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."