Now, match-maker RTI

Source:Yahoo India News:Sun, May 23

New Delhi, May 23 -- The days of parents of eligible girls visiting a prospective groom's office to find out about his salary and job profile are over. 'Informed' parents have now befriended the Right to Information Act to seek such details.

The RTI cell of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) recently received some queries seeking details about the job profiles and salaries of its bachelor employees' for matrimonial purposes.

Another RTI application received by the DMRC a few days ago sought information about the salary of the employee that is reflected in the pay slip, his security deposit, provident fund details, job profile, service record, etc.

"Some applicants also ask whether the employee has shown himself as married or single," said a DMRC official adding that such queries are apparently for matrimonial purposes.

DMRC spokesperson Anuj Dayal said, "We provide personal details such as an employee's salary but with the consent of the employee concerned."

Delhi Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, however, said that pay details of a government employee cannot be treated as personal information and should be made available in the public domain. "Sometimes pay details may be sought for matrimonial purposes or for other purpose. Whatever be the reason, Public Information Officers (PIO) should provide such details to the applicants," he added.

A few months ago Shivkumari Kashyap, a Chhattisgarh resident, had sought pay particulars of her husband Baldev Singh, an employee of South East Central (SEC) Railway, who got married for the second time. She suspected that Singh had entered the name of his second wife in his service book and used the RTI route to gather details

Urban development dept tops RTI query chart

Souce:Tanaji Khot,pune Mirror,  Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 11:55:17 PM

A fine of Rs 26,57651 was imposed last year on government officials by  Maharashtra State Information Commission (SIC) for their failure to provide satisfactory  responses  and even any reply to RTI applications. 

However, the use of RTI Act is gaining ground rapidly in Maharashtra, and the state is in the forefront of sourcing information by availing of the provisions of the transparency act.

In 2009 alone 4,40,728 RTI queries  were received by various authorities in the state. This is more than the number of RTI applications received by various bodies under the central government.

Last year the central government bodies received about 350,000 lakh applications. The SIC had revealed the data about RTI in its annual report recently. 

As per this  report, the Urban Development department has received the highest number of RTI applications. It received 1,25,418  RTI applications. Of these 1,20,832 applications received a response and 855 were rejected. The department has 13,965 applications pending.

As Maharashtra is the top-ranking state in terms of urbanisation in the country, it boasts of high urban-related activities,  investments and development work. This partly explains why the Urban Development department has attracted the largest share of RTI queries in the state.

Other departments that received a high number of RTI queries were the Revenue Department, the Home Department and the Rural Development Department. They received 72,393, 45,000 and 43,000 applications respectively.

TOPS NATIONAL CHARTS
The SIC report indicates that Maharashtra leads other states in the country in the number of RTI applications.
About  90% of the RTI applications received in the state were cleared, as per the report.  Information was provided to  4,39,061 applicants in 2009.
Hearing through Videoconferencing
To ensure that applications and appeals are resolved without any delay, the SIC has introduced videoconferencing. In Pune region SIC has cleared 274 cases through videoconferencing. 

While 390 cases were resolved in Aurangabad region through this facility, 173 and  76 cases cases were settled by way of videoconferencing in Nagpur and Amravati regions respectively

RTI activist killed in group clash in Beed

Source:Syed Rizwanullah, TNN, Apr 22, 2010, 08.06am IST


AURANGABAD: An RTI activist who had exposed irregularities in a village school in Beed was killed following a clash between two groups on Sunday. The rival group, which inflicted serious injuries on the activist, was led by the son of the president of the educational society that runs the school, Sainath Vidyalaya, the police said.

The activist, Vitthal Gite (39), was a farmer and a flour-mill owner in the village, Waghbet. He, along with another activist, Brijmohan Mishra, had sought information under the RTI Act and exposed irregularities in the functioning of a few other schools in the village as well.

The alleged irregularities in Sainath Vidyalaya were published in a local newspaper, which led to the clash between the two groups in which Gite was killed, Mishra told TOI on Wednesday.

The police, however, said “old enmity” between the two groups had triggered the clash. “We cannot compare this case with the murder of RTI activist Satish Shetty of Talegaon. However, information sought by Gite under the RTI Act was one of the reasons behind the group clash,” police inspector Vidyanand Kale of the Parli-Vaijnath police station told TOI.

Kale said a majority of the villagers were related and went by the name Gite. “Sunday’s clash was between two groups of the Gite family. Gite sustained serious injuries in the clash and was taken to a private hospital in Parli. He was later shifted to a hospital in Latur, where he died on Tuesday morning. We have booked around 35 people from both groups and have arrested eight people following complaints lodged by both sides. A murder charge will be slapped on the group led by Amarnath Gite,” he added.

Get BCCI under RTI too

Source:Hindustan Times:Sat,03 Apr 2010
           
       
Amidst the euphoria of the IPL competing strongly with the weepy prime time serials, the hysterical media has almost ignored a very significant move towards forcing our sports federations to become accountable and transparent in their functioning, especially in matters financial.

Sports Minister MS Gill needs to be complimented for bringing all the federations into the ambit of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, which in turn means the public will now have the right to know how and where the money given to them by the government (tax-payer) goes.

Is the money being spent for the purpose it is meant for or does most of it get siphoned off, as is alleged by many?

However, the sports body which generates enormous revenues and profits that could be the envy of any rich corporate body, unfortunately, does not fall under the gambit of this Act.

The reason for the exepmtion presumably being it is a private body which does not take a single pie from the government and hence cannot come under government or public scrutiny.

This is a false presumption, if one goes by the 2004 High Court ruling in the PIL filed against the Board by Rahul Mehra, a lawyer by profession, but an inveterate sports fan by nature. By admitting the PIL, the Court had in its judgment clearly said that the BCCI may be a private body, but it performs a public function and therefore comes under Article 226 of the Constitution (public scrutiny).

The BCCI, which for reasons beyond comprehension, is loathe to subject itself to public scrutiny (unless it has something to hide) shields itself behind the argument that it is a private body and cannot be questioned by the state.

BCCI conveniently forgets that not only does it get tax benefits, it also gets other largesse from the state, like stadias at throwaway rates and, most importantly, is allowed to use the name India for the team which represents it. It gets these concessions because it is deemed a charitable organisation which performs a public function.

Ever since the economic liberalisation in the nineties coincided with private television channels being allowed to enter the Indian market, the BCCI has been getting richer by the day.

Without doubt this has had a huge positive effect on the game with greater funding at the grass root level and the players themselves reaping the enormous benefits of the economic boom, fuelled by the multiplying popularity of the game in the country.

Post IPL, the money which the Board is handling has gone into billions of dollars and, as the custodian of the game whose main stakeholders are its fans, shouldn’t it be mandatory for them to come under greater public scrutiny?

By their own admission, all the members of the board and its office-bearers are performing an honorary job and take no salaries for services they render.

The Indian public should salute them for this selfless attitude, which presumably stems from their great “love” for the game. If that be the case then what stops them from willingly coming under the RTI Act, even if the government for some legal reasons is “unable” to do so.

They should remember that the money, which is coming into their coffers is because of the millions of die-hard fans who support the game and spend their money, time and energy in cheering their team and their players.

The reason fans support the Board is because they believe it is “building” India and not “selling” brand India to the highest bidder. That is why it is important that the Board’s accounts should come under public scrutiny.

'RTI brings accountability in administration'

Source:TNN, Apr 8, 2010, 10.30pm IST



VARANASI: "Information is power and right to information (RTI) brings accountability and transparency in administration," said Prof TM Mohapatra, director, Institute of Medical Sciences (IMS), Banaras Hindu University while inaugurating the two-day training-cum-workshop on RTI Act, 2005 at UGC Academic Staff College, BHU on Thursday.

Stressing that the RTI Act could go a long way in empowering people to have access to vital informations, Prof Mohapatra said: "Positive initiatives taken by Goa and Tamil Nadu in 1997 for providing information to people paved the way for RTI Act in 2005." In his presidential remarks, BHU rector Prof BD Singh said RTI should not be used as a means of exploitation but as a tool to bring transparency and accountability for good governance.

Earlier, while tracing the history of RTI Act, joint director Institute of Secretariat Training and Management (ISTM), New Delhi MS Kasana said: "Sweden was the first country to introduce the concept of RTI even though it had monarchy in 1766." He also raised hope that the act could help eradicate corruption in the society.

It is to be mentioned here that ISTM, New Delhi under the department of Personnel and Training, Government of India had organised the programme.

A number of senior university officials including Dr KP Upadhyaya, registrar and other members of Academic Staff College were also present.

Admission cancelled: The admissions of as many as three students including Gopalji, Shubham Mishra and Shivakant Pathak were cancelled on Thursday. The trio were granted temporary admission in the first year of Shastri (honours), equivalent to graduation in the faculty of Sanskrit Vidya Dharma Vignana, Banaras Hindu University.

As per Prof Chandrama Pandey, head, faculty admission committee, the three students were not found fit for admission, as they could not meet the eligibility criteria of securing 50 percent marks in Uttar Madhyama (Intermediate) examinations.

Course on martial arts: The University Mountaineering Centre, BHU is going to start a certificate course on Martial Arts from April 22.

As per reports of the Centre, the course for self-protection is open for all school students in the city. The centre would also conduct test on April 18 in order to admit students.

 


   Source: April 4, 2010 NDTV

This is the second term of the UPA and till now we have always seen Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi

, the UPA chairperson, working in perfect harmony but NDTV has learnt that there is one issue that they disagree, on that of RTI amendments.

It's a rare occasion when the Prime Minister has stood firm and refused Congress president Sonia Gandhi's request.

In a letter to UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi the PM says that RTI amendments are necessary. This in response to Mrs Gandhi writing to him against it.

Sonia Gandhi had written to the PM two months ago saying that she is: "Of the firm opinion, like that of the NGOs that there should be no amendments in the RTI Act and the existing Act should properly implemented."

But the PM wrote back saying: There is a "...need for RTI amendments" but "...all stakeholders will be consulted", all stakeholders will be consulted before the amendments are moved."

The PM explains in his letter explains the need for changes in the RTI:

    * Apprehensions of the judiciary have to be taken up
    * Need to streamline the act and make it more people friendly

The RTI is one of the legal entitlements for the aam aadmi and Sonia Gandhi has been in the forefront to ensure that there is no dilution in the Act.

It is very rare for the PM to say no, that too to Sonia Gandhi, for getting the RTI amendment. And it is a long battle to get it through Parliament.

So what are the points of differences between the two most powerful people in the UPA?
Sources say the proposed changes in the RTI Act are:

    * To exclude office of Chief Justice of India
    * Don't make deliberations over a decision public
    * Don't entertain frivolous/wasteful applications

RTI Act states applicant need not give reason: court

Source: The Hindu, April 8,2010,Special Correspondent

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has said that the RTI Act clearly states that an applicant should not be required to give any reason for seeking information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.

Justice K. Chandru said this while partly allowing a writ petition by Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University.

Earlier, the Human Rights Legal Awareness Society, Perungudi, had sought certain information regarding the university examinations held in May 2008 and December 2007. The university rejected the plea on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi. The information sought for by the organisation was exempted under the purview of the Act.

The organisation moved the State Information Commission, which by an order in August last year, directed the university to furnish the information. Hence, the present petition by the university.

Mr. Justice Chandru said the university seemed to be under the wrong notion that an information seeker like the applicant should establish its bonafides for seeking such information. Under Section 6 (2) of the RTI Act, such a requirement was not prescribed.

On the contrary, the provision clearly said an applicant making a request for information should not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details, except those that may be necessary for contacting him. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the university did not stand to reason. Mr. Justice Chandru remanded the matter back to the Commission for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law in the light of the order on the writ petition after due notice to both parties.

Woman uses RTI to get salary details of cheating husband

Source:Indo-Asian News Service, Friday April 9, 2010, New Delhi


The pay particulars of a government employee cannot be considered personal information, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled, while upholding the right of a "betrayed" woman to get details of her husband's salary.

"The Commission holds that the pay particulars of a government employee cannot be considered as personal information by any means and directs the PIO (Public Information Officer) to provide the same to the appellant," Information Commissioner Annapurna Dixit noted in her order while backing Chhattisgarh resident Shivkumari Kashyap, whose husband got married for the second time.

Kashyap, who believed that her husband Baldev Singh, an employee of South East Central (SEC) Railway, had entered the name of his second wife in his service book, used the Right to Information (RTI) act to get justice.

She filed an RTI application with the SEC Railway seeking the pay particulars of her husband as well as a copy of his service book, which has all the details of a government servant's official life, including information about his pay, increment and other things.

When SEC Railway denied her the information, Kashyap approached the CIC, stating during a hearing through videoconferencing on March 10 that she was the "legitimate wedded wife of Baldev Singh and that her husband has been ill treating her".

"He has also married a second time while remaining married to her (appellant)," her application stated.

"Also in view of the harassment undergone by the appellant in the hands of her husband and because the service book details of her husband being sought by her are not personal information as the same are already in the public domain, the PIO may also provide an attested copy of the first page of the service book to the appellant giving details of the name of the spouse entered therein," Information Commissioner Dixit directed.

The CIC has said the information should be provided by April 10.

RTI activist told not to reveal information on Padma awards

Source: SindhToday:April 8th, 2010



New Delhi, April 8 (IANS) The home ministry has asked a Right to Information (RTI)activist not to share information about the prestigious Padma awards with the media even when there is no such provision in the RTI Act.

Replying to an RTI application filed by Subhash Chandar Agrawal, seeking information about names of persons endorsed by the Awards committee for 2010 Padma awards, the home ministry said: “The above information is for the consumption of the applicant and not (repeat not) for publicity in the press.”

Agrawal said the home ministry reply was shocking and surprising.

“The Central Information Commission (CIC) should confirm if such directions by a public authority are according to law or not. Interestingly, details which are desired not be disclosed to the media by the home ministry are already on the website of a prominent English daily,” he said.

The awards committee selected 130 final recipients from a list of 1,163 names. Several eminent personalities did not make it to the list.

Reacting to the home ministry’s reply, CIC chief Wajahat Habibullah said: “The department can make such request… but there is no such provision under the RTI law. It is not binding.”

Magsaysay award winner RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal told IANS: “It is completely illegal and there is no such provision under the RTI Act. The CIC can issue directions. It should penalise such officer.”

RTI amendment: Sonia, PM not on same page?

Source:TNN, Apr 10, 2010, 03.26am IST


NEW DELHI: Congress chief Sonia Gandhi had firmly resisted changes to the RTI Act despite the government being keen to tinker with the transparency legislation, it was revealed in an RTI reply.


Amendments to the RTI Act — considered one of the most significant achievements of the UPA — have been under controversy for some time now with activists protesting against government's move to exempt disclosure of Cabinet papers, internal discussions and judiciary.

Sonia, in a letter dated November 10, 2009, had voiced this concern adding that the government should "refrain from accepting or introducing changes in the legislation... in my opinion there is no need for changes or amendments".

The letter, accessed under RTI by activist S C Agrawal, said, "It will of course take time before the momentum generated by the Act makes for greater transparency and accountability in the structures of the government. But the process has begun and it must be strengthened... It is important, therefore, that we adhere strictly to its original aims and refrain from accepting or introducing changes in legislation on the way it is implemented that would dilute its purpose. In my opinion, there is no need for changes or amendments. The only exceptions permitted such as national security, are already well taken care of in the legislation." She, in fact, said that lack of training of government staff, inadequate record maintenance and harassment of applicants and lack of awareness needed to be addressed.

In response to the letter, the PM on December 24, 2009, stood his ground that certain issues could not be dealt with without changes in the Act. Among the issues cited were that the CJI had pointed out that the "independence of the higher judiciary needs to be safeguarded in the implementation of the Act."

RTI -FAQ

 Source: CA Sahib S Choudhary

India is a democratic Republic country and democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to curtail corruption and to hold government machinery accountable to the governed.

We select our representatives through elections but we should have the same right in respect of getting information of government functioning, which our representatives have.

To achieve this right, The Right to information Act 2005 was enacted on 15^th June 2005 in the fifty sixth year of Republic of India. 

Under The RTI Act the information, which can not be denied to parliament or a state legislature, should also be provided to every citizen of India. 

I am hereby trying to give answers to some frequently asked questions which may be useful for every citizen of India in respect of RTI Act 2005.


Q 1: Why was RTI Act 2005 enacted?
Ans: Our country is a democratic country. In a democratic country it is necessary to have transparency and accountability in functioning of the government departments. It is the main objective of the enactment of Right to information Act, 2005.

Q. 2: Who is covered by RTI Act?
Ans: RTI Act covers every public authority.

Q 3: What do you mean by public authority?
Ans: Public authority means any authority or body or institution of self governed establishment or constituted:

1. By or under the Constitution;
2. By any other law made by State Legislature;
3. By notification issued or order made by the appropriate government

And it also includes body owned, controlled and substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government, and a non government organisation substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government.

Q 4: Who can seek for information?
Ans: Every citizen of India can seek for information

Q 5: Can a legal entity seek for information?
Ans: No, a legal entity cannot ask for information. It can be supplied only to a citizen of India.


Q 6: To whom the request for information is to be made?
Ans: Request is to be made to the Public information officer (PIO) or Assistance Public Information Officer (APIO) of the concerned authority.

Q 7: Is there any Application form for request for information?
Ans: No, there is no application form. Person who seeks for information should make the application in plain paper.

Q 8: What is the mode of application?
Ans: Application should be in writing; it may be through an e-mail or posted through registered post.

Q 9: What should be the language of request?
Ans: Application can be made in Hindi, English or official language of the area of concerned public authority.

Q 10: Is there any fee for application?
Ans: Yes, Fees for application is Rs. 10/-, however if application is made by a BPL (below poverty line) citizen, fees is not payable but proof of BPL to be attached with application.

Q 11: Is there any further cost of information?
Ans: Yes, Rate of further fees is as follows:

1. Rupees two (Rs. 2/-) for each page ( in A-4 or A-3 size paper) created or copied;
2. Actual charge or cost price of a copy in larger size paper;
3. Actual cost or price for samples or models;
4. For information provided in diskette or floppy, rupees fifty (Rs. 50/-) per diskette or floppy; and
5. For information provided in printed form, at the price fixed for such publication or Rupees two per page of photocopy for extracts from the publication.

A citizen has a right to inspect the records of a public authority. For inspection of records, the public authority shall charge no fee for the first hour. But a fee of rupees five (Rs. 5/-) for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof) shall be charged.

Q 12: What information can be provided to the applicant?
Ans: Information of any material in any form. It includes records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form. It also includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any law for the time being in force.

Q 13: Which information is exempted from Right to information Act 2005?

Ans: Following information can not be provided under RTI Act 2005:
a)     information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interest of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
b)     information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
c)      information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
d)     information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
e)     information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
f)        information received in confidence from foreign Government;
g)     information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
h)      information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
i)        cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:
Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:
Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;
j)        information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:

Provided, that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.


Q 14: Is it necessary to disclose the information suo motu by the public authority?
Ans: Following information is necessary to disclose suo motu by public authority under section 4(1) (b):

1. The particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;
2. The powers and duties of its officers and employees;
3. The procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;
4. The norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
5. The rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
6. A statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;
7. The particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;
8. A statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;
9. Directory of its officers and employees;
10. The monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;
11. The budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
12. The manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
13. Particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;
14. Details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;
15. The particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;
16. The names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers.
17. Such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter these publications every year.

Q 15: Whether it is necessary to give the reason for requesting information?
Ans: No, person requesting for the information is not required to give the reason for requesting information
.
Q 16: What will happen if request is made to wrong PIO?
Ans: Application should be transferred to proper PIO within 5 days with intimation to the applicant.

Q 17: What is the time limit to dispose the application?
Ans: It is the duty of PIO to dispose the application within thirty days by way of either providing the information or rejecting the application. However where the information is sought for life or liberty of a person, the information shall be provided within 48 hours.
If information is related to third party, such information cannot be provided before giving the notice to the concerned party, and if the third party files an appeal against the decision of PIO, till the disposal of appeal. In other words, time taken in the proceeding with third party is to be excluded from calculation of above mentioned 30 days time.
If application is received through PIO or transferred from other PIO additional time of 5 days is allowed.

Q 18: What will happen if PIO fails to provide information in the stipulated time?
Ans: If PIO fails to provide the information in the stipulated time then it shall be presumed that PIO has refused the request and the applicant can file the appeal to first appellate authority.

Q 19: Whether it is mandatory to give the reason for rejection of application?
Ans: Yes, It is mandatory for PIO to give the reason of rejection of the application.

Q 20: Can information provided relate to third party?
Ans: Except Trade & Commercial secrets, information relating to third party can be provided. However PIO should give a written notice to the third party and keep in mind the submission made by the third party before disclosing the same.

Q 21: What is First Appellate Authority?
Ans: Any person who does not receive the decision in stipulated time or aggrieved by the decision of PIO may prefer first appeal within 30 days to senior rank officer of the PIO of concerned public authority. However where an application is rejected by the PIO, it is the duty of PIO to communicate the particular of appellate authority to the applicant.

Q 22: How can the applicants get the particular of appellate authority if application is not rejected and the stipulated time for decision laps?
Ans: It is the duty of all public authority to designate the first appellate authority and publish their particulars along with the particulars of PIO.

Q 23: What is the Second Appellate Authority?
Ans: If first appellate authority fails to pass an order in the prescribed time or not satisfied with the order of first appellate authority, applicant may prefer second appeal to central information commission or state information commission as applicable within 90 days.

Q 24: What is the time limit for the appellate authority to dispose the appeal?
Ans: Appeal should be disposed within 45 days.

Q 25: Whether an appellate authority can admit the appeal after the stipulated time?
Ans: If appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal then he may admit the appeal after expiry of stipulated time.

Q 26: Whether third party can file an appeal against the decision of PIO in respect of disclosing the third party information?
Ans: Yes, third party can file appeal to first appellate authority and if required to second appellate authority.

Q 27: Which information should contain in the appeal before the central information commission?
Ans: Following information should be contained in the appeal:

• Name and address of the appellant;
• Name and address of the Public Information Officer against the decision of

Whom the appeal is preferred;

• brief facts leading to the appeal;
• if the appeal is preferred against deemed refusal, particulars of the application, including number and date and name and address of the Public
• particulars of the order including number, if any, against which the appeal is

Preferred;

• Information Officer to whom the application was made;
• Prayer or relief sought;
• Grounds for prayer or relief;
• Verification by the appellant; and
• Any other information, which the Commission may deem necessary for deciding the appeal.
•  

Q 28: What documents should be accompanied with the appeal made to the central information commission?
Ans: Following documents should be accompanied with the appeal:

• Self-attested copies of the orders or documents against which appeal is made;
• copies of the documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in the appeal,  and
• An index of the documents referred to in the appeal.

--

Training for officials in Right to Information Act

 Source:The Hindu,25th March,2010,Special Correspondent 

PERAMBALUR: Collector M. Vijayakumar on Tuesday inaugurated a two-day training programme for the district officials on the Right to Information Act 2005 being provided by the Anna Institute of Management.

The Collector said that several officials including District Revenue Officer S.Palanisamy, PA (General) to Collector M. Devadas and others attended the programme. Mr Vijayakumar said that a large number of people in the district had received information in the last four years under the Act.

The Gujarat H C has directed to arrest all the 33 accused-

Source:Anupam Chakravartty : indianexpress.:1 April,2010

Vadodara : The Gujarat High Court has directed the CID (Economic Offences) to arrest all the 33 accused beneficiaries in the Rs 70-crore scam in the Karamsad Cooperative Bank at Vallabh Vidyanagar by the end of next month. The court of Justice M R Shah dismissed CID’s plea to extend the investigation for another two months and asked the action taken report to be tabled by April 30.

After a seven-year long wait, the CID (Economic offences) took over the investigation from Vidyanagar police station and arrested nine people in the case, including five of the bank’s directors. Among them were former state minister Dilip Patel and former BJP MP Natu Patel. “Around 33 loan-takers are yet to be arrested as many of them have left the country,” said Deputy Superintendent of Police B J Jadeja.

However, Hitesh Patel, who had reportedly filed an RTI application seeking details of borrowers and guarantors, says that if borrowers are booked for misappropriation of Rs 70 crore from the bank, then the guarantors have to be nabbed. The RTI  reply shows that the arrests could go well beyond 240.

Meanwhile, in a February 26 ruling in the same case, Justice Shah had directed the CID to investigate the reasons for the bank’s liquidation. “But a more detailed investigation is required to find out why the Karamsad Urban Cooperative Bank Limited has gone into liquidation,” Shah said while passing an oral order.

According to the CID (Economic Offences), policemen from Anand and Ahmedabad, who investigated the issue in a span of six months found that the trustees involved their own relatives. “They gave loans to various parties, who had produced forged documents,” said a CID officer.

A report made by the Anand Economic Offences Detection Cell says that the bank gave loans violating guidelines laid down by the Reserve Bank of India. “The Bank also invested Rs 9 crore in Home Trade, which was against the directives of the Reserve Bank of India. The bank also extended loans to Keval Land Developers and Ghanshyam Patel on the basis of bogus documents,” wrote Inspector B J Pathan in the report made to the Gujarat High Court when the issue had come to the light.

Further, four persons, including a managing director of a farm implement manufacturing company based in Palanpur of Sabarkantha district, and his brother, were reportedly booked by the CID for producing fake bills for farm implements that were never bought, but approved by the bank trustees.

More than three lakh cases pending in Bombay HC: RTI

Source:PTI, Apr 2, 2010, 12.53pm IST



THANE: Over three lakh cases are pending in the Bombay High Court, according to an information revealed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The details, dated till December 31, 2009 were given after local social worker Omprakash Sharma sought information in this regard.

According to the RTI reply statement, there were as many as 3,38,183 cases were pending in the Bombay High Court and the sanctioned number judges in the court is 75 while the working strength presently is 63.

Also, the figures of the division bench vary as per the assignment of judicial work. During the present assignment there are ten division benches at Bombay, three at Nagpur, three at Aurangabad and one at Goa, it said.

Normally, the assignment is changed five times in a year and matters are being placed in due sequence before the respective benches, it stated.

Sharma has demanded the Union law ministry that additional benches be set up in Nanded, Jalgaon and Pune to clear the pendency.

In India, deadly backlash against freedom of information activists

By Daniel Pepper
Correspondent, CSMonitor

(AXcess News) New Delhi, India -

When Ajay Kumar asked New Delhi authorities last fall why a local politician had authorized the construction of private houses and shops on public land, he didn't imagine the question would land him in the hospital.

The activist had inquired using India's 2005 Right to Information (RTI) Act, which allows any citizen to ask for information from any level of government, from village leaders to the office of the prime minister. It presents a cultural sea change in India, where for more than 60 years state bureaucrats have acted more like colonial masters than servants of the people.

Mr. Kumar was stonewalled by the public information officer at the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, so he followed procedure and appealed to a higher-level public information office in the MCD. When he still heard nothing back, he went to the federal authorities, the Central Information Commission, which directed the MCD together with the police to jointly inspect the property.

But when Kumar arrived on site in January, he was attacked by a mob of two dozen that backed the local politician.

"Neither the police nor the people helped me," says Kumar, who was beaten in the head repeatedly by an iron rod, leaving him unconscious and bleeding profusely. Kumar is now pursuing the matter in court.
Despite the attack, Kumar says, "RTI is the only tool that can bring an end to a corruption in India. Previously there was no point in asking [for information] because the applications were not replied to. At least now, since 2005, these public authorities are in some way compelled to answer queries of the public. It is a starting point."

Kumar is optimistic that he will one day see justice, but critics say attacks like these are becoming increasingly common. In the past two months two respected information activists have been killed, and reports are emerging of many others who are threatened, bullied, and intimidated to silence their inquiries into government misconduct.

Attacks will likely increase

The RTI Act is among the most robust for information seekers around the world, and its strength is becoming clear in the backlash against people seeking to expose corruption.

"What has happened with the RTI Act is that it is threatening people in power," says Colin Gonzalves, a Supreme Court lawyer and director of the New Delhi-based Human Rights Law Network. "We cannot underestimate how hostile the administration is to the implementation to this Act - not just the politicians but also the judiciary. RTI empowers people to say that the administration is the servant of the people that you are answerable to us. The physical attacks on the people I think are going to increase over the years."

In rural areas, the act is often utilized to uncover scams involving federal- and state-funded initiatives to provide employment, housing, food, and other services to the poorest segments of society. "You ask for a list of beneficiaries," says prominent New Delhi-based RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal. "Then you check that list and find out that many peope are dead and the list is bogus."

According to a study published last July by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information, and funded in part by the Google Foundation, in the first two-and-a-half years since RTI went into effect about 400,000 applications for information were filed from rural areas and 1.6 million from urban areas.
While much of the information requested ought to be public in the first place, like the size of a particular budget for a school or road, or why a particular applicant received a job or promotion, most government bureaucrats in India habitually keep such matters under lock and key.

Right to information - on paper

With the RTI Act, failure to furnish applicants their information within 30 days can result in steep fines. This week one RTI applicant was awarded 100,000 rupees, or about $2,200, by the Central Information Commission in compensation for delays.

At a meeting in the capital of the poverty-stricken northern Indian state of Bihar last November, 49 activists spoke about fighting trumped-up arrest warrants and other attempts to silence their efforts. None of the warrants have stood up under scrutiny, they claim. On Feb. 14 in Bihar, well-known RTI activist Shashidhar Mishra was shot dead by unidentified gunmen on motorcycles at the entrance of his home. He had been working to expose local welfare schemes.

A month before, in the tech hub of Pune, a couple hours outside Mumbai, another activist, Satish Shetty, was killed while on his morning walk. Mr. Shetty had a record of exposing land scams in his area. Shetty had received threats on his life and requested police protection, though none was provided. The High Court in Bombay asked the state government to investigate the killing.

The upswing of violence has dire implications to Shailesh Gandhi, a commissioner with the Central Information Commission, the country's highest authority for RTI applications.

"It tells me that the rule of law is almost absent. The truth is that powerful people feel there is no law," Mr. Gandhi says.

Gandhi and his handful of interns, whom he pays from his own pocket, managed to go through almost 6,000 files last year. In the past 14 months he's penalized 120 public information offices for not providing information in a timely fashion, or at all. He hopes to start cracking the whip even harder, he says. "Penalties are important."

Last month headlines blazed across India that the New Delhi High Court ruled in favor of a RTI applicants who sought information about the office of India's Supreme Court Chief Justice, such as his personal assets and decisions relating the appointment of lower-court judges. On Monday, the Supreme Court moved to challenge the order.

And just this last week, a disagreement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the leader of the ruling National Congress Party Sonia Gandhi became public after the Mr. Singh advocated amending RTI Act, something activists strongly oppose, fearing it might be watered down.
Shailesh Gandhi agrees: "I am 100 percent convinced that any changes in the Act would be to the citizen's detriment."

A papad seller fights for his rights – for 28 years

Source: Indo-AsianNewsService on Mar 14th, 2010
Delhi, March 14 (IANS) Mohammad Samad Khan, a papad seller in West Bengal, has been fighting for his rights with the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), the energy giant, for the past 28 years but has not lost hope.

It started in 1982 when the NTPC acquired the land of Khan and others for the Farakka thermal power project in Murshidabad district of West Bengal.

The NTPC had then promised all those who had given their land a job under its rehabilitation scheme which laid down that any one family member would be given employment in the corporation on the basis of educational eligibility and technical experience.

Khan, alongwith 1,000 other people, had given their land to the NTPC, hoping to get a job. But he was not among the lucky ones who got a job. Khan got a letter from the NTPC in 1984 saying he will get a job soon, but despite repeated reminders nothing happened.

In 1988, the NTPC called him for the post of store keeper, but his candidature was rejected.

In 1991, he again knocked at the NTPC's doors, but in vain. He then decided to take the help of the Right To Information (RTI) act for justice.

But when the NTPC did not gave him satisfactory answers, he appealed to the Central Information Commission (CIC), which asked the corporation to give Khan Rs.11 lakh as compensation for not providing him information.

Khan is now in Delhi as the central government had filed an appeal against the CIC order.

'I will continue to fight for my rights,' Khan told IANS in an interview.

Though Justice S. Muralidhar earlier this week set aside the CIC order directing the NTPC to pay compensation, the high court asked the state-owned firm to consider his case for a job.

The high court held that the Commission can grant compensation only when an applicant suffers loss due to denial of information.

Khan had approached the CIC after the NTPC refused to give him certain information regarding his job.

The court ordered the NTPC to give him Rs.5,000 as litigation expenses.

'My fight will continue till the time I get justice. I have no money left but I will still fight,' Khan said.

The court said: 'Considering that the respondent (Khan) is not a resident of Delhi and has come here only for the purposes of this case, it is directed that the learned counsel for the NTPC will arrange to have another set of the entire information and documents provided to him.'

Sonia Mathur, counsel for Khan, told the court that 'Khan has already suffered for the past 28 years and the government should now at least help him out.'

Unused funds lying waste

Friday, 19 March 2010 17:05
Source: Written by parivallal   ,M. Stephen. Reporter. Anytime Chennai news team. The annual ward development fund was increased recently by the Chennai Corporation for annual ward development fund for each councilor from Rs 25 lakh to Rs 30 lakh, but the records show that the use of such funds to provide amenities is lagging in execution.  In fact, one-third of the total development fund allotted to councilors since 2005-06 — approximately Rs 20 crore — was still lying dormant due to delays in procedures or shortage of space to install facilities. The civic body revealed this in a reply to an application filed under the Right To Information (RTI) Act.  Not even a single paisa has been spent by the three ward councillors during the last three years. Funds allotted to 17 others, including 12 belonging to the ruling party, for the current financial year lay completely untouched till December 2009. The utilisation of the mayor’s special development fund is also poor — of the Rs 2 crore allotted in four years (Rs 50 lakh per year), only 22% has been spent. V Madhav an activist from porur who demanded information from the civic body on this issue under the RTI information received reply some weeks ago. The Chennai Corporation Mayor M Subramanian said that merely blaming the councillors for not utilizing the funds will not do. “Councillors cannot handle the fund directly, they can only give a letter to the corporation recommending implementation of development works. Moreover they can only recommend for about 15 types of works like road laying, construction of footpaths and building of noon-meal centres. Money which is not used for ward development go unspent but are credited to the capital account of the corporation and again spent on development works,’’ he said. –

RTI scores, by default

Source:Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times

New Delhi, March 21, 2010
   
       
Information to which even Parliament was not privy to for more than 40 years was provided to an applicant under the transparency law because of a communication gap between two ministries.

An Udaipur resident had under the Right to Information (RTI) sought details of the private and public property of the erstwhile Maharaja of Mewar, Arvind Partap Singh.

The home ministry refused information to Amba Lal Nayak, saying the details were not disclosed even to Parliament.
“Its disclosure would entail a breach of privilege of Parliament,” Shashi Bhushan, then joint secretary with the ministry told transparency watchdog, the Central Information Commission.

Under the RTI law, any information that can’t be disclosed to Parliament is not to be made public.

When the princely states were amalgamated into India in 1949, the Union government reached agreements with rulers, but the accords were unofficial. It meant that these couldn’t be disclosed to Parliament.

As the home ministry stuck to this stand, it was apparently not aware that the disinvestment ministry had provided the information to a Rajasthan district court in 2003. The court was hearing a case related to disinvestments of a hotel.

When Nayak brought this to the notice of the CIC, which was hearing his appeal against denial of information, Bhushan said the home ministry had not provided the documents made available to the court.

He even quoted former home minister Y.B. Chavan refusing such information to Parliament in 1967 and the ministry’s decision
to deny the information to even National Archives.

The CIC sought opinion of the Lok Sabha Speaker, who termed the home ministry’s stand as debatable. The CIC asked Bhushan
to examine the records and decide if the information could be made public.

The disinvestment ministry, on the other hand, said the filing of certified copies of private property of Sing was “with the knowledge of the ministry of home”. The home ministry had not applied the privilege clause of Parliament while
providing information.

After hearing the appeal for more than a year, the CIC said the information disclosed in an open court couldn’t be refused under the RTI Act.

Info on 'cash at judge's door' case confidential: SC

Source:Express india:Agencies: Mar 23, 2010 at 1247 hrs IST



New Delhi In the midst of a raging controversy over closure of the 'cash-at-judge's-door' case, the Supreme Court, which had denied that CBI had approached the Chief Justice, now says the information is "confidential".

The Court's interesting reply came on an RTI petition seeking details whether the Chief Justice of India was approached by the CBI wanting permission to prosecute Justice Nirmal Yadav of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case.

"I write to inform you that the information sought by you...is confidential and is exempted from disclosure under the section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, you have no right to access the said information."

"Further as the information is not held by or under the control of the CPIO, Supreme Court India, your request cannot be acceded to..." Raj Pal Arora, Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court said in an RTI reply.

The reply is in sharp contrast to a statement earlier issued by its Secretary General M P Bhadran who said CBI did not approach the Chief Justice of India in the case.

Justice Yadav's name had figured in the alleged scam after the recovery of a mysterious bag containing Rs 15 lakh at the door of another Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Nirmaljit Kaur, which was said to have been delivered there due to confusion over names.

Justice Kaur reported the matter to the police. Later, the probe was given to CBI on the orders of administrator of Chandigarh.

The CJI had also appointed a three-judge committee to look into the matter. The then Attorney General Milon Banerji had reportedly advised the Law Ministry that there was not enough material to proceed further in the matter.

A CBI court observed that the probe agency filed the closure report after it failed to get sanction from the Chief Justice of India to launch prosecution against her. Meanwhile, Justice Yadav was transferred to Uttarakhand High Court after the decision of collegium.

Applicant Abhishek Shukla had sought a reply from the Supreme Court whether the CJI was approached by the CBI seeking permission to prosecute Justice Nirmal Yadav.

Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act cited by CPIO Arora exempts disclosure of information which is held "fiduciary relationship" whereas the section 8(1) (j) exempts disclosure of information which is "personal". In both cases, information can be given, if larger public interest is served.

The Supreme Court has also refused to disclose the report of Justice Gokhale Committee, constituted by the Chief Justice of India to probe the allegations, a document which is reportedly accessed by some RTI applicants already.

The apex court did not give the minutes of collegium meeting which recommended the transfer of Justice Yadav to Uttarakhand High Court after allegations of corruption surfaced against her.

Source:Arun Joshi , Hindustan Times,Jammu, March 21, 2010

   
   
       
   
       

Despite widespread allegations of human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, rights groups have not filed even a single application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in the past five years since the law was enacted, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah told Hindustan Times on Sunday.

“I was surprised as I told some of them that they could utilise this forum to seek information on these issues,” Habibullah said.

The alleged existence of mass graves in Kashmir was a “fit case to seek information under the RTI,” he said.

Khuram Pervez, liaison officer of the International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-administered Kashmir, said 2,700 mass graves were found in Uri, Baramulla, Kupwara and other parts of North Kashmir till Oct 2009.

But the Central Information Commission was “neither a punitive body nor an investigative body”, Pervez said, adding that it could only seek information from the state police.

“Why should they (the police) give information against themselves?”

Kashmiri political leaders —separatist and mainstream —have been petitioning global human rights bodies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for their intervention in cases involving alleged human rights abuses.

Private groups in Kashmir such as the Association of Parents of Missing Persons and the Kashmir Bar Association are also vocal about human rights violations. Allegations of abuse include rape, custodial killings and forced disappearances.

There were massive protests in Srinagar last month after the deaths of Wamiq Farooq (13), who died after being hit by a tear-gas shell, and Zahid Farooq (16), who was allegedly shot at point-blank range by the BSF on February 5.

RTI reply punches hole in Maya ads

Source: Mohd Arshi Rafique,The Indian Express:Tue, Mar 23 04:22 AM




  The Chief Minister Mayawati on her birthday on January 15
last year announced the release of 13,072 prisoners lodged in
different jails of Uttar Pradesh. While the advertisements 
released on the occasion suggested Mayawati had a big heart, 
an RTI reply by the Prisons Department says the undertrials
actually got freedom as a result of normal process.

Also, while from the advertisements it appeared that the prisoners were released at one stroke of the Chief Minister's pen in January, the RTI reply says the undertrials had already been released much before that — between June 2008 and October 2008.

The reply by Prisons Department came on an RTI plea by Salim Beig, a resident of Moradabad and member of Amnesty International.

Categorically mentioning that the prisoners were not released on the Chief Minister's order, the RTI reply by P K Mishra, DIG (Prisons), says that as many as 13,620 jail inmates were released with due clearances from the courts where their cases were pending.

It states that 13,226 undertrials were released under Section 436 (1) of CrPC, which says that if a person is granted bail, but is unable to furnish the bail bond within seven days, he should be declared indigent, and released from jail on his own personal bond.

Another 364 undertrials were released under Section 436 (A) of the CrPC.

 

Difficult to answer RTI queries regarding judgements: SC

Source:18 Mar 2010, 2030 hrs IST, PTI
   
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said its 

officials handling RTI matters cannot be expected to

answer queries relating to judgements
passed by it because of "limited resources" available with them.

"As far as the Central Public Information Officer is concerned, it may be very difficult to comment on a decision or give a report whether a thing has been done in a judgement or not. It is the job of a lawyer".

"The CPIO may not be in the best position to actually understand the import of the decision," counsel for Supreme Court Devdutt Kamat said during a hearing at Central Information Commission.

He said, "CPIO has limited resources and limited infrastructure. Under the RTI regime, whatever is available in the registry, definitely, he will give but if this request is allowed we are going to land in lot of problems".

Kamat submitted before the Commission that if information sought by any RTI applicant is in the "possession" of the registry of the apex court, it will definitely be given.

"But information as far as judgement is concerned. What is a judgement, what is the import of a judgement, what are the directions given in a judgement? That advice is best appropriate to be left to a lawyer," he said.
Share

RTI helps senior citizen get post back after 11-year-long legal battle

Source:Viju B, TNN, Mar 22, 2010, 05.25am IST

MUMBAI: Qamar S Qazi’s story could be representative of what may happen to some state charitable trusts that are mired in litigation as trustees fight to retain powerful posts.

The Right To Information (RTI) Act came to the rescue of the 76-year-old Panvel resident who was ousted from the trust after he fought a 11-year-long legal battle. A former assistant commissioner of customs and central excise, Qazi was removed from the post of general secretary of Anjuman Tanzeem Achra, a charitable education trust, through a no-confidence motion in 1999.

But the original papers of the trust’s no-confidence motion, which were kept in the charity commissioner’s office, were substituted with forged papers in alleged collusion with office staff. Following this, the charity commissioner’s office passed an order to oust Qazi.

It was only when Qazi applied to the charity commissioner’s office for a copy of the no-confidence motion that he discovered, to his horror, the documents were substituted. It was found that the attendance lists also had serious discrepancies; many members were dead or their names were fictitious and some were abroad when the ‘alleged’ election took place. “We found out that 80% of the signatures were fake. This was later confirmed by the additional chief state examiner of documents,’’ Qazi said.

On discovering the forgery, Qazi lodged a criminal case against the existing trustees at the additional magistrate’s court, Mazgaon, in 2000. The court directed the Dongri police to investigate the case and the police report established that a forgery had been committed. The court then ordered the police to file a charge sheet. However, despite directives from the magistrate, the charity commissioner’s office did not subsequently take any action on the forgery committed by the existing trustees.

Qazi then filed a query under the RTI Act, asking about the status of the case and it got rolling after 7 years. “Within a month, I got a reply from the charity commissioner, stating that the earlier fake no-confidence motion passed by the trust had been set aside and a fresh inquiry had been initiated against the trustees,’’ he said.

Qazi also filed a writ petition, asking that the inquiry be completed within 30 days. The court directed the petition to be withdrawn, giving him the liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

He then approached the charity commissioner’s office. The deputy charity commissioner set aside the erroneous order of the assistant charity commissioner and again directed another inquiry be initiated. Further, the joint charity commissioner in his February 22 order stated that some members who ‘allegedly’ took part in the no-confidence meeting were not, in fact, present and quashed the earlier order passed by the assistant charity commissioner in 1999. Qazi, who has now regained the post of the general secretary of the trust, said that the RTI Act exposed the fraudulent methods used by the members to remove him from the trust. The RTI Act can bring about positive changes even in the way charitable institutions function in the country, he added.

Meet brings together 250 RTI users from across Gujarat

Source:Caroline Andrade / DNA
Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:18 IST


Ahmedabad: The RTI is perhaps the most useful weapon

that the common man can yield against any authority. A state-level three hour

long RTI convention organised on Wednesday and attended by

around 250 RTI users from Gujarat, saw participants discuss how

they used the Right to Information Act to expose loopholes and

inefficiency of the system.



The  convention was held in Paldi. Arvind Kejriwal of Parivartan India,
Harinesh Pandya, secretary of Janpath and founder of Mahiti Adhikar,
Gujarat Pahel and Prof Jagdeep Chhokar, Association for Domestic
Reforms ADR, were also present at the event.

Deepak Patel of Gujarat state primary teachers' association said that he
used RTI to seek details about teachers in all schools of Gujarat.

"But I was given details of only 600 schools. I then identified the non-qualified
teachers in these schools and also found that the district education officers
were not carrying out proper inspection in schools," said Patel.

Patel then filed a complaint with the information commissioner, RN Das
which in turn sent a notice to the state government. "The government clearly
stated that it was the duty of the DEO to carry out inspections. In response,
the DEO said that they were short-staffed. The RTI application also brought
to fore the fact that some reports were prepared by the DEO without any
official actually carrying out the inspection," said Patel.

Vinod Pandya of Gujarat state Talimi Snatak also came across many
loopholes in the education system after he filed an RTI application
seeking information about private primary schools and non qualified
teachers."I asked for a full data for Ahmedabad district and city schools
and in the process got to know that 70% teachers were non-qualified
. I also learned that in 95% of the cases, the teachers were not being
paid proper salary and even their provident funds were not in order,"
said Pandya.

Pandya later filed a PIL in the high court and the government promised
to sack non qualified teachers. "However, even after 2 years nothing
has happened," said Pandya.

Girish Vishrambhai Dodia of Surat, son of a slain RTI activist
, Vishrambhai Dodia said his father lost his life due to a fight
between an electricity company and the police department.
"He had filed an RTI petition seeking inquiry against illegal
electricity connection that involved a whole lot of influential
people of the city," said Dodia.

Dangers of being an RTI activist- Lucknow

 

 Source:TNN, Mar 21, 2010, 02.01am IST

LUCKNOW: Information often comes at a price. 

In some cases even at the cost of life. The RTI activists narrated these 

facts before the MLAs who had come to attend a seminar on `RTI Act

and the view of the state legislators' organised at the Indian Institute of 

Management, Lucknow (IIM-L) on Saturday.

Substantiating the point was an IPS officer and president of RTI Forum,
Amitabh Thakur, who emphasised the goal of transparency and accountability
of the RTI Act. Thakur dwelt at length about the Section 8(1)(a) to
8(1)(j) of the Act under which information can be withheld and the
way these sections are presumably misused by the public authorities in denying information.

He went on to quote three examples, that of Satish Shetty of Pune,
Shashidhar Mishra of Begusarai and Venkatesh of Eeranapalya.

These persons, he said, were murdered for being RTI activists. 

The forum calls them `RTI martyrs'.

MLA from Sultanpur Anup Sanda narrated his experiences as
a social worker which were quite in consonance with the woes
of the RTI activists. He said that there was a huge delay in the
information being disseminated to the RTI activists. He was quick
to emphasise upon the need to have stringent penalties for the
public authorities violating the provisions of law.

Siddharth Shankar, MLA from Malihabad, claimed RTI to be a
fundamental right. He admitted that red-tape was marring the very
tenets of act which needed to be addressed. Likewise, Banda MLA
Vivek Singh said that with RTI Act even the masses had acquired
the rights, previously limited to the MPs and the legislators.

Dev Dutt Sharma asked the legislators to move the issue of present
state information commissioner Ranjit Pankaj being a convict and
still occupying the coveted seat, to which the legislators consented.

Nutan Thakur, an RTI activist and member of National RTI Forum,
urged the legislators to do something to increase the number
of employees in the State Information Commission so that the
burden of the SIC is reduced. The legislators agreed and
assured to raise the matter in the forthcoming Assembly session.

Mata Prasad Pandey, former Vidhan Sabha speaker, said that
he would try his best to initaite efforts for making amendments in the Act.

The National RTI Forum is an association looking into matters
related to RTI activists, including their training, guidance,
support and security related aspects as also about the RTI Act
and its broader policy related issues.

TI covers info on tax refunds

Sources:TNN, Mar 12, 2010, 12.04am IST



CHENNAI: Getting tax refunds from the income-tax (I-T)

department is a hassle for many citizens, who either do not

receive it or get it only after many years.

In a landmark ruling,

the Central Information Commissioner 

has passed an order

which said information on refunds is covered under the 

Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The Central Information Commissioner while passing the
order, said "To deny the appellant information sought b
him under clause (e) or clause (j) of section 8(1) is nothing
but misappreciation of law."

"The information sought by the appellant is covered under

section 2(f) of the RTI Act and he has a right of seek 

information under section 2(j) thereof.

It is clarified that the appellant has not
sought any information which the
public authority is holding in fiduciary capacity,"
M L Sharma,CIC, said in his order.

RTI helps Mulund blast accused get bail after 7 years

By Anand Holla

Posted On Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 02:02:10 AM

RTI application gave information, based on which a judicial 

enquiry showed that Mulund blast accused Adnan Mulla, 

was illegally detained for 35 days; HC granted him bail on Monday

Mulund-Vile Parle-Mumbai Central blasts case, was granted bail by the Bombay High Court on Monday. What eventually came to Mulla’s rescue is a confidential judicial enquiry that had indicted three cops for illegally detaining Mulla for 35 days, the first hint of which came from the Right To Information (RTI) plea that his brother-in-law and prime accused Saquib Nachan had filed. The Division Bench of Justices B H Marlapalle and V K Tahilramani on Monday granted Mulla bail, with orders to report to the Padgha police everyday till the trial commenced, and once a week then on. Behind bars since May 2003, Mulla - the last accused to be arrested in the case - was to get married 19 days after he was put behind bars. Adnan Mulla, who was illegally detained Holding a confidential judicial inquiry into Mulla’s alleged illegal detention, the Principal Judge of the Sessions Court T V Nalawade had submitted its report to the HC in July 2008, in which it had indicted three police officers “responsible for Mulla’s illegal, unauthorised detention for 35 days”. The report had held Assistant Police Inspector (API) N K Patil (then in charge, Padgha police), API R V Vhanmane (Crime Branch), and ACP R V Padwal (investigating officer, Mulund blasts), as the policemen behind Mulla’s detention. During those 35 days, Mulla claimed to have been tortured to give false statements against Nachan, and to become a witness or approver in the case. When Saquib Nachan was to be arrested in the Mulund blasts case on March 27, 2003, at Padgha, Mulla was among the crowd who had obstructed the police from arresting Nachan. Mulla surrendered before the Padgha police on May 5, 2003, only to be taken to Padwal’s Crime Branch office and to be kept in a torture cell, the inquiry revealed. The same day, the Padgha station diary shows that the Padgha police handed Mulla over to the Crime Branch “for investigation in the Mulund blasts,” but his actual arrest date has been shown as June 9, 2003 - 35 days after. The report had observed, “Mulla’s detention during this period was illegal, unauthorised. There is clear probability that the investigating agency did not want to make Mulla an accused, but a witness.” The HC too, in July 2008, had indicted the Mumbai police on the basis of this report. However, the illegal detention theory first came up, when brother-in-law Nachan filed an RTI application, which disclosed how Padwal had allegedly written a letter to Padgha police on May 5 to hand over Mulla’s custody, of which a diary entry too was made. Mulla’s lawyer Mubin Solkar then sought a judicial inquiry on this basis. While Mulla’s fiancee is still waiting to marry him, the State has sought a stay on the bail order for four weeks to file an appeal against it before the apex court. “The clinching judicial inquiry report and the RTI disclosure, laying bare his illegal detention, have come to Mulla’s rescue. The inquiry may not prove his innocence, though it surely does not prove his guilt. The prosecution’s only allegation against Mulla is of driving other accused to Mahuli Hills, where they would allegedly undertake arms training,” said Solkar.

Rs 40 lakh: Cost of one extradition attempt of Quattrocchi

PTI, Feb 21, 2010, 01.47pm IST

NEW DELHI:

A single attempt of the CBI to get Bofors kickback

case accused Ottavio Quattrocchi extradited from

Argentina in 2007 made a dent of over Rs 40 lakh to

the exchequer.

The agency sent two of its senior officials twice to
get the elusive Italian businessman from the Latin American
country in 2007 but failed in its attempt as it could not produce
proper legal documents before the court there.


CBI, which faced flak for its unsuccessful attempts to
bring Quattrocchi to India for standing trial in the case,
spent Rs 40.14 lakh on the trips to Argentina on two
officials which includes expenses on their visits, fees
of the local counsel, translation charges, transportation and
expenditure on boarding and lodging, an RTI reply from the agency says.

RTI applicant Abhishek Shukla had sought the details of
all the foreign visits made by CBI teams during the probe
of Bofors kickback case along with the expenditure but the
agency did not give any details other than the Argentina visit.

"During the last five years (since January 2005), a team of two
CBI officers had made two trips to Argentina in the year 2007
for 25 and eight days respectively in connection with the extradition
of Ottavio Quattrocchi from Argentina in Bofors case," the agency said in its reply.