Alert citizen uses RTI to nail postal delay

 Anil Singh,  13 February 2010

MUMBAI: Millions crib about snail mail but one aggrieved
consumer used the Right To Information Act (RTI)
to hold the postal departmentaccountable for delay
and to refund aggrieved customers promptly




Thanks to Dahisar resident Kishanlal Mittal, the Secretary, 
Department of Posts, has been told to issue instructions to
make it mandatory for every Speed Post Centre in the
country to prominently display its delivery norms.

The instructions came in an order by Central Information 
Commissioner (CIC) Deepak Sandhu on January 27, 2010.

The bureaucrat heading the postal department has also been
directed to ensure that there are adequate telephone lines and
manpower available to takecomplaints on telephone.
Emails should be responded to promptly with an assurance
that the complaint will be resolved in 7-10 days, says the order.

To ensure that the customer is not made to run from pillar
to post for the refund, the order says that the booking centre
should inform the complainant regarding his refund and ensure
that he\she does not have to make multiple trips to the post
office to lodge a complaint and claim refund.

Mittal's experience is that 90 % of parcels sent by
Speed Post reach late and that one has to wait for
six months to get a refund for delayed delivery.

He is not the only one to say that. Last year, Mahim resident 

Milind Mulay found out using the RTI that 

27,774 Speed Post items booked from the

Western suburbs of Mumbai did not reach addresses

in Mumbai in time.

Last August, when an important document Mittal had sent to
Kanpur by Speed Post reached four days late, he used the
RTI to seek answers for questions pertaining to delivery norms
of Speed Post, grievance redressal mechanism and refund in
case of delayed delivery.

Since he was not satisfied by the answers he got from the
central principal information officer, Mittal appealed to the
first appellate authority. Here, too, he was disappointed with
the reply and the matter went to the
Central Information Commission, New Delhi.

On January 27, a hearing was held through video conferencing,
where Mittal was represented by his son, Girish. Girish
complained that Speed Post centres across the country
do not display their delivery norms.

Agreeing with him, CIC Deepak Sandhu said that there
is a wide gap between promise and performance when it
comes to Speed Post. She noted in her order that while the
customer is charged the full fees for an upgraded service,
the exact nature of the service is not made transparent to him\her.

The secretary, department of posts, has been told to
ensure compliance of the order in accordance with
section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005.

How the law works ?


The secretary, department of posts, has been told by the 

Central Information Commissioner Deepak Sandhu to ensure 

compliance of her order in accordance with section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005.

This section says: ``If it appears to the Central Information Commission or
State Information Commission, as the case may be, that the practice of a
public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this Act
does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act,
it may give to the authority a recommendation specifying the
steps which ought, in its opinion, to be taken for promoting such conformity.''

ONLINE RTI APPLICATIONS FOR NRIS!

New Delhi, February 15, 2010
Deccan Herald


 

To make it easy for NRIs to file RTI applications, 

the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs has asked

government departments to provide a link on their websites

for receiving online applications and appeals.

The ministry has written to Department of Personnel and Training,

nodal department for RTI affairs and Ministry of External Affairs to 

make guidelines in this regard and make necessary changes in the Act.

Its website has a link facilitating reception of online applications.

According to the proposal mooted by the ministry, 

an NRI will now be able to deposit Rs 10 as RTI fee in

the equivalent local currency at the Indian Mission abroad 

and send their application through email to the concerned 

public information officer informing about deposit of fee.

"NRIs (Non-Resident Indians) are entitled to seek information

from Ministries/Departments of Government of India/States

under the RTI Act. 

 In the absence of appropriate arrangement

of deposit of requisite fee, they are finding it difficult to seek information,"

G Gurucharan, Joint Secretary at the 

Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs wrote to DoPT.

It was a difficult task for the NRIs to file RTI applications 

seeking information, as there is no mechanism for online

applications. The deposit of fee was also a difficult matter

as there is no provision in the Act for submitting it in the 

currency of any othercountry.

Now, NRIs submit their RTI applications at Indian missions

abroad which forward it to officials concerned but fee was 

accepted only in Indian currency. The fee can be paid either

in cash or in valid instruments like postal order, demand draft etc.

It was difficult for NRIs to arrange such instrument abroad

leaving them no option but to physically go to the Indian 

mission and submit fee in cash along with application.

An RTI applicant Commodore Lokesh Batra made a 

complaint before the Central Information Commission highlighting the plight of NRIs.

Batra had also raised the issue during the annual

convention convened by the Commission in October

last year, which elicited positive reaction from activists 

and commissioners. After getting complaint from Batra

, the Commission had sought views of the Ministry of 

Overseas Affairs and Ministry of External Affairs.

The Ministry of Overseas Affairs in its submission said, 

"payment of fee for seeking information has to be decided

by the Ministry of External Affairs...As regards first and 

second appeal from abroad, matter has been taken up 

with the Department of Personnel and Training".

A Tribute to Justice A. P. Shah

February 11, 2010
Justice A.P.Shah who wrote the verdict in Naz India (Section 377)
case retired as chief justice of the Delhi High Court on February 11th.

With that verdict, in which he was assisted by Justice S.Muralidhar,
he can take credit for lifting at one stroke the threat of persecution from
the largest number of queer people in history.

It is a verdict which is now being contested in the Supreme Court
by bigots and haters of human rights, and its future is not certain.

But as it stands now, since the Supreme Court, to its credit, refused
to stay the judgment pending the progress of the case, gays and lesbians
in India are no longer subject to the injustice of Section 377 of the IPC,
and for this we have to thank Justice Shah.

If the Naz India case was all he was to be known for, that would be enough, but in fact it is just one of an amazing number of progressive verdicts delivered by Justice Shah in his career at the Bombay, Madras and finally Delhi High Courts.

For example he:
- overruled the government’s decision to ban Anand Patwardhan’s documentaries in 1997

- ordered the railways to give compulsory access to disabled people

- recognised the rights of Muslim women to receive maintenance beyond the i
ddat period and of the rights of Hindu second wives to receive maintenance

- ruled that political parties that called for Bandhs imposed on the rights of ordinary citizens

- recognised the employment rights of AIDS patients

- directed the government to act to save the environment of Hill stations, and even ordered the beautification of Girgaon Chowpatty and Juhy beach, something all ordinary citizens of Mumbai can thank him for

- pushed the judiciary to open up to computerisation and electronic access to the courts

Rather strangely, this link does not note his two most path breaking
recent judgements - in the 377 case and the recent Right To Information
case where he headed a bench that said that no authority in India was
exempt from RTI rules, not even the Supreme Court. Its a judgment
that has shaken his superiors on the Supreme Court, to the point where
they must now either accept it, or get into the embarassing position of having to hear a case against themselves.

With the 377 case, given Justice Shah’s track record,
we were always hopeful of a positive verdict.

But Justices Shah and Muralidhar took it even further.
y rooting their decision so strongly in the basic principles of
our constitition, and specifically citing the words of Dr.Ambedkar
and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru to reinforce it, they immensely
added to the strength of the case that has now gone to the Supreme
Court. It may still be overturned, but doing so will not be easy and in that
lies our best hope for ultimate success.

Today we can only give our profound thanks to Justice A.P.Shah for steering us to this position.
Perhaps the best way to end this tribute would be with Justice Shah’s own words, which he read out in court on the day of the verdict. This was the only portion of the judgment he read out, and it was what brought tears to the eyes of all the activists in court that day.

He read:
“The notion of equality in the Indian Constitution flows from the
‘Objective Resolution’ moved by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru on
December 13, 1946. Nehru, in his speech, moving this Resolution
wished that the House should consider the Resolution not in a spirit
of narrow legal wording, but rather look at the spirit behind that
Resolution.

He said, ”Words are magic things often enough,
but even the magic of words sometimes cannot convey
the magic of the human spirit and of a Nation’s passion……..
(The Resolution) seeks very feebly to tell the world of what
we have thought or dreamt of so long, and what we now hope
to achieve in the near future.”
[Constituent Assembly Debates: Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi: 1999, Vol. I, pages 57-65].

“If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be
underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that
of ‘inclusiveness’. This Court believes that Indian Constitution
reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society, nurtured
over several generations. The inclusiveness that Indian society
traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest
in recognising a role in society for everyone.

Those perceived by the majority as “deviants’ or ‘different’ are
not on that score excluded or ostracised.

“Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding,
such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and nondiscrimination.
This was the ’spirit behind the Resolution’ of which Nehru spoke so
passionately. In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit
the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions
of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is
antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which
will foster the dignity of every individual.

“We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises
consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of
Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue
to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex
and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors.

By ‘adult’ we mean everyone who is 18 years of age and above.

A person below 18 would be presumed not to be able to consent
to a sexual act. This clarification will hold till, of course, Parliament
chooses to amend the law to effectuate the recommendation of the
Law Commission of India in its 172nd Report which we believe
removes a great deal of confusion. Secondly, we clarify that our
judgment will not result in the re-opening of criminal cases
involving Section 377 IPC that have already attained finality.”
- Vikram Doctor

The minutes of the stormy Octotober 14, 2009 meeting

The minutes of the stormy Octotober 14, 2009 meeting between Central and State Information Commissioners and the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) on the controversial issue of amendments to the Right To Information Act, 2005 are now available for the common citizen to see.

Among other things, the DOPT proposed amendments to exclude from the Act “frivolous and vexatious” complaints as well as “discussions/consultations” (previously known as file notings) preceding a government decision. 

Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi

Curiously, the minutes were released on Monday, not by the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension of which the DOPT is a part but by Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi. Mr. Gandhi resorted to the extreme step after being repeatedly fobbed off by the DOPT on the release of the minutes. 

The October 14 meeting concluded on the understanding that the DOPT would forward the recorded minutes to the Information Commissioners (ICs). At the meeting, the majority of the 60-odd ICs entirely vetoed the idea of amendments, and only two officers agreed on the need to exclude “frivolous and vexatious” complaints. 

Speaking to The Hindu, Mr. Gandhi said the minutes formed an important part of the record on the proposed amendments. In the event that the government went ahead with the amendments, the minutes would prove that it had done so by overruling the ICs. Mr. Gandhi said he and another IC, Satyanand Mishra, sent several reminders to the DOPT to no avail. 

Ten days ago, he wrote an e-mail to Shantanu Consul, Secretary of the DOPT, in which Mr. Gandhi told him that it was disrespectful to the institution of ICs if a meeting with “over 50 per cent of Information Commissioners across the country” was treated so casually. 

“I told him that the Government seemed to want to treat the meeting as a non-event,” Mr. Gandhi said.

When even this step did not produce the desired result, he went ahead and released his own recorded minutes of the meeting. 

Mr. Gandhi’s minutes show that Union Minister for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension Prithiviraj Chavan proposed seven amendments in all, arguing that these were needed to “strengthen the Act.” 

The ICs pointed out that five of these required change of rules at best and not full-fledged amendments. The other two proposals were vetoed by all ICs present barring two.

Batla House encounter: Is CIC also under pressure?

New Delhi:
12 February 2010 - 9:01pm.

This past February 9 the Central Information
Commission had summoned Delhi Police in Batla House
encounter case. The CIC was to conduct second hearing on an
RTI petition seeking post-mortem reports of those killed
in the shootout and details about other Delhi serial blasts accused.

But did the hearing take place? If yes, what is the CIC’s ruling?

Nobody knows because attempts from mediapersons to get details from CIC drew blank.

RTI activist and petitioner in the case Afroz Alam Sahil could not
attend the hearing as he was appearing in exam

(He is Mass Communication student at Jamia Millia Islamia).
But in the evening he contacted several mediapersons who
had contacted the CIC about the hearing and he came to
know that CIC did not disclose anything about what transpired in the hearing.

RTI activist Afroz Alam Sahil filed the petition with the Delhi Police
on September 25, 2008, six days after the encounter.

He had sought information on six counts: Number of people
killed in Batla House encounter with their details; post-mortem
report of each of them; copy of FIR if filed on the day of the
encounter; number of people picked and arrested in connection
with the Delhi serial blasts with their details (name, father’s name etc);
from where these people were picked or arrested; evidence of
involvement of those picked and not released. 
filed first appeal on October 29, 2008 and two days later
he got a reply from the police wherein he was told about
the number of people killed in the shootout and that the FIR
was filed on that day. He was not provided any other
information nor any document on the ground that this will hamper investigation.

Then Afroz filed second appeal on January 27, 2009 as his queries
were not replied properly. The hearing on this appeal should have
been held within 90 days according to RTI law but the CIC took
more than one year to conduct the hearing. This was to happen on February 9.

It should be noted that the same CIC in its June 9, 2009 hearing on
the application of Afroz Alam Sahil had asked India’s premier hospital AIIMS –
where the autopsy was conducted on blasts suspects Mohammed Atif Amin
and Sajid, and Delhi Police Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma – to provide the
autopsy reports and other relevant information to the RTI applicant Sahil.

But about a month later, the CIC withdrew its own order.