which reasons are being used most by a commissioner in dismissing or rejecting cases. Some such reasons could be – proof of the deposit of fee has not been attached, all papers have not been self-attested, photocopies of all papers have not filed with appeal, first appeal has not been filed (if the case is not rejected on this ground but is remanded back, then it would go under remanded back column) etc

22.  It was decided that five most absurd orders and five best orders (especially in such areas, which are still considered grey) passed by an Information Commissioner should be identified. Mr Shekhar Singh suggested that a page should be created on the website for the people to inform about such orders. This was readily accepted.

23.  We should also capture a commissioner’s stand on the following issues:

1. How did the Commissioner deal with cases in which records were reported to be missing, destroyed or lost. Was FIR ordered to be registered?
2. How did the commission deal with life and liberty cases?

24.  Friends from AP suggested that we should compare decisions of various Information Commissions on certain important issues. The meeting welcomed and accepted this idea. The issues to be taken up for comparisons would be decided by RTI Awards Committee.

25.  It was also decided to record the practices followed by a commissioner on following issues. Whereas some of this information can be obtained through feedback form, however, capturing most of it would need extensive inputs from activists from each state and would depend upon their cooperation:

1. Some case files should be inspected in each information commission to see whether in cases of denial, dropping of penalty and show cause notices – was the PIO’s justification sought or not?
2. Whether the commission is perceived to be positively stonewalling local language?
3. Does the Commissioner reserve orders in many cases?
4. Whether the public is allowed to enter court room openly?
5. Sec 4 compliance by that commission
6. Identify top 5 practices – both good and bad of each IC
7. Any significant registry practices- good and bad
8. Whether IC got sec 4 complied with from various Public Authorities?
9. Whether the commission takes summer vacation?
10. No of working hours of each commissioner per week
11. Steps taken by the commissioner to protect RTI activists against victimization
12. Access of citizen to IC office – how easy or difficult it is?
13. Does the commission follow all rules – like in MP, appeals have to be disposed off within 180 days of receipt
14. Whether appellants’ written submissions are considered if the appellant does not attend a hearing
15. Whether Commission has proper norms as required under section 4(1)(b)(iv)
16. IC’s background
17. Whether some departments like Chief Minister’s Office or Chief Secretary’s Office or Governor’s office are dealt differently by the Commission?
18. Whether the IC is entertaining hospitality of public authorities?
19. Commission’s own performance with respect to RTI

26.  It was decided that we should also capture as to what reasons forwarded by PIOs, in response to penalty show cause notices, were treated as “reasonable” by Information Commissioners. Such reasons should be highlighted and compared across commissions.

Other issues pertaining to Information Commissioners:

27.  It was decided that we should obtain copies of all complaints received against various Information Commissioners. These should be studied and considered during final evaluation.

28.  It was decided that we should also find out the number of orders of an information commissioner challenged in courts and how many of them were reversed.

29.  In some states, cases are returned by the Commission’s staff without putting them across to the commissioners for hearing, by raising various objections. It was decided to capture this data.

30.  We should also make a mention about the number of staff and financial resources available with each commissioner. This would help us in comparing across states on what could be treated as legitimate staff requirements and comparing within commission, cost per case of an information commissioner.

31.  In some states, several hearings take place in each case. This not only tires out an appellant but also leads to attrition. Therefore, the number of hearings per case should also be recorded.

32.  It was decided that Information Commissioners should be requested in each state and at the centre to allow video recordings of their proceedings. Those who allow such recordings should be appreciated for adopting such transparency measures.

33.  It was suggested that the study should finally identify 5 issues affecting RTI at national level. This suggestion was accepted by all.  This years analysis had also identified two areas of concern at national level- non compliance of orders and mounting pendencies.

34.  It was decided that the draft report on performance of Information Commissioners should be presented to the RTI Awards Committee. The same should be released after discussions and finalization by the Committee.

Citizens’ category

35.  We should pay our respects to all RTI activists who have been victimized or assaulted. They, along with their families, should be invited to RTI Awards ceremony.

36.  It was decided that activist groups in various states should be actively involved in call for nominations for citizens and PIOs so that nominations are received from farthest of the areas.

37.  Citizens nominations should be assessed on criteria such as scale of impact, his struggle, risks involved, how much did that person pursue the issue after getting information, how many people was he able to inspire after that etc. Weightage that needs to be given to each criterion shall be decided by the RTI Awards committee.

38.  For citizens, the process of selection shall be as follows:

1. PCRF shall do the first reading of all nominations. In first instance, all those cases, where an applicant used RTI for his personal benefit, would be screened out.
2. A short summary of each case shall be prepared for the balance cases.
3. This shall be sent to each member of the RTI Awards Committee.
4. Each member would evaluate each nominee on the above criteria.
5. Evaluations of all members of RTI Awards committee shall be compiled and the top 20 finalists will be presented to the jury for final selection.

PIO’s category

39.  Everyone expressed satisfaction at PIO’s selection process. No comments were received on this issue except that local RTI activists should recommend names of good PIOs in large numbers next year.

Jury

40.  Should jury consist of RTI activists? Mr. Umesh and Mr. Rakesh from Andhra Pradesh and Mr. Krishnaraj Rao from Maharashtra suggested so. However, the overall view was that RTI activists have their own set of prejudices and biases. Therefore, there should be a completely independent jury comprised of individuals who have proven track records in various fields and not necessarily connected with the RTI legislation or its technicalities. The decisions to be made by the jury should be based upon an unbiased analysis of the data. Everyone appreciated that the present set of jury members enjoy great credibility in their own fields of expertise. Therefore, the present set of jury members should continue. However, we can add a few more members to the jury, who had been working for democratic rights. Such names will be decided by the RTI Awards committee subsequently.

Federation of RTI Appellants

41.  There was a very strong demand for the formation of some sort of Federation of RTI appellants at national level. It could serve the following objectives – to fight for protection of RTI applicants against victimization, to collectively fight if state or central government makes any policy which is likely to adversely affect RTI movement and to collectively engage with Information Commissions to improve their functioning. Last year’s study of information commissions has given us access to the addresses of all RTI appellants in the country. We even have phone nos of some of them. Many activists volunteered that they would call a meeting of all RTI appellants in their state and discuss the possibility of forming such an association at their state level. The representatives of such state federations could then form a federation at the national level. It was suggested to have state level appellant meetings by April end.

Mistakes pointed out in last year’s report

42.  Sunil Mahto from Jharkhand pointed out that Jharkhand Commissioners- Gangotri Kujur and S. D. Mahto had imposed penalties, whereas last year’s report erroneously says that they had not imposed any penalties. He even offered to send copies of those orders. PCRF explained that Jharkhand Information Commission had not sent a few hundred orders last year. This error could be due to that.

Finally

43.  It was suggested that this study should cover all aspects of RTI Implementation in the country. However, PCRF expressed inability to be able to do it immediately. Therefore, it was decided that this suggestion should be implemented slowly over the years by adding a few components to the study every year.

In the end, the meeting dispersed after paying homage to eminent RTI Activist Mr. Satish Shetty.

A Critique of PCRF’s RTI Awards

M.M. Ansari

In spite of our detailed comments on the PCRF Report on RTI Awards, in which we pointed serious methodological and technical deficiencies and grossly erroneous conclusions in preparation of the Report and its flawed conclusions, the PCRF’s Jury has announced the award in favour of Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (APIC).  The rationale for judging this Commission as the best, among all Commissions, requires an objective evaluation in the backdrop of the citation, which reads as under:

“Information Commissioner Category:

Winner: Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission

Award: Rs.2 lakhs, Trophy and Citation

Arunachal Pradesh received a very high Overall Public Satisfaction (OPS) of 85%.  This means that if 100 people approached Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, 85 of them finally got the information they were seeking.  This is almost three times the national average of 26%.  The State is very high on getting its orders implemented.  In 91% of the orders passed by Arunachal Pradesh Commission, people got the information.  The Commission does not close a case till the appellant registers his/her satisfaction.  So, they follow the practice of “continuing mandamus”.

The Commissions is very strong on enforcement.  In 45 cases that it disposed, penalties were imposed on 25 officers in 2006-07.  In the calendar year 2008, they imposed penalties in 18% cases.

Most of the people that we spoke to were full of praise for their commission.  The  PIOs are scared of violating RTI provisions.  In the year 2009, the commission became the only commission to issue bail-able arrest warrants against an officer who did not comply with commission’s orders.  During 2008, the commission issued 43 orders, out of which 40 orders were passed in favour of disclosures.  On an average, it takes four months time between filing an appeal and getting information after all the hearings in this state.  The commission with just 43 cases, has four commissioners.  Certainly, the commission does not need so many commissioners.  However, the commissioners are appointed by the state government and the commission has little role in it.  The commissioners rarely pass orders as a single bench.  Most of the orders are passed by them collectively as one bench.  Therefore, they are being honoured collectively as a commission.

It may be argued that since they have such small number of cases, it is possible for them to monitor cases and ensure satisfaction.  However, the data does not support this.  There are more than 25 commissioners in the country who disposed less than one order per day.  However, their compliance and satisfaction ratios are pretty low.  The commission had zero pendency at the end of the year”

(http://www.rtiawards.org/)

Now, let us consider the following:

First, The APIC, comprising four ICs, disposed of a meagre 43 cases in a year, which comes to less than one decision per month per Commissioner.

Against this, the corresponding figure for the CIC and some other State Commissions is hundred times more, between 100 to 200 cases per month per Commissioner.  This fact has been deliberately ¾ rather designedly ¾ ignored by the evaluators, possibly because factoring in “sample sizes” would not have helped them support predetermined conclusions, and extol virtues of their favourites and denigrate others.  The laboured effort to underplay the deficiencies of the “winner”, is far too obvious to be ignored.

Surprisingly, the Jury has sailed along with these evaluators whose methods and approaches would fail the most elementary scrutiny.

Our response: Mere quantity is not a measure of quality. In other words, just because a commissioner has passed hundreds of orders it does not automatically make him a good commissioner. People approach information commissioners to get information, not orders. If the compliance of a commissioner is very low, but he passes hundreds of orders, it is of no benefit to the people. This exact same issue was discussed at length amongst our jury. To be more specific your argument is invalid for the following reasons:

• APIC’s pendency at the beginning and the end of the year was NIL. It is unfair to penalize them because they were receiving fewer appeals. It was not that these commissioners were not doing their jobs. It was just that they were receiving fewer appeals. Clearly, this can’t be held against them.
• As far as the number of commissioners was concerned, it can be argued that the commission does not need so many commissioners. However, the commission does not have any role in it. The state government appoints information commissioners.
• The argument that because they did so few cases, they were able to perform better is also invalid when you look at the data. There are more than 25 commissioners in the country who disposed less than one case per day, and even then, their compliance and public satisfaction ratios were very low.

Prof Ansari has alleged that we are trying to extol the virtues of our “favourites” and “underplay the deficiencies of the “winner”.  After the release of our interim report, Prof Ansari alleged that we were trying to favour Orissa commission. Now, he alleges that we are favouring Arunachal Information Commission. We find such allegations without evidence completely baseless. The fact of the matter is that our effort was an independent, unbiased attempt at studying the state of RTI in the country and recognizing those who have excelled. We have no vested interest whatsoever in favouring one commission over another.

Second, The APIC has to its credit 85% of affirmative decisions
(35 – 40 cases only), which form the basis for Overall Public Satisfaction (OPS).

Against this meagre figure of 35 – 40 or so, the CIC has over 2000 decisions in this category, as per PCRF’s own estimates.  Likewise, other Commissions like Maharashtra Information Commission have passed a large number of favourable decisions to ensure maximum disclosure of information.  But, the Jury chose not only to ignore such an important quantitative dimension, but also relied on subjective feed back about people’s satisfaction as provided by the PCRF’s staff.  More, surely, was expected of the Jury giving away what was described ¾ tongue in cheek ¾ as “national awards”.

Our response: We have gone by percentages. Prof Ansari is presenting numbers. Let us review the numbers in a different fashion. Arunachal Information Commission denied information in just 3 cases. Prof Ansari denied information in 430 cases. Can Prof Ansari’s performance be argued as being better just because he had more cases?

Third, The APIC imposed 25 penalties whereas CIC imposed over 100 penalties on PIOs as well as awarded compensation to a large number of appellants.  The CIC and many SICs indeed scrupulously enforced the RTI Act provisions, which has resulted in ensuring entitlements of the citizens.  Media reports have so much to say on this.

The PCRF’s Jury has again, conveniently, and in keeping with their eager endorsement of all they were fed by the so-called evaluators ¾ ignored these vital facts.

Our response: APIC imposed penalties on 25 officers in 45 cases. Prof Ansari imposed penalties on 3 cases out of 1726 cases disposed by him. The entire CIC imposed penalties in 92 cases out of 7626 case done by them. Is the CIC performance better? APIC issued an arrest warrant to get its orders implemented. As a result, more than 90% of its orders were implemented. CIC did not dare to issue even a single arrest warrant, when more than 70% of its orders were not complied with. 80% of Prof Ansari’s orders were not complied with and he did little to address this glaring record.

Fourth, No attempt has been made to assess the quality of decisions passed by APIC vis-à-vis other Commissions, including CIC, in terms of the impact of the Commissions’ decisions in promoting transparency, accountability and containing corruption, which are the major objectives of the Act. Why have these aspects been ignored and not factored in the evaluation process and criteria?  The evaluators who seem to have been driven by an insane urge to use statistics blindly, to prove and disprove, according to what they believed RTI Act comprised, scarcely realized that statistics can lie too.  A true test of the validity of the Commissioner’s decisions would be whether these were made within the four corners of law.  Many of these decisions of the Commissions, which were challenged in High Courts, were upheld testifying to their validity.

The manner in which the evaluators have gone about their job leads to an inference that the Commissioners would do well to allow an appeal even if the law would not permit it.  Are the evaluators trying to suggest that the role of the Commission was that of a bull in the China Shop?  If there are strictures from superior courts, it is the Commissioner who shall be the sufferer.  In any case, it is a chimera that those Commissioners who allow most appeals contribute to promotion of the RTI Act’s objectives and those who reject some or many such appeals even on valid grounds, do it a disservice.

We are surprised that the jury ¾ eminent persons as these are called ¾ turned a blind-eye to this important aspect and were led up the garden path by the authors of this flawed report.

Our response: Let us be very clear about the facts. No where have we questioned the decisions of commissioners as this is their quasi-judicial power. We have merely presented a comparative analysis. Prof Ansari is wrong when he says that High Courts have endorsed all decisions of the CIC. There are several decisions when the orders of CIC have been reversed. Recently, one order passed by Prof Ansari has been reversed by the Delhi High Court, where Prof Ansari was found to be protecting the privacy of a ghost employee of the Delhi Government!

Fifth, There are umpteen number of success stories, which indicate significant improvement in governance, owing to the various Commissions’ decisions.  The question is: In how many cases APIC’s decisions have been cited as landmark orders ¾ opening up information long held confidential ¾ compared to CIC’s and other SIC’s decisions?  The criterion of the “quality of the decisions” which contributed to evolution of the information regime has been grossly ignored and neglected, either because the authors lacked ability to accomplish the task they set-out for, their prejudices or because they were presenting misleading information for mala-fide reasons.  Who will explain this?

Our response: We do not dispute the fact that CIC has passed some very good orders. But these orders were passed in the cases which came before them. If no such case came before APIC, it simply can’t be held against them. The underlying purpose of the study was to get straight answers to fundamental questions — Can a common man seeking very ordinary information relating to his day to day get justice at an information commission? True, some commissioners have passed very good orders on issues which make national headlines, but the sum total of their records could signify that in several of their cases citizens were not delivered their due justice.

Sixth, Consider the cost of disposal of appeals and complaints.  While the monetary compensation paid to ICs, including other supporting facilities, are comparable, there is wide difference in the work burden shared by the Commissioners.  An IC of APIC, for instance, has disposed of less than one decision per month whereas an IC of the CIC and several SICs have disposed of hundred times more that many cases per month.

Has the PCRF Jury considered this point?  Is it not proper to take into consideration such aspects as cost-effectiveness of delivery of justice under the RTI Act?  The Jury owes an explanation to the country for disseminating false and un-scientific analysis and views to promote vested interests of those who are associated with the PCRF.

Our response: This specific issue that you have raised here was discussed extensively with several eminent jurists. One question that came up in these discussions was — If a High Court receives less number of cases, should we not have a High Court there? Should the performance of that High Court be considered inferior to any other High Court? While it is arguable whether APIC actually needs 5 commissioners, the fact of the matter remains that it is the prerogative of the state government to appoint commissioners. The commission has no role in it and should not be penalized in any form of shape when it comes to an analysis of the kind we have undertaken. We have chosen to go strictly by the data and in this case we strongly believe that it is unfair to penalize the APIC for something beyond their control.

Seventh, The PCRF Jury has patted the APIC for disposing of all the 43 cases in a year through full bench hearings, with zero pendency in the Commission.  Now consider the work load of other Commissions like CIC & Maharashtra Commission, which are receiving over 1500 appeals per month.  If all the Commissions dispose of cases in the same manner as APIC, as apparently, recommended by the Jury, the backlog of cases would be so huge as to make a mockery of RTI.  Has the Jury reflected on the sheer absurdity of their position?  Or their so-called eminence is sufficient ground for their off-loading of this grotesque banality of a report on the nation.

Our response: APIC passes all orders as combined benches. This fact has not contributed in any way to their winning the award. The claim here is that quantity affected quality of other commissions i.e., the performance of a certain commission was hampered because of the work load. It is a case of quantity over quality. If the argument here is that quality was compromised because of quantity, then we appreciate the organizational and operational challenges involved but it simply can’t be factored in as a favourable criteria for an award over another commission that has a superior record on the basis of quality.

Eighth, None of the PCRF Jury members have had any opportunity to, or cared to, interact with the major stakeholders – the information-seekers, the PIOs as information provider and the ICs, whose performance they were evaluating for these so-called “national” RTI awards.   The citation spoke about the satisfaction of the appellants.  What was the basis of their satisfaction, or for that reason, their being dissatisfied?  Was it to be concluded that if a legally defensible order denying information left an appellant dissatisfied, his dissatisfaction was sufficient reason to tar the Commissioner who made that order?  Or conversely, if appellant expressed satisfaction even if denied information wrongly under the Act, will that satisfaction be a ground for extolling the Commissioner?  What is this satisfaction all about?  Is it just a feeling, or is it something grounded in the reality of the Commissioner’s decision? How have the evaluators evaluated satisfaction?  What was their methodology?  Nothing is clear.  A phone-call to a person asking him, Are you satisfied? and his answering in ‘yes or no’ seems to have been the basis of this supercilious evaluation.  It is a pity that this jury ¾ claiming eminence ¾ has conveniently chosen not to ask any such questions.  Is it not an act of irresponsibility?  They owe an explanation.   They have hardly had any direct feel of the matter, which was the subject of their evaluation.

The Jury Members have hardly had any chance to make an independent analysis of what was presented before them by PCRF.  They have put their signatures on the dotted lines drawn for them by the organisers.  Can such a flawed award procedure even remotely be described as transparent, objective or scientific in its approach and analysis?  Is this the “TRANSPARENCY” their eminencies so glibly commend for everyone else and become so loudly judgemental about?

Our response: We wrote letters to 35000 people. We have written responses from 6000 people. We also interviewed several people on the phone. We wrote only to those appellants, in whose case the commissioner passed a positive order directing disclosure of information. We asked each appellant a simple question – Did you finally get information after the order. If Prof Ansari so desires, we can send him copies of all the responses received specifically in his case. We had offered to do this earlier but the fact remains that he did not respond.

Ninth, The PCRF has inappropriately called the awards as ‘National RTI Awards’ without any thought to the legality of an NGO describing the awards it unilaterally gives, as “National”.  Should not the jury members ¾ their grand eminencies ¾ queried PCRF regarding their use of the word “national” for these so-called awards?

On a general point, should not the NGO ¾ PCRF practice what it preaches ¾ i.e. transparency?  Why can’t PCRF voluntarily accede to RTI Act and accept all obligations thereto?  What does the country know about this NGO’s funding including its foreign funding?  Why should its affairs remain opaque when it demands transparency from all others?  The jury failed to ask this elementary question before allowing PCRF to use its (jury’s) members’ shoulders to fire its guns.  The episode has all trappings of an unholy alliance.

Our response: When you don’t like the message please don’t try and shoot the messenger. We do not claim that this study is the ultimate in its methodology. It is a process that we hope to evolve over time. We have been fair and balanced and let the data be the primary driver of these final decisions. We welcome criticisms because it helps us fine tune the study over time and we are deeply indebted to Prof. Ansari and his team for their repeated attempts to criticize the study. While we welcome criticism we deeply disagree with your attempt to discredit the study and cast aspersions on our motivations. We have embarked on this study with a genuine desire to assess the state of the landmark RTI Act after four years of its existence and help establish a long term framework for an environment of overall improved efficiency and to ensure that meritocracy does not go unrecognized. We do not receive any foreign funding. Some people did file RTI applications before us. We answered to all of them in the true spirit of RTI Act, though legally, the Act does not apply to us. In any case, we believe in practicing what we preach. We have written about our sources of funding on our site. We will also publish year end accounts on our website for anyone and everyone to view. We hope that in future exchanges you would stick to the facts and not question our integrity.

Akhil Gogoi was chosen for his outstanding contribution to the RTI movement. In particular his work in using RTI to expose corruption in government schemes in a hostile environment, despite great personal risk was considered as key factors in his winning the award.

In a case (APIC No. 42/2009, Complainant: Tago Pai Camdir), State Information Commissioner Toko Anil, issued a bailable arrest warrant against Jomnya Siram, APIO, Art and Culture, Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh, for not attending his court and reporting compliance of his interim order. The commissioner had passed an interim order asking the respondents to provide information to the complainant on July 13, 2009. Moreover, he had also asked both the parties to appear before him on July 31, 2009 to report compliance. However, J Siram not only failed to appear before the court but also did not inform the court about the action taken on the order.

The complainant, Tago Pai Camdir, who was present at the court on the given date, informed the commissioner that he had not received any information despite a favorable order.  This irked the Information Commissioner who noted, “…the Commission has left with no other option but to invoke under Order-XVI, Rule 10 (3) CPC-1098 r/w section 18(3) of RTI Act 2005 and in the process arrest warrant shall be issued against Sri J Siram, APIO Director of Art & Culture department who personally assured the Commission to comply the order of the Commission passed dated 13th July, 2009.”