Category " RTI News"

RTI / NV 60

20.03.2013

Dear Friends of RTI:

Greetings from BCAS Foundation
Herewith, article for March 2013, 60th since I started mailing/ forwarding in April 2008 with this one,
my RTI/ NV completes 5 years. Shall I continue?

Very interesting decision has taken pronounced by the Supreme Court on 29.11.2012 in the
matter of Common Cause vs. H.C. of Allahabad & ANR.

RTI Rules of H.C. of Allahabad (HCA) are very harsh: Provisions in the Rules include:

• Fee of Rs. 500 to make RTI application [against Rs. 10 in Rules of Central Government (CG), &
  Maharashtra Government (MC) etc]
• “Every application shall be made for one particular item of information only.”
• For getting information, the applicant is to pay Rs. 15 for every page of information (Against Rs. 2 in
  the Rules of CG and MG.)
• It was argued by Common Cause:
  “According to Government figures, per capita income of an average person in the State of UP is about
  Rs. 70 per day. This means that an average person would have to spend more than his week’s income
  to get a single query answered. There can be no doubt that such a high fee is unwarranted and cannot
  be considered to be reasonable.”
  The counsel of Allahabad HC submitted that the H.C. is going to consider amending the Rules. The
  SC granted two months time to HCA) to re-examine the Rules in the light of the provisions of the Act
  and take a fresh decision in the matter.

Since a long time, many RTI activists were of the opinion that RTI Rules of Allahabad H.C. were against the provisions of Section 7 of the RTI Act which mandates that Rules for payment of fees etc. have to be reasonable. Said rules are ultravires proviso to Section 5 of the RTI Act reads as under:
Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 6, sub-sections (1) and (5) of Section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.
“Common Cause” and Prashant Bhusan, (Counsel of Common Cause) have done a good service for RTI.

r2i jai ho!

With regards,

Narayan Varma
Trustee: BCAS Foundation
Encl: Article for March, 2013
NV/SJ/903P/14.M (2)

Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal, March 2013

Trustees of BCAS Foundation
P. N. Shah                       Mayur Nayak
Pradeep Shah                Shariq Contractor
Arvind Dalal                  Pradip Kapasi
Narayan Varma
________________________________________________________

RTI Clinics being run by four organizations:

BCAS FOUNDATION

7, Jolly Bhavan No. 2, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020
Email: bca@bcasonline.org Visit us at www.bcasonline.org runs RTI Clinic on 2nd, 3rd & 4th Saturdays every month between 11.00 a.m. to 13.00 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 61377600

PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST (PCGT)

B/2 Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 026
Email: publicconcern@gmail.com Visit us at www.pcgt.org runs RTI Clinic on 1st & 3rd Monday of every month between 12.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2352 6426

GIANTS INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST

2nd floor, Orient Club Building, 9, Chowpatty Sea Face, Mumbai – 400 007
Email: giantwld@mtnl.net.in
Visit us at www.giantsinternational.org runs RTI Clinic on 1st & 3rd Mondays of every month between 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2367 9698.

INDIAN MERCHANTS’ CHAMBER WITH PCGT

IMC Building, 2nd Floor, IMC Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020
Email: imc@imcnet.org
Visit us at ww.imcnet.org runs RTI clinic on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of every month between 4.00 p.m.and 5.30 p.m.
For more information and fixing an appointment call 22046633
Please visit any of these clinics.

Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal, March 2013

Right to Information

Narayan Varma

Chartered Accountant

Part A: Decisions of the Supreme Court

• Penalty on Chief State Information Commissioner

One Mr. Anbarasam filed an application u/s. 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act) and sought certain documents and information from the Public Information Officer – Deputy Registrar (Establishment) of the High Court of Karnataka (hereinafter referred as Respondent No. 1). His prayer was for the supply of certified copies of some information/documents regarding guidelines and rules pertaining to scrutiny and classification of the writ petitions and the procedure followed by the Karnataka High Court in respect of Writ Petition Nos. 26657 of 2004 and 17935 of 2006. Respondent No. 1 disposed of the application of Mr. Anbarasam vide order dated 3-8-2007 and intimated him that the information sought by him is available in the Karnataka High Court Act and the Rules and he can obtain certified copies of the order sheets of the two writ petitions by filing appropriate application under High Court Rules.

Mr. Anbarasam filed complaint dated 17-1-2008 u/s. 18 of the Act before the Karnataka Information Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) and made a grievance that the certified copies of the documents had not been made available to him despite payment of the requisite fees. The Commission allowed the complaint of Mr. Anbarasam and directed Respondent No. 1 to furnish the High Court Act, Rules and certified copies of order sheets free of cost.

PIO of the High Court of Karnataka challenged the order of Karnataka Information Commission before the High Court of Karnataka which was decided by a single judge.
The Single Judge noted:
“Various information as sought by the respondent are available in Karnataka High Court Act and Rules made there under. The said Act and Rules are available in market. If not available, the respondent has to obtain copies of the same from the publishers. It is not open for the respondent to ask for copies of the same from petitioner. But strangely, the Karnataka Information Commission has directed the petitioner to furnish the copies of the Karnataka High Court Act & Rules free of cost under Right to Information Act. The impugned order in respect of the same is illegal and arbitrary.”

“According to the Rules of the High Court, it is open for the respondent to file an application for certified copies of the order sheet or the relevant documents for obtaining the same. (See Chapter-17of Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959). As it is open for the respondent to obtain certified copies of the order sheet pending as well as the disposed of matters, the State Chief Information Commissioner is not justified in directing the petitioner to furnish copies of the same free of costs. If the order of the State Chief Information Commissioner is to be implemented, then, it will lead to illegal demands. Under the Rules, any person who is party or not a party to the proceedings can obtain
the orders of the High Court as per the procedure prescribed in the Rules mentioned supra.”

“The State Chief Information Commissioner has passed the order without applying his mind to the relevant Rules of the High Court. The State Chief Information Commissioner should have adverted to the High Court Rules before proceeding further. Since the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary, the same is liable to be quashed.”

Mr. Anbarasam did not challenge the Order of the Single Judge. However, the Commission filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of 335 days’ delay. The Division Bench dismissed the application for condonation of delay and also
held that the Commission cannot be treated as an aggrieved person.

On the said dismal of appeal, the Chief Information Commissioner (instead of the Commission) filed a petition to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted and ruled:

“What has surprised us is that while the writ appeal was filed by the Commission, the special leave petition has been preferred by the Karnataka Information Commissioner. Learned counsel could not explain as to how the petitioner herein, who was not an appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court, can challenge the impugned order. He also could not explain as to what was the locus of the Commission to file appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby its order had been set aside. The entire exercise undertaken by the Commission and the Karnataka Information Commissioner to challenge the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court shows that the concerned officers have wasted public money for satisfying their ego. If Mr. Anbarasam felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, nothing prevented him from challenging the same by filing writ appeal. However, the fact of the matter is that he did not question the order of the learned Single Judge. The Commission and the Karnataka Information Commissioner had no legitimate cause to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, the writ appeal filed by the Commission
was totally unwarranted and misconceived and the Division Bench of the High Court did not commit any error by dismissing the same.”
“This petition filed by Karnataka Information Commissioner for setting aside order dated 15-6-2012 passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 3255/2010 (GM-RES) titled Karnataka Information Commission vs. State Public

Information Officer and another cannot but be described as frivolous piece of litigation which deserves to be dismissed at threshold with exemplary costs.”
“With the above observations, the special leave petition is dismissed. For filing a frivolous petition, the petitioner is saddled with cost of Rs.1,00,000/. The amount of cost shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two months from today. If the needful is not done, the Secretary of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall recover the amount of cost from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.”

Part B: RTI ACT, 2005

NCPRI Convention

National Campaign for people’s Right to Information (NCPRI) held 4th RTI National Convention for four days (15th February to 18th February) at Hyderabad.
NCPRI was formed in 1996 and functions as an AOP till today. Prominent Individuals running the same are Ms. Aruna Roy, Mr. Nikhil Dey, Ms. Anjali Bharadwaj and others.
NCPRI has played a key role in drafting the Central RTI Act of 2005. It holds convention every two years.
On 15th and 16th February, the subjects of discussion were the future course of NCPRI-structure, decision making process, role of NCPRI etc. It then produced a summary, part of it reads:

Objectives

The National Campaign for people’s Right to Information (NCPRI) seeks to empower the people and to deepen democracy, through promoting people’s right to information. By using this right, it seeks to fight corruption and social apathy, to make governments and other institutions and agencies having an impact on public welfare, more humane and accountable to the people and to promote efficiency and frugality.

Values

The NCPRI is committed to support participatory just, secular and humane democracy.

Methods and Activities

The NCPRI endeavours to constantly engage and interact with the state and with other institutions and agencies. It campaigns for the enactment and use of right to information law that is effective and accessible to all. It also supports people’s efforts at developing the ability and motivation to use the right to information for addressing individual and social problems. It works at disseminating the RTI law and encourages and supports the
development of materials related to transparency and governance, the raising of awareness about the fundamental value of information, the conduct of research and the setting up of information clearing houses. It seeks to further the cause of transparency by adopting other direct and indirect methods, including the filing of information requests, the fighting of legal cases and the holding of public hearing.
It also decided on its structure and also to democratize the same, details will be posted on www. bcasonline.org and www.pcgt.org.
On 17th February, delegates were divided in to 15 groups to discuss 15 topics for its activities and to draft Hyderabad Declaration on The Right to Information (Pattern similar to BCAS-RRC)
On 18th February, the final Hyderabad Declaration of the RTI was adopted at a public meeting which was also addressed by Mr. Vajahat Habbibullah (the first Central Chief Information Commissioner)

On the afternoon of 18th February, there was a visit to a NGO specialising on social audit to understand the process of social audit, a subject of great importance to build accountability and contain corruption.
It was a rewarding and satisfactory convention.

Part C: INFORMATION ON AROUND

CBI goes to the Delhi High Court:

Vide provisions of section 24, RTI Act does not apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule.
The Central Board of Investigation (CBI) has been added in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act w.e.f. 29-6-2011.

The matter was taken to the Madras High Court pleading that the CBI is not the intelligence and security organisation. But, it was lost.
Mr. C.J. Karira made an application to the CBI asking it to furnish information relating to the status of sanction for prosecution against government officials facing allegations of corruption between 2007 to 2011. Same was denied. He filed an appeal to CIC. He pointed out that the information which the CBI declined to reveal on his RTI plea has been disclosed by the ministry of personnel in a number of responses to Parliament members. Hence, it is disclosable under Proviso to s/s. 1 to section 24.
The 1st Proviso to section 24 reads as under:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section.
The Commission in its decision directed the CBI to disclose the status of sanction for prosecution against government officials facing allegations of corruption between 2007 to 2011.
The CBI has now approached the Delhi High Court seeking exemption under the RTI Act from disclosing information held by it on allegations of corruption.
The Delhi High Court has stayed the CIC Order and has fixed the matter on 3rd April for further hearing.

Mumbai Police

On an average, 120 Mumbai police personnel have died while on duty every year since 2002, with 98% of them succumbing to various illnesses, including cardiac arrest, according to an RTI reply.
Other causes of death included illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension and heart-related problems, among others. “Due to long duty hours, a policeman cannot plan their days. They don’t get time to exercise. Moreover, when policemen are deployed at any place, they have to eat the food available there, which may be unhealthy,” Additional Commissioner of police (Crime) Niket Kaushik said.

Vice–Chancellor of Mumbai University:

A query filed by Mr. Anil Galgali an RTI activist under the RTI Act, revealed that the Mumbai University (MU) hired senior advocates to fight the cases challenging the VC’s job. The university had hired senior advocates, Rafique A. Dada – known for fighting tricky cases – Naushad Engineer and Sagar Talekar.
MU’s finance and accounts PIO A. R. Jadhav said the university had paid Rs. 4,10,900 to the three lawyers. MU legal adviser Ajit Karwande received a letter from advocate R. A. Rodrigus on 11th July, 2011, with bills that needed to be settled: professional charges of Dada (Rs. 3,30,900), Engineer (Rs. 45,000) and Talekar (Rs. 35,000).

Irrelevant Information:

Rejecting an RTI application filed by a Kandivali resident seeking information of the last 10 years on the appointment, transfer and retirement of Government employees in Maharashtra, Ratnakar Gaikwad (Chief SIC) wrote in the order:
“Applicants should not ask for detailed and irrelevant information as public information officers (PIOs), besides performing their statutory duties, are also engaged in the task of providing information to the people. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate if such information is sought which would bring in transparency and accountability in administration, halt corruption and is in public interest.”

Part D GOOD GOVERNANCE

Excerpts from the article of Makarand Paranjape:

Makarand Paranjape reported in Sunday Times of 3-2-2013:
“From this brief overview of the facts it is clear that the republic is not as intolerant as it is badly governed. This is a crisis not of tolerance but of governance. The political establishment had failed to uphold the Constitution and the rights that are guaranteed under it. Laws meant to safeguard the weak are often manipulated or twisted to bully or
browbeat those who dare to speak inconvenient truths. The powers vacated or abused by an ineffective executive are only partially compensated for by an interventionist judiciary, an over-active press, or a popular uprising like Anna Hazare’s.”

Excerpts from the article of William Bissel reported in Sunday Times of 3-2-2013

“As Thomas Kuhn has said in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, we are facing a challenge that is the result of paradigm shift where the evidence of the failure of our concepts of governance stare us in the face. And yet, in the avalanche of evidence that speaks of this failure, the system remains paralysed applying praradigms of governance that will no longer suffice.
So, how does the class of 2014 begin to put in place the foundations of a new system of governance?
I believe that such a system will have to be built on a new paradigm of measuring overall wellbeing using tools that allow government to create a holistic view of what the elements of wellbeing are: access to security (specially for women), clean air, safe drinking water, reliable sewage facilities, access to a good nutrition for all, schools that teach, colleges that skill”.

RTI / NV 59
13.0 13.02.2013

Dear Friends of RTI:

Greetings from PCGT !!!

Herewith article for January, 59th since I started mailing/forwarding in April
2008.

1. CAG Vinod Rai at Harvard Kennedy School:

•  He said: : “I am no rubber stamp.”

Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) Vinod Rai rebutted
criticism that the official auditor was exceeding its mandate
In a lecture at the Harvard Kennedy School, he said, “Since the
Indian democracy is maturing and the urban middle class is
becoming more involved in affairs of citizens, we continue to tread
the new path in the belief that the final stakeholder is the public at
large”. Rai, whose reports on various scams have raised the hackles
of those in the government, said the CAG would “endeavour to
uncover instances of crony capitalism and counsel the government
to support enterprises and not entrepreneurs”.
“We may not be able to wipe out corruption, but our endeavour is
to uncover instances of crony capitalism. The government should
be seen to support enterprise per se and not particular
entrepreneurs,” he said. Referring to the criticism sparked by CAG
reports on the telecom and coal scams, among others, Rai said the
role of a public auditor cannot be confined to merely placing its
report in Parliament.
“Should we, as public auditors, limit our role to placing reports in
Parliament or go beyond that and seek to sensitise public opinion
on our audit observations, especially so in social sector audits such
as rural health, primary education, water pollution, environment,
drinking water etc?”
Maintaining that the auditing of government and public entities has
a positive impact on trust in society, Rai added: “It focuses the
minds of the custodians of the public purse to use resources
effectively.”

2. NCPRI Convention:

4th National Convention oraganised by “The National Campaign for
People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) is scheduled from 15 to 18th
Feb at Hyderabad. 150 to 200 RTI activists from all over India shall
attend. On 15th, 16th discussion will be on recognisation of NCPRI.
The 17th will be an open meeting on transparency, accountability
and the working of the Right to Information law on this day, NCPRI
plans to invite people from Government, information commissioners
and others who might not be a part of NCPRI.
I am attending this convention Report thereon will be printed in
March issue of BCAJ.

r2i JAI HO !

With regards,

Narayan Varma

Jt. Managing Trustee PCGT

Encl: Article for February 2013

___________________________________________________________________________________
B/2, Mahalaxmi Chmabers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Breach Candy, Mumbai – 400 026
Tel: (022) 2352 6426 Telefax: (022) 2352 6452, e-mail: publicconcern@gmail.com, Website: www.pcgt.org
___________________________________________________________________________________

Registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950
Exempted from Income Tax under Section 80-G(5)(VI) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

RTI Clinics being run by four organizations:

BCAS FOUNDATION

7, Jolly Bhavan No. 2, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020
Email: bca@bcasonline.org Visit us at www.bcasonline.org
runs RTI Clinic on 2nd, 3rd & 4th Saturdays every month between 11.00 a.m. to
13.00 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 61377600

PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST (PCGT)

B/2 Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 026
Email: publicconcern@gmail.com Visit us at www.pcgt.org
runs RTI Clinic on every Tuesday between 04.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. .
RTI Helpline No – 93 2288 2288

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2352 6426

GIANTS INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST

2nd floor, Orient Club Building, 9, Chowpatty Sea Face, Mumbai – 400 007
Email:giantwld@mtnl.net.in
Visit us at www.giantsinternational.org
runs RTI Clinic on 1st & 3rd Mondays of every month between 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2367 9698

INDIAN MERCHANT’S CHAMBER

IMC Building,Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020
runs RTI clinic on 1st & 3rd Wednesday of every month from 4 .00pm to 6.00 pm.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 22046633

Please visit any of these clinics

Right to Information

Narayan Varma
Chartered Accountant

PartA: Orders of Courts

Section 7(1) of the RTI Act

Vide RTI application dated 5-7-2011, the appellant sought information regarding illegal accounts
of Indians in Liechtenstein, obtained from the German government and steps taken by the
Government of India to deal with black money.

Not satisfied with the response of the PIO and FAA, before the Central Information Commission,
the appellant in support of his argument referred to the Supreme Court decision dated 4-7-2011,
in W/P (Civil) 176 of 2009, Ram Jethmalani vs. Union of India, and submitted that exemption
u/s. 8(1)(a) and (f) as claimed by the CPIO was not tenable. He also made a reference to CIC
decision (appeal OK/C/2008/00897 dated 15-7-2011) supporting his argument. The CPIO
submitted that the government has filed a modification petition which is pending in the Supreme
Court.

The public authority brought to the notice of the Commission a para of the judgement dt
4.7.2011 of Honourable Supreme Court in W.P (Civil) 176 of 2009, Ram Jethmalani & Ors vs.
Union of India which reads as follows:

“That the special investigation, constituted pursuant to the orders of today by this court,
shall take over the matter of investigation of the individuals whose names have been
disclosed by Germany as having accounts in Banks in Liechtenstein and expeditiously
conduct the same. The Special Investigation Team shall review the concluded matters
also in this regard to assess whether investigations have been thoroughly and properly
conducted or not, and on coming to the conclusion that there is a need for further
investigation shall proceed further in the matter. After conclusion of such investigation
by Special Investigation Team, the respondents may disclose the names with regard to
whom show cause notices have been issued and proceedings initiated.”

The public authority has also submitted that the Union of India has moved application for
seeking recall and/or modification of orders dated 4-7-2011.

The Commission decided that since the information sought by the appellant was sub-judice, the
appeal be dismissed. [Paras Nath Singh vs. CBDT, New Delhi: CIC/ DS/A/2011/003377 &
003607/RM: Decision dated 12-11-2012]

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act

The appellant had sought certain information from the CPIO including names of assessees/cases
in which scrutiny is complete. The CPIO held that Trusts/assesses are public authority and their
activities are of public nature and hence information about them should be in the public domain.
Accordingly, the number of cases in which scrutiny was completed, was provided. However,
names of such assesses were withheld citing that no public interest will be served. The
Commission held that disclosure of names of assesssees whose returns have been scrutinised,
would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy of the assessee, if this information is placed
in the public domain and hence it is exempted from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

[Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. Asst. Director of IT (Exemptions), Trust Circle-II & Addl. Director of
IT (Exemptions), Range-1, Delhi: CIC/DS/A/2011/ 003072/RM decided on 6-11-2012]

Section 6(1) of the RTI Act

The issue was whether the applicant can extend the scope of his RTI application at the Appellate
stage.

Vide RTI application dated 6-9-2010, the appellant had sought comments of the public authority
to a complaint which had been filed by him earlier on 11-5-2010 regarding alleged misuse of
government vehicles by Smt. C. Chandrakanta, the then Joint
Commissioner, Income Tax Range-IV, Jalandhar and other unlawful activities.

Before the CIC, the applicant submitted that he had sought to know whether any enquiry was
conducted regarding leaving of the headquarters by Smt. C. Chandrakanta without prior
permission from a competent authority. The CPIO had responded that no enquiry was conducted.
The AA in his order stated that the appellant had not sought any reasons for not initiating any
action in his RTI. As such the order of the CPIO was justified. The appellant insisted that the
public authority should provide him the reasons.
In support of his submission he quoted CIC order dated 11-9-2008 – Smt. Sarla Rastogi vs.
ESIC.

In hearing before CIC, the appellant submitted that in response to his query as to whether any
enquiry was conducted in regards to the leaving of headquarters by Smt. Chandrakanta, the CPIO
responded that no enquiry was conducted. The appellant submitted that reasons for the same
should be provided and referred to section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act as also CIC decision in the case
of Smt. Sarla Rastogi vs. ESIC (Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2008/01106 dated 11-9-2008). The AA
had upheld the decision of the CPIO on the grounds that in his RTI, the appellant has not sought
reasons.

Decision: The Commission observed that the CPIO had replied to the specific queries raised in
the RTI by
the appellant. With the said reply, the query of RTI application is satisfied. There is no provision
to raise subsequent questions as an extension of the RTI query, as sought by the appellant in his
first appeal. Hence, the Commission does not find any merit in the appeal. The case is disposed
of.

[R.K. Mahajan vs Income Tax Department, Jalandhar: CIC/DA/A/2011/0001476/RM: decision
dated 7-6-2012]

RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005

The Commission decided that it was in agreement with submissions of the appellant that the
application fee sent by him in favour of Accounts Officer, DGIT, New Delhi, should not have
been returned and the CPIO was not correct, in asking the appellant to redeposit the application
fee in favour of ZAO, CBDT, New Delhi. Rule 3 of the Right to
Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 stipulates that the amount is payable to the
Accounts Officer of the public authority.

Decision:The Commission directs the public authority to ensure that in the future, the
application fee sent in the name of Accounts Officer is not returned. DoPT orders issued on 5-
12-2008 (OM No. F.10/9/2008-IR) shall be brought to the notice of all concerned officials
handling RTI matters. Insofar as the RTI request is concerned, the Commission sees no reason to
interfere with the order of the CPIO/AA.

[Nitesh Kumar Tripathi vs DGIT (Vigilance), New Delhi: CIC/DS/A/2011/002840/RM: decision
dated 21-9-2012]

Part B: The RTI Act,

The Government has decided to conduct a study on the implementation of the Right to
Information Act to know the cost to the government in providing information
to citizens under the UPA’s showpiece initiative and whether it has helped improve its “public
perception about the extent of reduction in corruption”.
As per the RTI Act of 2005, only Rs. 10 fee is required to seek information from any public
authority, but various government officials have complained of the huge cost they have to bear to
divert resources and effort to answer RTI pleas.

The government has earlier got a study conducted from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in 2009
on the key issues and constraints in implementing the RTI Act. But, for the first time, the
government is attempting to “calculate the cost to government in providing the formation under
RTI”, as per the scope of work of the new study for which the Department of Personnel and
Training has invited bids on 4th January. “To further strengthen the RTI regime, it has been
decided to do a 360-degree study of the implementation of the RTI Act. The study will cover
both states and the central government, across various sectors, and will cover public authorities
at centre, state, district and panchayat level,” the bid document says.

The scope of the study also involves assessing public perception about the extent of reduction in
corruption. “Since the implementation of the Act there has been a significant and perceptible
change in the level of transparency in the working of the governments at the Centre, state and the
sub-state level,” the bid document claims. The scope of the study includes a study of trends in
filing of RTI applications or appeals across the country. The government also wants an
institution or organisation to study the use of the RTI Act by different types of applicants – in
cases where applicant type is identifiable from the application. The study will assess the type of
information sought and its classification into “personal information” sought by employees,
procurement-related information sought “without any apparent objective/purpose” and general
information sought without specificity across sections.

“The implementation of the provisions of the Act has to be studied from the perspective of both
the demand and supply side. The approach to achieving the above is viewing RTI applications
and their responses from the information seekers’ and providers’ angle,” the bid document says.
The study will hence, determine the level of satisfaction among the people with functioning of
the Act and the experience of public authorities at different levels in dealing with RTI
applications and appeals, the document has mentioned.

[Extracts from ET dated 7-1-2013]

Good News for Mumbai RTI Applicants:

The office of the State Chief Information Commissioner will go paperless in less than a month.
“If all goes well then our office will be paperless and we have developed a software for the
purpose,” State Chief Information Commissioner, Ratnakar Gaikwad said.

Soon after his appointment in June, when Gaikwad visited the office of the Central Information
Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, he was surprised to see that there were no files on his table.

“I studied his working pattern and felt that it was possible to introduce a paperless office in
Mumbai too,” he added. Gaikwad, who has set a target of disposing of 25 complaints/appeals
daily, said no purpose will be served if information is not provided to an applicant as early as
possible.

“I am sure that we will be able to clear all the 2,098 appeals by March, 2013. Once the backlog is
cleared, we will clear the appeals within 15days,” he said.

Part C: Information On & Around

Pratibha Patil on Africa Trip

A month before she left office, the Centre spent a whopping Rs. 18.08 crore on the then president
Pratibha Patil’s 10-day official visit to South Africa and Seychelles.

A reply to a RTI query has revealed that the Centre paid Rs. 16.38 crore to Air India for the
special aircraft used for the two-nation trip from 29th April to 7th May last year.

The RTI reply revealed that an expenditure of Rs. 1.46 crore was incurred during her visit to the
South African capital Pretoria, of which Rs. 71.82 lakh was spent on her local stay, Rs. 52.33
lakh on transportation and Rs. 22.12 lakh on other expenses. In Durban Rs. 23.55 lakh was spent
on her visit, with Rs. 18 lakh going towards hotel stay
and Rs. 5.27 lakh on transportation.

During her tenure at Rashtrapati Bhavan, Patil incurred expenses of Rs. 205 Crore on 12 trips to
22 countries.

School Principal

An RTI query filed by an activist might lead to the ouster of the current principal of a south
Mumbai school. The reply to the RTI shows that the current principal of St Mary’s High School
(ICSE) in Mazgaon is still at the post at 68 years of age while the state rules make it clear that
school teaching staff and principal have to retire at the age of 58 years.

“I filed an RTI to check the status of 39 nonstate- board schools in the city, and found out that
most are not following the rules as prescribed by the state education department,” said
Nanasaheb Kute Patil, who filed the RTI query. The questions included whether the schools have
all permissions prescribed by the government, annual fees demanded by them, age and
qualification of teachers/principals, etc. “My aim is to make sure students don’t suffer because of
school authorities,” he added.

Following this, the south zone education department has sent a notice to the school asking them
to remove the principal from his post.

Ajit Pawar

Ajit Pawar tendered his resignation on 25th September on moral grounds, after allegations of
massive irregularities in irrigation projects in Vidharbha during his stint in previous cabinet as
Water Resources minister. The governor accepted his resignation on 29th September.

From 30th September to 14th October, the state offered him facilities without any charge,
according to the reply to an RTI application filed by Anil Galgali. A government resolution
dated 12th October stated that after 14th October, Pawar was to be charged Rs. 5 a square foot if
he wanted to avail of accommodation in the bungalow in Malabar Hill with an uninterrupted
supply of all amenities – gas, water, power and telephone at
state expenses. Officials from the general administration department said the rule/procedure was
applicable on all cabinet ministers to allow them find new residences to ensure smooth transition
from power.

But Galgali feels otherwise. “The high-voltage drama related to Pawar’s resignation was a wellplanned
political move,” he said. “If Pawar resigned from his ministerial post on moral grounds,
then he should have shown the same morality and should have given back the Devgiri bungalow
to the government. In the city’s slums, no one even gets a hut on rent for Rs. 5 a sq ft. If a
government regulation (GR) states that outgoing ministers to be charged Rs. 5 a sq. ft for
accommodation in a posh area like Malabar Hill, there is something fundamentally wrong and
the GR must be amended.”

Security Firm

High-profile private security firm, NISA, with 45,000 guards on its payroll, has failed to file with
Mumbai police with basic yet crucial details like how many of its personnel carry firearms.

Yogesh Hilkar, a member of the NGO ‘Swabhiman’ run by Congress MLA Nitesh Narayan
Rane, has uncovered these facts through a RTI plea.

“It is shocking that the company has not supplied details of all the armed men working with it.
This is, potentially, a huge security threat,” when the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Headquarter (II) – who is responsible for maintaining a database of all the security agencies in
the city and the Assistant Commissioner of Police from DN Nagar
division, where NISA has its corporate office, have failed to furnish any details in this respect.
The company’s website (http://www.nisaeye.com/) notes that it is having 45,000 security
personnel in its ranks, based at over 3,500 installations in India, and managed through about 45
branches.
It claims that it’s been administering security to some of the biggest names in the corporate
world since 1973.

PART D:GOOD GOVERNANCE

How Does One Shame the Shameless in India
It took a horrific rape to expose our politicians. Suddenly the netas of Delhi were stripped naked.
And there was no place to hide. Years of strutting around pompously and grand standing during
one crisis after another, provided zero protection to these people as enraged citizenry took to the
streets crying out for better governance, sickened by the apathy and abuse of power.

Excerpts from the Address of Narendra Modi:

“Development won today,” “There was thinking in our politics that good economics is bad
politics. It was as if good governance did not suit on politics.”
He quickly added that the people of the country too needed good governance and economic
development of the kind seen in Gujarat.

Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal, February 2013

Your feedback may be sent to rti@bcasonline.org/publicconcern@gmail.com

RTI / NV 58
28.01.2013
Dear Friends of RTI:

Greetings from PCGT !!!

Herewith article for January, 58th since I started mailing/forwarding in April
2008.

Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has issued Notice Inviting
Expression of Interest in 360 degree study of the Implementation of the RTI
Act, 2005.Said Notice reads as under:

“The Department of Personnel & Training invites Expression of Interest
(EOI)
The evaluation is a part of the DOPT’s plan Scheme on “Improving
Transparency and Accountability in Government through effective
implementation of RTI”

The EOI document containing details on prequalification criteria requirements,
application formats etc. may be downloaded from the Department’s website
(http://www.persmin.nic.in) and rti.gov.in. These websites have complete
information about the EOI and the RTI Act, 2005.
The last date for submission of EOI is 21.01.2013.

For any clarification in the matter, Shri Sandeep Jain, Deputy Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi- 110001.
Telefax No. 011-23092755 may be contacted.”
You may send your views to us – BCAS Foundation at
bca@bcasonline.org and/ or PCGT at publicconcern@gmail.com.

We shall cover the same in our communication to DoPT in above matter.

r2i JAI HO !
With regards,
Narayan Varma
Jt. Managing Trustee PCGT

Encl: Article for January 2013

__________________________________________________________________________________
B/2, Mahalaxmi Chmabers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Breach Candy, Mumbai – 400 026
Tel: (022) 2352 6426 Telefax: (022) 2352 6452, e-mail: publicconcern@gmail.com, Website: www.pcgt.org

__________________________________________________________________________________
Registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950
Exempted from Income Tax under Section 80-G(5)(VI) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

RTI Clinics being run by four organizations:

BCAS FOUNDATION
7, Jolly Bhavan No. 2, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020
Email: bca@bcasonline.org Visit us at www.bcasonline.org
runs RTI Clinic on 2nd, 3rd & 4th Saturdays every month between 11.00 a.m.
to
13.00 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 61377600

PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST (PCGT)

B/2 Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 026
Email: publicconcern@gmail.com Visit us at www.pcgt.org
runs RTI Clinic on every Tuesday between 04.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. .
RTI Helpline No – 93 2288 2288

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2352 6426

GIANTS INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST
2nd floor, Orient Club Building, 9, Chowpatty Sea Face, Mumbai – 400 007
Email:giantwld@mtnl.net.in
Visit us at www.giantsinternational.org
runs RTI Clinic on 1st & 3rd Mondays of every month between 4.30 p.m. to
6.30 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2367 9698

INDIAN MERCHANT’S CHAMBER
IMC Building,Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020
runs RTI clinic on 1st & 3rd Wednesday of every month from 4 .00pm to 6.00
pm.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 22046633

Please visit any of these clinics

Right to Information
Narayan Varma
Chartered Accountant

PartA: Orders of Courts

Section 2(f): Information
Word ‘information’ u/s. 2(f) of the RTI Act is defined
as under:

“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents,
memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks,
contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any
electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be
accessed by a public authority under any
other law for the time being
in force;

Hereunder three recent orders of CIC on
section 2(f):

• The appellant had sought the reasons for discharge of polluted water
  from the premises of Central Drugs Research Institute (CDRI) into the
  stream of Gomti river, etc. CPIO had refused to disclose any
  information relying on the Commission’s decision dated 21.4.2006 in
  File No. CICV/AT/A/2006/00045 (Dr. D.V. Rao vs Department of Legal
  Affairs). On appeal, the AA had upheld the decision of CPIO
  again,relying on above mentioned decision of the Commission.
  The Order of CIC,
  Mr.M. L. Sharma:
  “In the hearing, the appellant challenged aforesaid Order of the
  Commission. It was his contention that by using interrogatory words
  such as what, why, when, where, etc., he had sought information in
  terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act and, therefore, denial of
  information by the CPIO only because he used these interrogatory
  words in his RTI application cannot be justified.
  Commission agreed with contention of the
  appellant It stated:
  Use of these interrogatory words by themselves cannot be construed
  to mean that requested information does not fall in the domain of
  section 2(f). In fact, these words have to be construed in the context
  in which they are used. For example, if someone asks the CPIO the
  following question: Where is the office of the CPIO?”, he is seeking
  information in terms of section 2(f). Similarly, if the
  querist asks the CPIO “What is the name of the Appellate Authority?”
  again, he
  is seeking information u/s.2(f). In short, denial of information only
  because the querist has used these interrogatory words cannot be
  justified in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. It was opined that
  the decision of the Commission referred to above has not been
  construed by the CPIO and AA in the proper context. Commission
  was of the opinion that the queries raised by the appellant regarding
  discharge of alleged polluted water in the Gomti stream qualify to be
  ‘information’ under the RTI Act and ought to have been responded to
  by CPIO.

On the facts of circumstances of the case, the orders of the CPIO and AA
were set aside and CDRI was directed to provide para wise information to the
appellant.
[Dr. Jitendra Kumar Jain vs CDRI, Lucknow: CIC/LS/2012/001258 of
5.09.2012]

• The appellant had filed appeal before the Commission against the
  Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Department of Official Language,
  New Delhi for not providing satisfactory information in response to his
  RTI application.

The appellant had sought information on three queries pertaining to
essential qualifications prescribed for the appointment of Junior Hindi
Translators. The CPIO transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Staff
Selection Commission. The CPIO, Staff Selection Commission returned the
RTI application to the CPIO, MHA, and Department of Official Language
stating that the information as sought by the appellant pertained to the
Gazette Notification dated 31.10.2006 issued by the Department of Official
Language.

Aggrieved with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal before
the FAA. The FAA (service) held that the appellant has, through his RTI
application, sought clarification pertaining to the appointment of Junior Hindi
Translators, which do not fall within the ambit of the definition of “information”
as defined u/s. 2(f) of the RTI Act,2005.

Having considered the submission of the parties and after perusal of the
relevant documents on file, the Commission is of the view that the appellant
has through his RTI application sought interpretation on the essential
qualifications for appointment to the post of Jr. Hindi Translator. The
essential qualifications are already available in the public domain i.e.
Gazette Notification dated 31.10.2006 issued by the Department of Official
Language. The respondents are not expected under the RTI Act to provide
any interpretation on the information provided. The respondent can only
provide information as per records held. The Commission therefore finds no
reason to interfere with the reply of the FAA.

[G.C. Sharma vs Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Official
Language: CIC/SS/A/2012/001612 of 17.09.2012]

• Appellant submitted his RTI application before the CPIO Oriental
  Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow seeking details in respect of
  Payment of Rs. 25,000 which is 25% of the total amount for Insurance
  of car against insurance policy no. 222501/97/2389.

CPIO responded by stating that the information sought by the appellant was
imperative in nature, therefore, needs no answer under the RTI Act.

Decision N Notice: After hearing both the parties, Commission directed the
CPIO to provide a copy of rules under which the appellant is obliged to
complete the mandatory formalities by depositing the court order in which
the court accepts the final report of the police before the matter is brought to
its logical conclusion by the insurer. The Commission did not accept the
decision of the CPIO that “information sought by him is imperative in nature,
therefore, needs no answer under the said Act.”

Such arbitrary orders of the CPIO are not in consonance with the
provisions of theTransparency Act and must be avoided at all costs.
CPIO is directed to provide information as above within two weeks of
receipt of the
.
[Sabhajeet Sing vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow:
CIC/DS/A/2012/000565 of 31.10.2012]

Part B: The RTI Act,

Excerpts from the Article of Justice A. P. Shah (from Times of India
of 27.11.2012)

Perhaps the biggest contribution of our Parliament towards promoting
greater accountability in independent India is the enactment of the Right to
Information Act,
2005. If, as they say, information is power; then the RTI Act has been a
veritable
‘Brahmastra’ in the hands of the Indian public. It has been extremely
successful in empowering people with information held by public authorities.
The only issue to be decided before the Commission is whether information,
which is already available with the authorities, should be disclosed or not. The
Commission does not therefore dispense justice (like a court), it merely
deals with disclosure of information.
The Act already provides for certain qualifications for appointments to the
post of information commissioners (“persons of eminence” and “knowledge
and experience” in particular fields). However, the Supreme Court has
completely rewritten the provisions of the Act by insisting on qualifications that
go beyond what has been prescribed by the Act, and further, by specifically
laying down the requirement of two-person benches, having at least one
judicial member. This is a clear case of judicial overreach where the Supreme
Court has virtually legislated provisions of law.

Decision in the case of Namit Sharma is a regressive decision that only
hampers the working of the information commissions by making it more
legalistic and complex. It creates more problems while solving none. A
review of the decision is pending before the Supreme Court, and it is hoped
that the Court takes into account these genuine concerns while relooking at
this issue.
The review petition on the said decision is filed
by DOPT.

In a landmark move to fight for citizens’ right and to preserve the sanctity of the
Right to Information Act, noted activists Shailesh Gandhi and Aruna Roy
have submitted their intervention petition to the Supreme Court in the matter
of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (see the article in October 2012
issue of BCAJ) seeking to quash the controversial provisions for selecting
Chief Information Commissioners.
The petition states that the decision of the Supreme Court is regressive and
it makes RTI Act redundant and it subverts democracy in India.
The Supreme Court decision has also shocked the current Chief
Information Commissioner, Satyanand Mishra, who recently said at the

Commission’s annual convention on 12th October, “The approach of the
Commissions in all these years has been to act like an umpire standing right
on the field along with the players and not standing on a pedestal and
pronouncing oracles. Openness of approach, informality in style and simplicity
of systems has characterised the functioning of the Commissions. No robes,
no lawyers, no liveried attendants because what the citizens seek does not
go with so much of serious formality. Excessive judicialisation of the
Information Commissions will rob these institutions of their flexibility. The
society must decide if this is the right path.”

Part C: Information On & Around

VIP’s foreign visits:

Close on the heels of the order of the Supreme Court asking for information
on judges’ travel abroad to be made public, the Central Information
Commission (CIC) has suggested that the government should make public
as much information as possible on the expenses incurred on VIP visits
abroad. “We have been noticing a lot of public interest in the visits of high
dignitaries such as the President, the Vice President and the Prime Minister
of India.Quite often, one comes across RTI applications seeking
information about these visits,” said Chief Information Commissioner,
Satyanand Mishra.
He was hearing the plea of activist Subhash Agrawal who sought details of
expenses incurred on the visit of the former President Pratibha Patil. “While
admitting that the official visits of these dignitaries have a strong security
angle to it, in this age of transparency, there is a case for placing as much
information about these visits as possible in the public domain,” he said.

• Disclosure on Sonia Gandhi:

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the President’s
Secretariat to make Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy’s letter to former
President Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam public after consulting him. Swamy had
written to Kalam after the 2004 election which UPA had won. In the letter, he
had raised doubts whether the Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s
candidature would be accepted by the courts as it was unclear whether
she had renounced her Italian citizenship as stipulated under the
Citizenship Act.

• Prime Minister on Frivolous and vexatious RTI application:

PM Manmohan Singh’s speech expressing concern over frivolous and
vexatious RTI applications, infringement of personal privacy and bringing
public private partnerships under the RTI Act had sparked off a debate and
was severely criticized by activists. Now, the PMO has said that it had no
basis for making such remark.
In reply to an RTI application filed by Dev Ashish Bhattacharya, asking for
available records on the basis of which the PM made the ‘observations’, the
PMO said, “No such information is available in this office’s records.”
The PM, in his speech at the Central Information Commission’s convention in
October,
2012, had said that there were “concerns about frivolous and vexatious use of
the Act in demanding information the disclosure of which cannot possibly
serve any public purpose.”

• “Sometimes information covering a long time-span or a large number of
  cases is sought in an omnibus manner with the objective of discovering
  an inconsistency or mistake which can be criticised. Such queries
  besides serving little productive social purpose are also a drain on
  the resources of the public authorities, diverting precious man-hours
  that could be put to better use. Such requests for information have in
  fact come in for adverse criticism by the Supreme Court as well as the
  Central Information Commission,” he added.

Singh had said that there were also concerns regarding “possible
infringement of personal privacy while providing information under the
Right to Information Act,” suggesting that a fine balance was required to be
maintained between RTI and right to privacy. “The citizens’ right to know
should definitely be circumscribed if disclosure of information encroaches upon
someone’s personal privacy,” he said.

• SEBI on RIL insider trading case:

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has filed appeals in the
Bombay High Court against an order passed by the Central Information
Commission (CIC) in November, 2012 in the RIL insider trading case. SEBI
has preferred appeals in all the three matters covered in the CIC order
directing disclosure of information.
Earlier, the Bangalore-based lawyer who had sought the details under the
Right to Information Act had filed caveats in the Bombay High Court to prevent
any ex-parte stay on the matter.
On 6th November, 2012, CIC had directed the market regulator to reveal the
identities of a dozen entities involved in short-selling Reliance Petroleum
shares in the derivatives segment in November 2007. The Commission also
said the regulator had to share the details of the investigation report and the
consent order proceedings in this matter. It also said the file notings and
other relevant documents that led to the inception of the consent-order
mechanism in 2007 be revealed. SEBI has challenged this on grounds
similar to those it had raised at the CIC appeal. In all the proceedings, the
Chief Public Information Officer of SEBI had not disclosed any information,
claiming, “(a) the quasi- judicial proceedings were in progress and the
disclosure of such information would impede the process of investigation
already underway; and (b) the desired information was exempt in terms of s/s.
1(d), (h), (e), (g) and (j) of section 8 of the RTI Act.
S/s. (d) provides for exemption, under which information in the nature of
commercial confidence that could also affect the competitive position of a
third party could be withheld, it was argued.
While the appellate authority had upheld this position, CIC, the apex body
under the RTI Act, had said these exemptions did not apply in the present
case.
Pointing out that the matter had been unresolved for several years, pending
a final decision, the Commission said in its 6th November order: “Several
entities have been identified by SEBI who were involved in the insider
trading/short-sale of shares of Reliance Petroleum in 2007. The details of
these entities are still not in the public domain. After carefully considering
the facts of the case and the submissions made before us, we are inclined to
agree to the demand of the appellant that the disclosure of this information
would serve a larger public interest.”
CIC added: “If, as a regulator, SEBI took cognizance of allegations of any
breach of law, rules or regulations by one or more entities for unlawful
private gain, the information generated in the process of its investigation
needs to be disclosed in the public domain. Such disclosure would keep the
general public informed and educated about the risks they might confront in
making investments in the market. It would also prevent many entities from
adopting shortcuts to make profit through unlawful means.”
The arguments that at the end of the quasijudicial proceeding, the charged
entities might be found innocent could not be an argument against disclosing
the information, the Commission had said.
The above ruling of CIC has been challenged before Bombay H.C. by
Reliance.
Bombay H.C. on 20.12.2012 said RIL ought to have been heard by
the Chief Information Commissioner Satyendra Mishra before directing SEBI
to disclose all the details related to an insider trading case of 2007 involving
Reliance Petroleum.
A division bench of Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice Amjad
Sayed, while directing RIL to file its reply affidavit to the petition by 21st
January, 2013 said, “Wasn’t Reliance bound to be heard by CIC before
disclosure order was passed?”
“If the disclosure pertains to a third party, in this case Reliance, then the
third party should be heard before order is passed. They (Reliance) are
entitled to it,” Justice Chandrachud said. Agarwal, however, told the Court
that according to section 8(2) of the RTI Act, if the information sought is
in public interest, then it outweighs protection of the third party. “This is
a case of insider trading worth Rs. 500 crore. Penalty is up to Rs. 1,500
crore,” Agarwal argued.
In its petition, SEBI said the order was passed by Mishra and not the CIC as
whole, makes it “bad in law” and therefore “null and void and of no effect”.
Apart from Mishra, the CIC has seven other members. RIL has approached
SEBI to settle the case through the mechanism of consent process, where
an entity being investigated pays a fine without admitting the fault and the
regulator drops the case.

PART D:GOOD GOVERNANCE

• Bimal Jalan:
  Biggest weakness, that depresses me, is poverty. We have seen incomes
  rising, but inequalities are also not decreasing. Someone can say per capita
  income has gone up in the last ten years, but it’s frustrating that a country
  with a democracy, which is functioning so well and so much going in our
  favour, is at the bottom one-third of the Human Development Index.

• Narendra Modi:
  “There was a thinking in our politics that good economics is bad politics. It
  was as if good governance did not suit our politics”.
  He quickly added that the people of the country too needed good
  governance and economic development of the kind seen in Gujarat.

Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal, January 2013
Your feedback may be sent to rti@bcasonline.org/publicconcern@gmail.com

RTI / NV 57

12.12.2012

Dear Friends of RTI:

Greetings from PCGT !!!

Herewith, article for November, 57th since I started mailing/ forwarding in April 2008.

In this note, I reproduce Note of Transparency International (TI) on India’s rank in Corruption

Perception. “India’s  image  on  tackling  corruption  has  not  improved  with  Transparency  International’s  Corruption Perception Index (CPI) placing it at 94th rank out of 176 nations this year. Though India was ranked at 95th position last year, the international watchdog said it has started evaluating the positions through a different formula beginning this year and hence this cannot be compared to last year’s ranking. However, the last year’s rank of 95 would be 96 if it is calculated using the new methodology which implies there was a “slight improvement” in the index.

This year, India has a score of 36 out of 100 on a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean) which is a result of an average  of 10 studies including World Bank’s Country Performance and Institutional Assessment and Global Insight Country Risk Ratings.

India was ranked 72 among 180 countries for the first time in 2007 and since then the country’s rankings have been showing a decline. While India was placed at 87 in 2010, the position was 95 in 2011. This year, India is ranked below neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka and China, while Afghanistan, Iran, Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh fared much worse than India when it

came to corruption in public sector undertakings. Sri Lanka, which is slowly limping back to normalcy after a three-decade civil war, is ranked at 79 while China is ranked at 80. Denmark isplaced at the top spot with a score of 90 while Finland and New Zealand follow very closely.

Countries that occupy the bottom ranks in the index are Myanmar, Sudan Afghanistan, Somalia and North Korea. “Corruption is a hydra-headed monster and governments have to make efforts to tackle it from all sides. This can only happen if all stakeholders work together,” said P S Bawa, Chair of Transparency International India. Anupama Jha, Executive Director of Transparency International India, listed the efforts being taken by the watchdog to create awareness about corruption among people and steps being implemented to curb the menace. According to the 2012

CPI, majority of the 183 countries scores less than 50 — a clear indication that corruption is perceived to be rampant worldwide S K Agarwal, Co-chair of Transparency International India, hoped that the “Supreme Court will soon deliver its verdict on a PIL on debarring criminals from contesting elections”. This year, the Transparency International has updated its CPI methodology allowing for year-over-year comparisons for all editions published from this year.”

RTI is a tool to contain corruption. From the above note of TI, you will agree that we need to strengthen spread of RTI to improve India’s ranking.

r2i JAI HO !

With regards,

Narayan Varma

Jt. Managing Trustee PCGT

Encl: Article for December  2012

      RTI Clinics being run by four organizations:

BCAS FOUNDATION

7, Jolly Bhavan No. 2, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020

Email: bca@bcasonline.org     Visit us at www.bcasonline.org

runs RTI Clinic on 2nd, 3rd  & 4th  Saturdays every month between 11.00 a.m. to

13.00 p.m.

• · For more details and fixing an appointment call 61377600

PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST (PCGT)

B/2 Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 026

Email: publicconcern@gmail.com     Visit us at www.pcgt.org

runs RTI Clinic on every  Tuesday between 04.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. .

RTI Helpline No – 93 2288 2288

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2352 6426

GIANTS INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST

2nd floor, Orient Club Building, 9, Chowpatty Sea Face, Mumbai – 400 007

Email:giantwld@mtnl.net.in

Visit us at www.giantsinternational.org

runs RTI Clinic on 1st  & 3rd  Mondays of every month between 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2367 9698

INDIAN MERCHANT’S CHAMBER

IMC Building,Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020

runs RTI clinic on 1^st  & 3^rd Wednesday of every month from 4 .00pm to 6.00 pm.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 22046633

Please visit any of these clinics

Right to Information

Narayan Varma

Chartered Accountant

   Part A: Orders  of Courts

The petitioner, President’s  Secretariat,  had  preferred  writ  petition  under Article 226  of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 4th May, 2012 passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi,  whereby the appeal preferred before it by the respondent had been allowed, and directions were issued to the petitioner, to provide information under the RTI Act sought by the respondent in relation to the donations made by the President from time to time. A direction was also issued to the petitioner to take steps to publish the details  regarding the donations made i.e. the names of the recipients of the donations, their addresses and the amount of donation in each case, on the website of the President’s Secretariat at the earliest.

Information in relation to the donations made by the President from time to time was not disclosed by the President’s Secretariat by invoking section 8(1)(j) of the Act i.e. by treating the information as personal information, the disclosure of which was stated to be not in the public interest.  CIC  rejected  the  said  defence  of  the  petitioner  and  directed  the  disclosure  of  the information.

The submission of learned ASG Sh. A. S. Chandhiok firstly, was that the CIC has equated donations made by the President with subsidy, which is not the case. It was also submitted that the learned CIC has not dealt with the petitioner’s submissions founded upon section 8(1)(j) of the Act. It was also argued that the right to privacy of third parties would be breached, in case such disclosure is made. In any event, the right of third  parties/recipients of the donation, to oppose disclosure by resorting to section 11 has not been dealt with. It was argued that the matter requires reconsideration, and the petition should be admitted for further hearing by the court.

A perusal of the impugned order, showed that the donations made by the President are out of public funds. Public funds are those funds which are collected by the State from the citizens by imposition of taxes, duties, cess, services charges, etc. These funds are held by the State in trust, for being utilised for the benefit of the general public.

The reliance was placed by the petitioner on the earlier decision of the CIC dated 18-12-2009, pertaining to the  disclosure of information under the Act in relation to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. Commission had held  that it has no relevance to the facts of the present case, assuming for the sake of argument that the said decision of the CIC takes the correct view. The Delhi High Court noted that it was concerned with the disclosure vis-à-vis the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, and hence the said issue was not dealt in the present writ petition. The Court further noted: “In any event, unlike in the case of the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, in the present case, the donations have been made by the Hon’ble President of India from the tax payers’ money. Every citizen is entitled to know how the money, which is collected by the State from him by exaction has been utilised. Merely because the person making the donations happens to be the President of India, is no ground to withhold the said information. The Hon’ble President of India is not immune from the application of the Act. What is important is, that it is a public fund which is being donated by the President, and not his/her private fund placed at his/her disposal for being distributed/donated amongst the needy and deserving persons.”

The learned ASG had submitted that the disclosure of information with regard to the donations made by the President would impinge on the privacy of the persons receiving the donations, as their  financial  distress,  other  circumstances,  and  need  would  become  public.  The  Court responded:

“I do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned ASG. Firstly, I may note that the learned CIC has directed disclosure of some basic information, such as the names of the recipients of the donations, their addresses and the amount of donation made in each case. Further details i.e. the facts of each case, and justification for making donation, have not been directed to be provided. Even if further details are sought by a querist in relation to any specific instance of donation made by the President, the same would have to be dealt with in terms of the Act. There could be instances where the entire details may not be disclosed by resorting to section 8, 10 and 11 of the Act. However, it cannot be said that mere disclosure of the names, addresses and the amounts disbursed to each of the donees would infringe the protection provided to them u/s. 8(1)(j) of the Act.”

“The  donations  made  by  the  President  of  India  cannot  be  said  to  relate  to  personal information of the President. It cannot be said that the disclosure of the information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of, either the President of India, or the recipient of the donation. A person who approaches the  President, seeking a donation, can have no qualms in the disclosure of his/her name, and address, the amount received by him/her as donation or even the circumstance which compelled him or her  to  approach the First Citizen of the country to seek a donation. Such acts of generosity and magnanimity done by the President should be placed in the public domain as they would enhance the stature of the office of the President of India. In that sense, the disclosure of the information would be in the public interest as well.”

“The submission of Mr. Chandhiok that the learned CIC has confused donations with subsidy is not correct. The CIC has consciously noted that donations are being made by the President from the public fund. It is this feature which has led the learned CIC to observe that donations from out of public fund cannot be treated differently from subsidy given by the Government to the citizens under various welfare schemes. It  cannot be said that the CIC has misunderstood donations as subsidies.”

“For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. The interim order stands vacated.”

[President’s Secretariat vs. Nitish Kumar Tripathi W.P. (C ) 3382/2012 dated 14-06-2012. Citation- RTIR IV (2012) 92 (Delhi) delivered by Vipin Sanghi. J]

Part B: The RTI Act,

• Fees payable for obtaining Information:

Above one issue has been controversial and hurts/harasses many RTI applicants. At our clinics also, many persons have come with this issue.

Now  the  full  bench  of  CIC  consisting  of  chief,  Mr.  Satyanand  Mishra,  IC  Ms. Annapurna  Dixit and Ms. Deepak Sandhu have resolved the issue. ‘The instant case arose out  of an  RTI  Application  dated 07-03-2011 filed by the  Applicant,  seeking information in the form of  authenticated document  with final status of a particular railway reservation ticket for two passengers  with date of journey as 26-03-2006 and PNR no. 6156349251 from the Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway against a payment  of  IPO  of  Rs.  20/-  (including  photocopying/stationery  charges).  The  PIO responded by a letter dated 21-03-2011 stating that the subject of his letter is under control  of Kolkata PRS. However, he was also informed that the passenger journey details can be obtained from office upon deposit of verification fee of Rs. 750/- per PNR as per Railway Board’s instruction in the form of a Bank Demand Draft in favour of FA and CAO/Eastern Railway/Kolkata’.

Aggrieved with the response/s so far, the Applicant approached the Central Information Commission  with  the  Second  Appeal  dated  04-06-2011  reiterating  the  sequence  of events leading to the filing of  the Appeal. The Applicant placed reliance on the CIC decision in the case of CIC/SM/A/2011/000237/SG/12351 dated 11-05-2011 delivered by Shri Shailesh Gandhi.

“Where there are methods of giving information by any public authority which were in existence  before  the  advent  of  the  RTI  Act,  the  citizen  may  insist  on  invoking  the provisions of the RTI Act to  obtain the information. It is the citizen’s prerogative to decide under which mechanism i.e. under the method prescribed by the public authority or the RTI Act, she would like to obtain the information…….”

The Commission also noted the conflicting Decision of IC Shri A. N. Tiwari, who had held that rules of the Public authority override that of the RTI act.

It was, however, observed by the Commission during the hearing, that the issue being related to payment of such charges as per rules laid down by the Public Authorities had already been decided earlier by various Information Commissioners and that a totally conflicting view from others had been taken by Sh. Shailesh Gandhi in case No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000237/SG/12351   dated   11-0502011,   which   the   Appellant herein above has relied upon. Hence, in order to resolve the divergence of opinions in this regard and to arrive at unison in terms of the decision, the matter was referred to a  larger  Bench  comprising  the  Chief  Information  Commissioner,  Mr.  Satyanand Mishra Information Commissioners Ms. Deepak Sandhu and Mrs. Annapurna Dixit.

Full  bench  cited  the  Supreme  Court  decision  as  reported  in  Maxwell  on  the interpretation of statues:

“A general later law does not abrogate an earlier special one by mere implication. Generalia specialibus non derogant, or, in other words, where there are general words  in  a  later  Act  capable  of  reasonable  and  sensible  application  without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier and special legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so. In such cases, itis presumed to have only general cases in view, and not particular cases which have been already otherwise provided for by the special Act.”

It then also quoted from the Delhi High Court, a similar decision which also ruled:

The mere prescription of a higher charge in the other statutory mechanism (in this case section 610 of the Companies Act), than that prescribed under the RTI Act does not make any difference whatsoever……..

……..The said rules being statutory in nature and specific in their application, do not  get  overridden  by  the  rules  framed  under  the  RTI  Act  with  regard  to prescription of fee for supply of information, which is general in nature.”

[Delhi High Court decision in Registrar of Companies & Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Kr. Garg & Ors.]

The Commission  after  careful  consideration  of  the  aforesaid  decisions,  held  that  the statutory rules prescribed by any Public Authority do not get overridden by the provisions of the RTI Act and accordingly dismissed the instant Appeal while upholding the CPIO and AA’s decision. The Appellant was advised to pay the charges laid down for verification of details of PNR and obtain the information which may be provided by the PIO within two weeks of receiving the additional fees from the Appellant.

[Dr. Ishan Gosh vs. PIO, Eastern Railway: CIC/ AD/A/2011/001501 on 05-10-2012]

Part C: Information On & Around

•   Nexus between officers of BMC and professional complainants:

The alleged “criminal conduit” between executive engineer Ajit Karnik and local RTI activist Mukesh Kanakia was exposed by Municipal Commissioner, R.A. Rajeev after Ajit Karnik reportedly asked a Naupada-based  doctor to pay Rs. 2.75 lakh to Kanakia to get him to withdraw his complaint about a nursing home being set up in a residential flat.“It is a case of collusion. As an executive engineer, Karnik is tasked with the key role of scrutinizing  building plans,   verifying legal papers  and recommending sanctions for construction projects. He chose to act as  a go-between for  Kanakia and the doctor for which he would get his share of money,” Rajeev said.

The episode, however, has opened a Pandora’s Box of the goings-on in the town planning department  which  has  been  accused  of  being  the  hotbed  of  corruption  in  the  Thane corporation. Mr. Rajeev suspended Mr. Karnik.

•    Information: Now More Powerful Than Money?

The Right To Information can help people get an answer from an unresponsive bureaucracy, but what if it could do more than that? Could it clean up the system? A study by two Yale political scientists show that this might just be true.

Leonid V. Peisakhin and Paul Pinto, two PhD candidates at Yale University’s department of political science, conducted a field experiment in a Delhi slum among residents who were trying to apply for a ration card. Peisakhin and Pinto found that putting in an application for ration card and then filing an RTI request checking on its status, was almost as effective as paying a bribe. Most significantly, when poor people filed an RTI request, it erased the class disadvantage they otherwise faced, and their applications were cleared as fast  as those of middle class.

• Gift to foreign guests

The Government has spent Rs. 43.31 lakh on the Myanmar delegation that traveled to Delhi, Gurgaon and Mumbai.

The Speaker of the lower house of the Myanmar Parliament, Thura Shwe, was gifted a wooden elephant  and all others with him took back dancing peacock statuettes worth Rs.7,550; the total spend on the gifts to them was Rs. 1.11 lakh.

Similarly, Rs. 36.36 Lakh was spent during a goodwill visit of a German Delegation that journeyed to Delhi, Amritsar, Jodhpur and Mumbai. When a delegation from Cuba visited Delhi and Agra, the government spent Rs. 4.61 lakh on hosting them. “These were the years when the government had declared  its  austerity drive. But the RTI response reveals that millions of rupees were spent on putting up foreign dignitaries. All of them were flown to various parts of India and put up in five-star hotels,” said Agrawal. “One fails to understand why those who accompaning dignitaries cannot be put up in government guesthouses.”

•    Foreign trip of Sonia Gandhi:

• The  government  spent  Rs.  15.5  lakh  on  UPA  chairperson  Sonia  Gandhi’s  visit abroad between 2006 and 2011, according to data accessed through RTI.

In addition, Rs. 64.76 lakh was spent by Indian missions across the world   on the SPG which travelled with Sonia.

Sonia is Z-plus security protectee with a high level of threat perception.

• According to replies given by Indian mission to Hisar based RTI applicant Ramesh Verma, Sonia travelled to South Africa, China, Germany and Belgium, expenses for which were paid for by the government.

PART D:GOOD GOVERNANCE

Chetan Bhagat writes:

A large number of politicians have lost track of the idea that every profession in this world has ethics – it may not be illegal to break them but still is definitely wrong. A doctor must treat his patient as soon as possible, it  is  assumed, under ethical medical practice. But if he delays treatment, it would be hard to prove it illegal. A  teacher must try to teach her students well, though if she doesn’t, it won’t be illegal. Society needs ethics as much as laws to function well.

Until we, as a society, really feel graft, unethical behaviour and nepotism are huge problems and start to truly care about all of it, politicians will not change.

More than anything, we ourselves must change, and see the sense in doing so. A society without values cannot even survive or function, let alone progress. When this realisation comes to a far larger number of Indians than today, the politicians will change.

Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal, December 2012

Your feedback may be sent to rti@bcasonline.org/publicconcern@gmail.com

RTI / NV 56

30.11.2012

Dear Friends of RTI:

Greetings from PCGT !!!

Herewith, article for November, 56th since I started mailing/ forwarding in April 2008.

There has been controversy on the following issue:

Which rules prevail for Quantum of fees payable when both concerned public authority/ competent authority has rules for the same and when the relevant RTI Rules also prescribes the same.

Now full bench of 3 members of CIC has ruled “The Commission after careful consideration holds that the statutory rules prescribed by any public authority do not get overridden by the provisions of the RTI Act.”

With  this  decision,  the  Commission  not  just  cleared  the  ambiguity  over  rules  to  be  applicable  for prescribing fees for  supply of information; it has even reversed an earlier order passed by the former Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.

Arriving at its decision, the Commission also considered a 2009 decision given by former CIC A N Tiwari, who has said, “It would be entirely facetious to hold that because of the presence of the RTI Act and the Rules, public authorities are completely barred from fixing the charges at which they would try to sell or disclose information.”

To arrive at this decision, the larger Bench opined that rules framed under the RTI Act are general in nature, applicable to all kinds of applications made under the Act to seek information. The Rules made by any public authority are “Statutory in nature and specific in their application”, which does not make them overridden by the Rules made under RTI Act, opined the Bench and comprising Satyanand Mishra Chief CTC, Information Commissioners Annapurna Dixit and Deepak Sandhu

r2i JAI HO !

With regards,

Narayan Varma

Jt. Managing Trustee PCGT

Encl: Article for November  2012

   RTI Clinics being run by four organizations:

BCAS FOUNDATION

7, Jolly Bhavan No. 2, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020

Email: bca@bcasonline.org     Visit us at www.bcasonline.org

runs RTI Clinic on 2nd, 3rd  & 4th  Saturdays every month between 11.00 a.m. to

13.00 p.m.

• · For more details and fixing an appointment call 61377600

PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST (PCGT)

B/2 Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 026

Email: publicconcern@gmail.com     Visit us at www.pcgt.org

runs RTI Clinic on every  Tuesday between 04.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. .

RTI Helpline No – 93 2288 2288

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2352 6426

GIANTS INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST

2nd floor, Orient Club Building, 9, Chowpatty Sea Face, Mumbai – 400 007

Email:giantwld@mtnl.net.in

Visit us at www.giantsinternational.org

runs RTI Clinic on 1st  & 3rd  Mondays of every month between 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2367 9698

INDIAN MERCHANT’S CHAMBER

IMC Building,Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020

runs RTI clinic on 1^st  & 3^rd Wednesday of every month from 4 .00pm to 6.00 pm.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 22046633

Please visit any of these clinics

Right to Information

Narayan Varma

Chartered Accountant

   Part A: Orders  of Courts

•  Personal Information, section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005

CPIO vide letter dated 21.12.2010 stated that information relating to PAN and other information relating to  PAN  such as  address,  documents  submitted  as  proof of identity and  address  is personal  information  of  the PAN  holder and  subject  to  confidentiality u/s.  138  of  IT  Act. Moreover, the information submitted by applicant along with PAN application form is held by the department in a fiduciary capacity and is of a personal nature, hence exempt from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger  public interest warrants disclosure of such information. The CPIO also quoted several CIC orders including the case of Ms. Anumeha dated 29.04.2008.

Decision: The information sought is of a personal nature. CPIO had issued a notice u/s. 11(1) and the Globe Transport Corporation had urged the CPIO not to share any personal information with the appellant. The Commission agrees  with the stand taken by the CPIO/AA that the information sought is exempt from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(j) of the  RTI Act. [H K Sharma vs Income Tax Department, New Delhi: CIC/DS/A/2011/001229/RM: Decision dated 08-06-2012]

Facts: Vide RTI application dated 14-10-2010, the appellant had sought certified copies of IT returns and upporting documents filed by Hrishikesh Gaderia during the last 20 years. CPIO vide his letter dated 11-11-2010 informed  the appellant that a notice u/s. 11(1) had been served on Shri Gaderia, who had opposed sharing of any information pertaining to his IT returns etc.

Shri Gaderia had submitted that “the applicant has no right to demand any personal information or any information relating to his business. The information in respect of his business, insurance paid and information in  respect of taxes paid is confidential and personal in nature and hence may not be supplied to the applicant, as there will be heavy financial and business loss, if this information is supplied to the applicant or to any third person”. The CPIO held that information furnished to the IT department  is strictly in trust, being in fiduciary capacity and no public interest is involved. In view of the above, the CPIO denied information u/s. 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8 (1)(j)

Decision: In the case of Milap Choraria dated 15-06.2009, a Full Bench of the CIC had upheld the decision of  the  CPIO  and  AA  in  holding  that  the  Income  Tax  Returns  are  ‘personal  information’ exempted from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the AA has correctly applied exemption u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act from disclosure of information. The decision of the AA is therefore upheld.

[Farid     Shaikh       vs             Income   Tax         Department,  Thane:

CIC /DS/A/2011/001338/RM: Decision dated 21.06.2012]

Facts :Applicant  submitted  RTI  application  dated  31st    May  2011  before  the  CPIO,  United  India Insurance  Co.  Ltd.,  Aliganj,  Lucknow  to  obtain  information  broadly  through  five  points pertaining to time gap between date of issue of policy bond and date of transfer of the policy bond to the TPA along with copy of the agreement between Company and the TPA.

Decision:After hearing both parties and on perusal of the facts on record the Commission directed as follows:

•  Point 1: With reference to the information sought under this point by the appellant, we find that it is  necessary to strike a fine balance between disclosure of information in larger public interest and simultaneously ensure that the privacy of the policy holder is protected as per the provisions of section  8(1)(j). Therefore, Commission directs the CPIO to provide the appellant with the total number of Mediclaim policies which were dispatched to the TPA after one week of the date of issue.

•  Point 2: Respondent to provide the appellant with a copy of the agreement between

United India Insurance Co. and E-Meditak (TPA) Services Ltd., Gurgaon.

•    Point 3: Appellant insists on having specific information and is not satisfied with the term  “immediately”. Accordingly, respondent is directed to provide the appellant with copy of the Company’s rule governing this issue. Information as above to be provided within one week of the order. Commission is satisfied that the subject matter of this RTI application pertains to an issue of larger  public interest in that, it touches upon that moment in the life of the insured when he is suffering from ill health and requires urgent

support from the umbrella provided to him through the Mediclaim policy taken by him.

Therefore, under the provisions of section 4, section 8(2) and section 25(5) of the RTI Act, Commission recommends to CMD, Head Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai to give directions to all Branch Managers to put up on the Company’s website the following information:

i) Number of the Mediclaim policies (no names are required to be given). ii) Date of issue of Mediclaim Policy Bond.

iii) Date of transfer of the said policy bond to the TPA.

CPIO, Head Office is directed to follow up on this matter. Compliance be done by 16th August

2012. Such disclosure will undoubtedly strengthen the safety net to the insured and also cement the relationship of trust between the Insurance Company and insured, thereby strengthening the foundation of the Insurance Industry. Since this is a matter of larger public interest, using this as test case, Commission will review  compliance  of this order on 28.8.2012 at 3.00 PM at NIC Video conferencing, Room No. 110, 1st Floor,  Yojana  Bhavan, No 9, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Lucknow-22 6001 (UP), Contact Officer Mr Diwan Singh, Scientist-D and Contact Nos: 0522-

2238059/2298822/2298823 on which date respondent CPIO is directed to appear before the Commission via video conferencing.

[Dr Anshu Agrawal vs United India Insurance Co Ltd: CIC/DS/A/2011/003245: Decision dated 28-06-2012]

Facts: The Petitioner had submitted an application on 27.8.2008 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour, Government of India) calling for various details relating to third respondent, (i.e. Mr. Lute) who was employed as an Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Office, Akola, now working in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As many as 15 queries were made to which the Regional  Provident Fund  Commissioner,  Nagpur gave the following reply on 15-09-2008

“As to Point No.1: Copy of appointment order of Shri A.B. Lute, is in three pages. You have sought the details of salary in respect of Shri A.B. Lute, which relates to personal information, the disclosures of which has no  relationship to any public activity or interest, it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of individual,  hence denied as per the RTI provision u/s.8(1) (j) of the act.

As to Point 2: Copy of order of granting Enforcement Officer Promoting to Shri A. B. Lute, is in 3 Number. Details of salary to the post along with statutory and other deductions of Mr Lute is denied to provide, as per RTI provisions u/s. 8(1)(j) for the reason’s mentioned above.

As to Point No. 3: All the transfer orders of Shri A. B. Lute, are in 13 Number. Salary details is rejected.

As to Point No. 4: The copies of memo, show cause notice, censure issued to Mr Lute, are not being provided  on  the ground that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and has no relationship to any public activity or interest.

As Point No. 5: Copy of EPF (Staff & Conditions) Rules 1962 is in 60 pages.

As Point No. 6: Copy of return of assets and liabilities in respect of Mr. Lute cannot be provided. As to Point No. 7: Details of investment and other related details are rejected.

As to Point No. 8: Copy of report of item wise and value wise details of gifts accepted by Mr. Lute is rejected.

As to Point No. 9: Copy of details of movable, immovable properties of Mr Lute, the request to provide the same is rejected.

As Point No. 10, 11& 12 are not relevant, are not covered here.

As to Point No. 13: Certified True copy of complete enquiry proceeding initiated against Mr. Lute – It would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals and has no relationship

to any public activity or interest.

As to Point No. 14: It would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals and has no relationship to any public activity or interest.

As to Point 15: Certified true copy of second show cause notice – would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals and has no relationship to any public activity or interest.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the CIC. The CIC passed the order on18.6.2009, the operative portion of the order reads as under:

“The question for consideration is whether the aforesaid information sought by the Appellant can be treated as ‘personal information’ as defined in clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. It  may  be  pertinent  to  mention  that  this  issue  came  up  before  the  Full  Bench  of  the Commission in Appeal No.CIC/ AT/A/2008/000628  (Milap Choraria v. Central Board of Direct Taxes) and the Commission vide its decision dated 15.6.2009 held that “the Income Tax return have been rightly held to be personal information exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority, and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this information. This logic would hold good as far as the ITRs of Shri Lute is concerned. I would like to further observe that the information which has been denied to the appellant essentially falls in two parts – (i) relating to the personal matters pertaining to his services career; and (ii) Shri Lute’s assets & liabilities, movable and immovable properties and other financial aspects. I have no hesitation in holding that this information also qualifies to be the ‘personal information’ as defined in clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act and the appellant has not been able to convince the Commission that disclosure thereof is in larger public interest.”

The CIC,  after  holding  so,  directed  the  second  respondent  to  disclose  the  information  at paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (only posting details), 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 (only copies of the posting orders) to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. Further, it was held that the information sought for with regard to the other queries did not qualify for disclosure.

Aggrieved by the CIC’s said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition No.4221 of 2009, which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge and the court dismissed the same vide order dated 16.2.2010. The matter  was taken up by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.358 of 2011 before the Division Bench and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2011. Against the said order, this special leave petition has been filed. Supreme Court passed the following order:

“We are, in this case, primarily concerned with the scope and interpretation to clauses (e), (g) and (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. We are in agreement with the CIC and the Courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show  cause  notices  and  orders  of   censure/punishment  etc.  are  qualified  to  be  personal information as defined in clause (j) of section 8(1) of  the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/  officer  in  an  organisation  is  primarily  a  matter  between  the  employee  and  the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion  of  privacy  of  that  individual.  Of  course,  in  a  given  case,  if  the  Central  Public Information  Officer  or  the  State  Public  Information  Officer  or  the  Appellate  Authority  is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed, but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right”.

“The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless it involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer  or  the  Appellate  Authority  is  satisfied  that  the  larger  public  interest  justifies  the disclosure of such information.

“The  petitioner  in  the  instant  case  has  not  made  a  bona  fide  public  interest  in  seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act”.

“We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed”.

[Girish Deshpande vs CIC and others: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 27734 of 2012: Order dated 03.10.2012]

Part B: The RTI Act,

•  The Supreme Court judgement

Supreme Court’s judgment dated 13.09.2012 was summarized in October issue of BCAJ.

Now, Government has applied for its review:

Pointing out the fallacies in the judgment in Namit Sharma’s case, the Government said that it was settled principle that the court could not direct the legislature to amend the law, the RTI Act, except where the law was silent on a particular subject.

PM on RTI vs Individual privacy

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called for restricting citizens’ right to information (RTI), if it infringes upon ‘Individual privacy’. Sources in the government said the prime minister took up the issue after Gujarat Chief  Minister Narendra Modi sought details of Congress Chief Sonia Gandhi’s foreign travel bills.

Manmohan Singh, addressing the annual convention  of Information  Commissioners on 12thOctober,  said,  ’Citizens’  right  to  know  should  definitely  be  circumscribed  if  disclosure  of information encroaches upon someone’s personal privacy”.

Highlighting concerns over possible infringement of personal privacy when the government provided information under the RTI Act, 2005, he also called for a fine balance between right to information and right to privacy, describing the dichotomy as “a complicated question”.

He said there were concerns about “frivolous and vexatious use” of the law in demanding information, the disclosure of which cannot possibly serve any public purpose. Concerns have also been raised regarding possible infringement of personal privacy while providing information under the RTI Act. He further said:

“There is a fine balance required to be maintained between the RTI and the right to privacy, which stems out of the fundamental rights to life and liberty. This important legislation should not be only about criticising, ridiculing, and running down public authorities. RTI should be more about  promoting transparency and accountability, spreading information and awareness and empowering the citizen”.

TOI view: Need  Transparency

Where the right to information intrudes into an area that is strictly private and does not impinge on public interest, clearly it must be circumscribed. However, there will be a lot of grey areas where the right to information will be in conflict. In such situations, we would suggest that the law must err on the side of transparency. Those in public office – which is where the RTI Act applies – must accept that their right to privacy cannot be an absolute right and must bow to the larger public interest. Any other method of striking the balance between the two  potentially conflicting rights would be against the spirit of true democracy and transparency.

Part C: Information On & Around

• Women getting eloped

In Mumbai recently police decided to close a missing case of a 19 year-old, after they found that she had eloped  with her lover, whom she subsequently married. Later, the couple even had a child.

This is not a solitary case, said the police, who feel the difficulty in tracing persons reported “missing” often stems from the fact that most of them are women (in the 11-25 age group), who elope with their lovers. Data  procured by RTI activist Chetan Kothari showed that till July,2,247, females in the age group of 11 to 25 were reported missing.

The police managed to trace 1,924, of them and found that many had married the person they eloped with. “We have little role to play in cases where the person is a major: We inform their family about the situation and  close the case after informing our superior officer,” said an official.

•   Former President Pratibha Patil:

Facing  embarrassments  has  become  the  rule  rather  than  an  exception  for  former  president Pratibha Patil. After she relinquished office a month ago, it appeared that she will now lead a controversy-free life.  But no  such luck. A New  Delhi- based RTI activist’s query on  gifts received by the Rashtrapati Bhavan during Patil’s tenure has stirred up a fresh controversy. It has come to light that well over 155 precious gifts were given to an  Amravati-based education society during Patil’s tenure as president. According to reports, the society is headed by Patil’s legislator son, Rajendrasinh Shekhawat. In view of the row over the status of the gifts, now Rashtrapati Bhavan has informed the RTI activist that the education society has been asked to return  all  the  gifts  before  January  2013.  Rashtrapati  Bhavan  has  been  locked  in  several controversies ever since Patil took charge. A month after she took over, there was a row over her photographs. It was felt that a photograph, released to government offices, was different from her actual image. Her foreign visits also made headlines, not just because she had visited the largest number of countries, but that on most of her tours, she was accompanied by her grandchildren. Further, it was found that compared to her predecessors, she had visited her home state on a maximum number of occasions. As her five-year tenure came to an end in June, there was an unprecedented row over her post-retirement home. Ultimately, she had to settle for a bungalow offered by the state government in Pune.

•   Rahul Gandhi Foreign Trip and Time Capsule:

Even as controversy rages on about Sonia Gandhi’s foreign travels, a leading academic in the national capital has said that her efforts to get details of Rahul Gandhi’s trips have also met with silence.

Madhu Purnima Kishwar, a senior fellow at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, said she had filed two RTI applications.

The first one was regarding the Time Capsule buried by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency. I approached every  possible official agency likely to be in the know with an RTI application, including  the  PMO.  Each  one  expressed  ignorance  about  the  Time  Capsule.  My appeal  is pending with the IC,” she said.

The second “pertains to Rahul Gandhi’s foreign trips. I filed this RTI on 16.04.2012”. Kishwar said she filed the RTI on Rahul’s foreign travels after a chance encounter with a mid-level Congress leader, who spoke about huge number of foreign trips by the Gandhi scion.

•    UPA’s anniversary dinner

The UPA government spent more than Rs. 28  lakh on its third-anniversary bash, with the celebration costing roughly Rs. 7,700 a head.

The bash,  on  22nd  May  this  year,  was  followed  by  the  government  announcing  austerity measures. Although the catering was privately supplied and there were several starters and main courses on offer, the Rs. 7,700 a head price tag is eye catching.

The dinner at 7 Race Course Road, was attended by 375 guests, including Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha MPs, leaders of political parties, members of the Congress Working Committee and media persons. Hosted by PM Manmohan Singh, prominent on the guest list were Congress president Sonia Gandhi, senior leaders from the BJP, Samajwadi Party and Left parties.

According to information accessed through RTI filed by Hisar-based applicant Ramesh Verma, the Prime Minister’s Office spent Rs. 28,95,503 for the event. Of this, Rs. 11.34 lakh was the catering, Rs. 14.42 lakh was  spent on tentage, Rs. 2.92 lakh on electricity and Rs. 24,444 on flowers.

The menu  included  jhinga  kasundi,  gosht  burrah  kebab,  fish  Malabari,  chicken  chettinad, baghare baingan, dum aloo kashmiri, beans gajar matar, keoti dal, biryani and a bread basket.

PART D:GOOD GOVERNANCE

PM said

Mindless atmosphere of negativity and pessimism that is sought to be created over the issue of corruption can do us no good.

Deepak Parekh Panel

The panel, headed by banker Deepak Parekh, submitted its interim report to Prime Minister

Manmohan Singh in the first week of October. The report lays down the detailed plan for every sector, flagging the railway for special attention.

ET’s View on it:

A call to Governance

When finance professionals talk of earth excavating blades attached to long wooden handles, ordinary folk translate that into spade. What the Deepak Parekh report essentially says is that, if the government continues to  abdicate its basic job of governance, India will fail to build the infrastructure it so badly needs. This is sound sense, even if not quite blinding new insight. The manner in which it calls for ways to circumvent state monopoly in coal, instead of calling for its abolition, shows too much compromise with political inertia. The time is ripe to  call for bold political moves to get growth going again, in every sector.

PM on corruption

Ethical and responsible behaviour needs to become the cornerstone of corporate behaviour. Large companies have to set the pace in this regard. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the government was working to amend existing laws to punish bribery in the private sector, saying economic reforms had created new opportunities for corruption and there was need to focus on the “supply side” of corruption.

The PM said the government would provide a “clear and unambiguous” definition of  corruption’ to cover corruption on the supply side as well, implying that those guilty of bribery in the private sector would be treated on par with public servants accused of graft.

Global Practices

UK –  Bribery Act, 2010, described as  toughest  antigraft legislation in the world.  Involves maximum of 10 years’ jail, unlimited fine, confiscation of property, disqualification of directors. It allows prosecution of company with links to UK, regardless of where crime occurred.

US – Different states have different laws. Wisconsin and other states have tough laws against corporates bribing public officials. Ethics code includes conflict-of-interest law.

FM and CAG :

Finance minister P Chidambaram says he will work to dispel the impression that thegovernment and CAG are  adversaries. Speaking at a conference of accountant generals, organised by the CAG, Finance minister said the national auditor has raised the issue of good governance, which the government was obliged to address.

“Unfortunately, however, some dissonance has crept into the public discourse, and for reasons

which are inexplicable, the CAG and the government have been cast as adversarial to each

other,” CAG Vinod Rai defended the scrutiny of government policy, saying that the benchmark against which the auditors examine and assess the performance of the departments are not created by them (auditors), but by the  government itself. “We do not for a moment think that it is our business to tell the government what to do and what not to do”.

Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal, November 2012

Your feedback may be sent to rti@bcasonline.org/publicconcern@gmail.com

Centre_For_Pil_&_Anr_vs_Union_Of_India_&_Anr_on_3_March,_2011

RTI / NV 55

22.10.2012

Dear Friends of RTI:

Greetings from PCGT !!!

Herewith, article for October, 55^th since I started mailing/ forwarding in April 2008.

In RTI/54 I had written about the Supreme Court judgment (summarized version herewith in October issue of BCAJ as attached)

All activists and many others were worried for the judgment’s effect on functioning of RTI at all Information Commissions. Many requested DOPT to apply for its review.

Now, as reported in TOI of 12.10.2012, Government has applied for the review. Text of TOI is reproduced hereunder:

The Centre has said the apex court’s judgment directing appointment of retired SC and HC judges as heads of Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions appear to violate the Right to Information Act and settled principles of law.

Moving a petition seeking review of the Court’s September 13 judgment interpreting the nature and function of CIC and SICs as well as the qualifications needed for candidates heading them, the government said before rendering the judgment, the apex court did not consider the arguments advanced on behalf of the Centre or its written submissions on the issue

Pointing out the fallacies in the judgment in Namit Sharma’s case, the Government said it was settled principle that the court could not direct the legislature to amend the law, the RTI Act, except where the law was silent on a particular subject.

r2i JAI HO !

With regards,

Narayan Varma

Jt. Managing Trustee PCGT

Encl: Article for October 2012

RTI Clinics being run by four organizations:

BCAS FOUNDATION

7, Jolly Bhavan No. 2, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020

Email: bca@bcasonline.org Visit us at www.bcasonline.org

runs RTI Clinic on 2nd, 3rd & 4th Saturdays every month between 11.00 a.m. to

13.00 p.m.

• · For more details and fixing an appointment call 61377600

PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST (PCGT)

B/2 Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 026

Email: publicconcern@gmail.com Visit us at www.pcgt.org

runs RTI Clinic on every Tuesday between 04.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. .

RTI Helpline No – 93 2288 2288

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2352 6426

GIANTS INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST

2nd floor, Orient Club Building, 9, Chowpatty Sea Face, Mumbai – 400 007

Email:giantwld@mtnl.net.in

Visit us at www.giantsinternational.org

runs RTI Clinic on 1st & 3rd Mondays of every month between 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2367 9698

INDIAN MERCHANT’S CHAMBER

IMC Building,Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020

runs RTI clinic on 1^st & 3^rd Wednesday of every month from 4 .00pm to 6.00 pm.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 22046633

Please visit any of these clinics

Right to Information

Narayan Varma

Chartered Accountant

Part A: Judgment of the Supreme Court

RTI operation being annihilated:

On 13th September, 2012, the Supreme Court of India (SC) delivered a judgment which, though a landmark on the subject of RTI, has nearly stopped the operation of RTI at various Commissions.

It is a judgment running into 107 para. First, nearly 50 pages analyse the RTI Act. Some of the paragraphs/ sentences therein are:

The value of any freedom is determined by the extent to which the citizens are able to enjoy such freedom. Ours is a constitutional democracy and it is axiomatic that citizens have the right to know about the affairs of the Government which, having been elected by them, seeks to formulate some policies of governance aimed at their welfare. However, like any other freedom, this freedom also has limitations. It is a settled proposition that the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (for short ‘the Constitution’) encompasses the right to impart and receive information. The Right to Information has been stated to be one of the important facets of proper governance. With the passage of time, this concept has not only developed in the field of law, but also has attained new dimensions in its application. The legal principle of ‘A man’s house is his castle.The midnight knock by the police bully breaking into the peace of citizen’s home is outrageous in law’, stated by Edward

Coke has been explained by Justice Douglas as follows:

“The free State offers what a police state denies- the privacy of the home, the dignity

and peace of mind of the individual. That precious right to be left alone is violated once the police enter our conversations.”

The foundation of the power of judicial review, as explained by a nine-judge’s Bench in the case of Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association & Ors vs Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 441], is the theory that the Constitution which is the fundamental law of the land, is the ‘will’ of the ‘people’, while a statute is only the creation of the elected representatives of the people; when, therefore, the ‘will’ of the legislature as declared in the statute, stands in opposition to that of the people as declared in the Constitution – the ‘will’ of the people must prevail. It is the Constitution which is Supreme in India and not the Parliament.

Certain principles have often been reiterated by this Court, while dealing with the constitutionality of a provision or a statute. Even in the case of Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1986) 2 SCC 249] the Court stated that whether it is the Constitution that is expounded or the constitutional validity of the constitution as a statute that is considered, a cardinal rule is to look to the preamble of the guiding light and to the Directive Principles of State Policy as the Book of Interpretation. The Constitution being sui generis, these are the factors of distant vision that help in the determination of the constitutional issues.

The freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. It is a safely valve.

Justice V R Krishna Iyer in his book “Freedom of Information” expressed the view:

“The right to information is a right incidental to the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression. The international movement to include it in the legal system gained prominence in 1946 with General Assembly of the United Nations declaring freedom of information to be a fundamental human right and a touchstone for all other liberties

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of information and expression; this right includes freedom

to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

It may be a coincidence that Article 19 of the Indian Constitution also provides every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression.

However, the word ‘information’ is conspicuously absent. But, as the highest Court has explicated, the right of information is integral to freedom of expression.

The Court then dealt with scheme of the Act of 2005 (comparative Analysis of Act of 2002 and Act of 2005)

To restrict the length of the Article, though very interesting, the same is not being reported here.

The Court then dealt with the writ matter of validity of the provisions under the RTI Act pertaining to appointment of the Central Information Commissioners (section 12) and of the State Information Commissioners (section 15).

“In order to examine the constitutionality of these provisions, let us state the parameters which would finally help the Court in determining such questions”.

the interest of the institution and enhancing the public confidence. A three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Centre for PIL and Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. [(2011) 4 SCC 1] had also adopted a similar approach and with respect we reiterate the same.

RTI / NV 54
28.09.2012

Dear Friends of RTI:

Greetings from PCGT !!!

Herewith, article for September, 54th since I started mailing/ forwarding in April 2008.

Sedition

You must have read about Aseem Trivedi who was jailed in Arthur Road jail in
Mumbai on charges of Sedition. We are second largest democracy in the world
but our authorities do not restrict personal freedom when anyone writes, draws
cartoons to reflect on corruption prevailing in the country and hold the
Government (politicians) accountable for the same. Government is out to
silence every voice of dissent, every note of criticism.
On Maharashtra Government assuming that charge of sedition will be dropped
against Aseem Trivedi, he was released and he drew a fresh cartoon, writing
under it. “Cartoons are a mirror of the society, The Government tried to smash
the mirror by arresting me”.

Very effective
words, worth
pondering on.
RTI is being
annihilated

Shockingly, the news item in T. of I. on 18.08.2012 states that the
Supreme Court has ruled that: “Only a Chief Justice should be the
Chief Information Commissioner

The Court also directed that the Information Commission at all levels “shall
henceforth work in benches of two members each. One of them being a judicial
Member whiles the other an expert member”.

It appears that the Commissions shall become non-operative and many have
suspended the hearings.

Let us hope something practical is announced soon otherwise pending appeals
shall further mount at all commissions in the country.

Analysis of the SC judgment will be reported in the next issue of BCAJ.

r2i JAI HO !

With regards,

Narayan Varma
Jt. Managing Trustee PCGT

Encl: Article for September 2012

RTI Clinics being run by four organizations:

BCAS FOUNDATION

7, Jolly Bhavan No. 2, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020
Email: bca@bcasonline.org Visit us at www.bcasonline.org
runs RTI Clinic on 2nd, 3rd & 4th Saturdays every month between 11.00 a.m.
to
13.00 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 61377600

PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST (PCGT)

B/2 Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 026
Email: publicconcern@gmail.com Visit us at www.pcgt.org
runs RTI Clinic on every Tuesday between 04.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. .
RTI Helpline No – 93 2288 2288

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2352 6426

GIANTS INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST

2nd floor, Orient Club Building, 9, Chowpatty Sea Face, Mumbai – 400 007
Email:giantwld@mtnl.net.in
Visit us at www.giantsinternational.org
runs RTI Clinic on 1st & 3rd Mondays of every month between 4.30 p.m. to
6.30 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2367 9698

INDIAN MERCHANT’S CHAMBER

IMC Building,Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020
runs RTI clinic on 1st & 3rd Wednesday of every month from 4 .00pm to 6.00
pm.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 22046633

Please visit any of these clinics

Right to Information

Narayan Varma

Chartered Accountant

PartA: Orders of Courts

Information: Section 2(f) of the RTI Act

?? Information is defined u/s 2(f) as under:

“Information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails,
opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports,
papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information
relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other
law for the time being in force.

Four orders on various points connected with “Information” are briefly reproduced
hereunder:

The applicant in most of his queries, wanted to know about the reasons why the
Central Vigilance Officers (CVOs) of a number of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs)
are not working/ Functioning – he has assumed that the CVOs of PSUs are not
functioning properly and Wants the CPIO of the CVC to provide the reasons – the
Commission held that the right to information cannot be used to seek either confirmation
or rebuttal of one’s personal assumption, as in this case. Information has been defined in
section 2(f) to mean any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions,
advices, press releases, circulars etc.Wherever a citizen seeks any information, it must be
contained in some records or file or documents in the possession of the public authority
concerned. Therefore, the response of the CPIO of the CVC and other CPIOs, as well as
that of the Appellate Authority appears to be absolutely in order.

[Omprakash Kashiram vs CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission – Order dated
12.03.2012 Citation: RTI III (2012) 140 (CIC)]

Appellant submitted RTI application dated 14th August 2010 before the CPIO, Prime ter’s Office, New Delhi, seeking the details of functioning of Punjab and Sindh Bank through 44 points.

Decision Notice

The Commission notices that the Appellant has not asked for any specific information in
his RTI Application and/or second appeal to the Commission, to be given by the
Respondent Public Authority.

The Appellant was given an opportunity to explain the precise information sought, but
has chosen not to attend the hearing. Also, the Appellant has not provided a copy of the
Second appeal to the Respondents as per the RTI Act.

Thus, based on the submissions of the Respondents, the Commission is satisfied that
information as held by the Respondents has been provided to the Appellant.

The Commission through this Order would also like to highlight the abuse of
Transparency Act by the Appellant in asking voluminous questions under the Act (44
questions in this case) from the Public Authority and thereby dissipating the scarce
resources of the Public Authority without meeting any larger public interest objective.

The Supreme Court in the case Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr v Aditya
Bandopadhyay & Ors/ CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6454 OF 2011 [RTIR II (2011) 242 (SC)],
has stated:

“Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all
and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning
of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive, as it
will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive
getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collection and furnishing
information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to
obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and
harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or
intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a
scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in
collecting and furnishing information to applicants, instead of discharging their regular
duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI act and the pressure of the authorities under
the RTI act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing ‘information
furnishing’, at the cost of their normal and regular duties”.

The Commission, in the light of the above observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, would like to inform the Appellant to ask a specific and limited question under the
RTI Act, 2005 in the future and to use his cherished right given under the Transparency
Act with greater responsibility.

[Kundan Kumar Sinha vs Department of Financial Services, New Delhi - Order dated
26.04.2012: Citation: RTIR II (2012) 185 (CIC)]

Briefly, the fact that emerged during the hearing is that the appellant was in the
post of Sr. Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs. 6,300/-.The post of Jr. Engineer was
advertised in the scale of Rs. 8,000/-. The appellant was selected for the post of
Sr. Assistant. Before he joined, the post was down-graded to the scale of Rs.
6,300/-. The appellant after having joined the new post, has certain issues
regarding promotion in that cadre.

Having heard the submissions of the parties, the Commission observes that the appellant
has grievances regarding the pay scale. The RTI is not the forum for redressal of
grievances. The appellant, in case he so desires, may file his grievance petition before the
competent authority. As far as providing information under the RTI Act is concerned,
requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided
to the appellant by the respondent.

[Vipin Prakash vs Airports Authority of India - Order dated 23.03.2012: Citation:
RTIR II (2012) 150(CIC)]

? Background

The Applicant filed his RTI application on 24.12.2010 with the PIO Railway Board
stating that his pay fixation has been done incorrectly and requesting the PIO to rectify
the same. He also sought a copy of the pay fixation chart of his Junior, one Mr Ram, who
is drawing a higher salary than him. The PIO provided some information, dissatisfied
with which the Applicant filed his first appeal seeking the rule based on which his salary
was fixed. The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal on 6.09.2011 holding that
information provided is complete and as available in the records. The Applicant
thereafter filed his second appeal stating that he is not satisfied with the information.

Decision

The Appellant requested the Commission during the hearing to direct the public
Authorities to fix his pay correctly. The Commission, however, holds that the Appellant
is not seeking any information as available in the records and therefore the relief being
sought by him cannot be granted. It is however, recommended that the PIO clarify to the
Appellant about how his pay has been fixed based on the 6th Pay Commission
recommendations and also to provide him with a copy of his pay fixation chart preferably
by 15th May 2012.

The appeal is disposed of with the above recommendation and the case is closed.

[Rajendra Singh vs Bhavan, New Delhi-Order dated 11.04.2012: Citation: RTIR II
(2012) 177 (CIC)]

Part B: The RTI Act,

G.S.R. 603 (E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 27 of the Right to Information,2005 (22 of 2005) and in supersession of
the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 and the
Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 except as respects
things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central
Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:-

1. Short Title and commencement -
(1) These rules may be called the Right to information Rules, 2012. (2) They shall
come into Force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. Definitions – In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, -
[1] “Act” means the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005);

[2] “Commission” means the Central Information Commission as constituted under s/s
(1) of section 12 of the Act.

[3] “First Appellate Authority” means an officer in the public authority who is senior in
rank to the Central Public Information Officer to whom an appeal under s/s (1) of section
19 of the Act lies;

[4] “Registrar” mean officers of the Commission so designated and includes an
Additional
Registrar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar;

[5] “Section” means a section of the Act;

[6] all other words and expressions used herein but not defined in the rules shall have the
same meanings assigned to them in the Act.

3. Application Fee – An application under s/s (1) of section 6 of the Act shall be
accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily not contain more than five
hundred words, excluding annexures, containing address of the Central Public
Information Officer and that of the applicant.

Provided that no application shall be rejected only on the ground that it contains more
than five hundred words.
4. Fees for providing information – Fee for providing under s/s (4) of section 4 and s/s (1)
and

(5) of section 7 of the Act shall be charged at the following rates, namely:-

[3] Rs. 2 for each page in A-3 size or smaller size paper;
[4] actual cost or price of a photocopy in larger size paper;
[5] actual cost or price for samples or models;
[6] Rs. 50 per diskette or floppy:
[7] price fixed for a publication or Rs. 2 per page of photocopy for extracts from the
publication;
[8]no fee for inspection of records for the first hour of inspection and a fee of rupees 5
for
each subsequent hour or fraction thereof; and
(g) so much of postal charge involved in supply of information that exceeds fifty rupees.

5. Exemption from Payment of Fee – No fee under rule 3 and 4 shall be charged from any
person Who is below poverty line provided a copy of the certificate issued by the
appropriate Government in this regard is submitted along with the application.

6. Mode of Payment of fee – Fees under these rules may be paid in any of the following
manner, namely

(a) in cash, to the public authority or to the Central Assistant Public Information
Officer of the public authority, as the case may be, against a proper receipt; or

(b) by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the
Accounts Officer of the public authority; or

(c) by electronic means to the Accounts Officer of the public authority, if facility for
receiving fees through electronic means is available with the public authority.

7. Appointment of Secretary to the Commission -The Central Government shall appoint
an officer not below the rank of Additional Secretary to the Government of India as
Secretary to the Commission.

8. Appeal to the Commission – Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the First
Appellate Authority or by non-disposal of his appeal by the First Appellate Authority,
may file an appeal to the Commission in the format given in the Appendix and shall be
accompanied by the following documents, duly authenticated and verified by the
appellant, namely:-

(i) a copy of the application submitted to the Central Public Information Officer;

(ii) a copy of the reply received, if any, from the Central Public Information
Officer;

(iii) a copy of the appeal made to the First Appellate Authority;

(iv) a copy of the Order received, if any, from the First Appellate Authority;

(v) copies of other documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in his
appeal;

(vi) an index of the documents referred to in the appeal.

9. Return of Appeal – An appeal may be returned to the appellant, if it is not accompanied
by the documents as specified in Rule 8, for removing the deficiencies and filing the
appeal complete in all respects.

10. Process of appeal – (1) On receipt of an appeal, if the Commission is not satisfied that
it is a fit case to proceed with, it may, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the
appellant and after recording its reasons, dismiss the appeal:
Provided that no appeal shall be dismissed only on the ground that it has not been made
in the specified format if it is accompanied by documents as specified in rule 8.

(2) The Commision shall not consider an appeal unless it is satisfied that the appellant
has availed of all the remedies available to him under the Act.

(3) For the purposes of sub-rule (2), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the
remedies available to him under the Act:

(a) if he had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate
Authority or any other person competent to pass order on such appeal had made a final
order on the appeal; or

(b) where no final order has been made by the First Appellate Authority with regard to
the appeal preferred, and a period of forty five days from the date on which such appeal
was preferred, has elapsed.

11. Procedure for deciding appeals – The commission, while deciding an appeal may –

(i) receive oral or written evidence on oath or on affidavit from concerned or interested
person,

(ii) peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof,

(iii) inquire through authorised officer further details or facts,

(iv) hear Central Public Information Officer, Central Assistant Public Information
Officer, or such person against whose action the appeal is preferred, as the case
maybe,

(v) hear third party ,and

(vi) receive evidence on affidavits from Central Public Information Officer, Central
Assistant Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority and such other person
against whom the appeal lies or the third party.

12. Presence of the appellant before the Commission – (1) The appellant shall be
informed of the date at least seven clear days before the date of hearing.

(2) The appellant may be present in person or through his duly authorised
representative or through video conferencing, if the facility of video conferencing
is available, at the time of hearing of the appeal by the Commission.

(3) Where the Commission is satisfied that the circumstances exist due to which the
appellant
is unable to attend the hearing, then, the Commission may afford the appellant another
opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken or take any other appropriate
action as it may deem fit.

13. Presentation by the Public Authority – The public authority may authorise any
representative or any of its officers to present its case.

14. Service of notice by Commission-The Commission may issue the notice by
name, which shall be served in any of the following modes, namely :-

(i) service by the party itself;

(II) by hand delivery (dasti) through Process Server;

(III) by registered post with acknowledgement due;

(iv) by electronic mail in case electronic address is available.

15. Order of the Commission – The order of the Commission shall be in writing
and issued under the seal of the Commission, duly authenticated by the Registrar
or any other
officer authorised by the Commission for this purpose.

(F.No.1/35/2009-IR)
MANOJ JOSHI, Jt. Secy

Part C: Information On & Around

? ?Fire in Home Ministry:

The fire that broke out at the union home ministry in June was caused by a burning bidi
or cigarette stub thrown on waste paper basket, says the electrical division of Central
Public Works Department (CPWD) in a reply to an RTI application.

The reply to an RTI application filed by Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga to seek information on
the incident says that an area just above the place where the fire started was used by some
people for smoking.

Ratnakar Gaikwad – Chief SIC, Maharashtra Former Chief Secretary is now on
the other side of the fence and has a real-life experience of red-tapism in the
government. A year ago, he was metropolitan commissioner, and subsequently,
when he was appointed chief secretary, even before he reached Mantralaya to take
over reins of the bureaucracy, a huge nameplate in Marathi and English was
already fixed. It’s now more than a month that he has been appointed chief
information commissioner, but the public works department is yet to fix the
nameplate. Gaikwad’s office sent reminders to the PWD, but there was no
response. No doubt, a nameplate is a minor issue, but the fact that while the
government set up the commissionerate under the Right to Information Act, it has
failed to provide adequate infrastructure for implementation of the land mark
legislation in letter and spirit.

Besides the fact that two key posts of the commissioners are vacant for long, no steps
were taken to educate heads of the department on provisions of the RTI Act. By and
large, officials appointed as public information officers or deputed before commissioners
for first and second appeals are in the dark on provisions of the Act, so while the law was
in force, the basic purpose of enacting the legislation has been defeated.

Significantly, Gaikwad is the first Chief Information Commissioner who has taken up
key pending issues with the State Government and enforcing agencies. The former chief
secretary has brought to the notice of all heads of departments and statutory organisation
the need to review pending applications under the Act and steps to be taken for providing
basic information to people.

? ?Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act:

Attendance of ministers in cabinet meetings cannot be withheld from information seekers
as it does not form part of deliberations of the council of ministers, the Central
Information Commission has held. Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra
directed the Cabinet Secretariat to provide attendance of all the ministers during cabinet
meetings to RTI applicant Abhishek Shukla who is seeking details of cabinet meetings
and list of absentee ministers which was refused by the Cabinet Secretariat.
The Cabinet Secretariat gave a list of meetings but refused to give attendance of ministers
citing section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act which allows exemption of Cabinet papers including
records of deliberations of ministers, secretaries and other officers.

? Delay in calling fire department:

Fire that gutted the Sara-Sahara destroying goods worth Rs. 200 crore, could well have
been lesser in magnitude, had 23 crucial minutes not been wasted, a Right to Information
(RTI) query to the Chief Fire Officer, reveals.

The report obtained by RTI activist Chetan Kothari shows that contributory factors led to
the fire spreading, according to the submission of fire brigade officials. It reveals that fire
started in an illegal stall outside the market and was first noticed by security staff from
the Sara Global Market Compound (which houses Sara Sahara and Yara shopping
centers) who tried dousing it with an empty fire extinguisher.

The fire brigade observed that the stalls outside the markets drew electric supply from
illegal sources and the fire may have originated due to an electric spark coming into
contact with combustible material.

PART D:GOOD GOVERNANCE

In the address to the nation on the Independence Day (on 14.08.2012) president
Pranab Mukherjee notes:

Anger against the bitter pandemic of corruption is legitimate, as is the protest
against this plague that is eroding the capability and potential of our nation.
There are times when people lose their patience but it cannot become an
excuse for an assault on our democratic institutions.

The institutes are the interface between principles and the people. Our institutions may
have suffered the weariness of time; the answer is not to destroy what has been built, but
to re-engineer them so that they become stronger than before. Institutions are the
guardians of our liberty,” he said. Asserting that legislation cannot be taken away from
legislature, Mukherjee said the people have a right to express their discontent.

“But we must also understand that legislation cannot be wrenched away from the
legislature or justice from the judiciary,” he said.

PM addressing the nation on India’s 66th Independence Day from the Red Fort:

On the issue of graft, the PM said his government would take steps to battle
PART D:GOOD GOVERNANCE
Corruption.“We will continue our efforts to bring more transparency and
accountability in the work of public servants and to reduce corruption” , he said.

Hard to believe that auction will end Corruption: SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the level of corruption and illegal mining in the
country has not escaped its attention but asked whether it could limit the government’s
statutory options in allocating natural resources to auction method only.

Appearing for 2G scam, petitioner NGO Center for Public Interest Litigation, advocate
Shanti Bhushan said that since the SC ordered auction to be the sole method for
allocation of natural resources and cancelled 122 spectrum licences, there had been no
new scam in the country.

“But if the SC clarifies the 2G judgment and allows other methods for allocation of
natural resources, it would open a window for scams to take place and then people would
blame the judiciary for this,” he said while requesting the court to return the presidential
reference unanswered.

A bench said, “We are conscious of what is going on in the country and the years of
corruption in coal mining. Whenever we find corruption in awarding of contracts, we
will surely strike it down. But, can we limit the government’s options and prescribe
that auction alone should be the method?

” Presumption of constitutionality applies to every government and legislative action. So
if we read auction into every government contract, are we putting a limitation? Are we
entitled to prescribe a limitation? Do we proceed on the basis that if the 2G judgment laid
down law is universally applicable, then all other methods of allocation provided in
statutes are illegal.

Bhushan said, “Alienation of valuable and scarce natural resources, which belonged to
people of India and the government being only a trustee, when allotted to private parties for
commercial exploitation must be through auction to provide equal opportunity to
everyone to bid for it and the only constitutional method to do so will be auction”.

Let’s not create Artificial Barriers, says Aruna Roy in the article published in T of
I of 17.08.2012:

We need to appreciate and nurture the very important role that will always be
performed by sociopolitical movement for the Right to Information,and the Right
to Work grew out of small but intense struggles of very ordinary people. Issues
had to be understood, analysed and internalised to prepare the grounds to frame an
appropriate law. The fact remains that it was Parliament that passed the law.
However, the implementation of radical enactments at the grassroots where
dreams turn to reality is a continual challenge. The political class would do well
to return to its socio-political base, and “civil society” to realise the intrinsic value
in politics. Democracy demands a dialectical relationship between the two, to
make promises real.

Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal, September 2012
Your feedback may be sent to rti@bcasonline.org/publicconcern@gmail.com

RTI / NV 53
18.08.2012
Dear Friends of RTI:

Greetings from PCGT !!!
Herewith, article for September, 53rd since I started mailing/ forwarding in
April 2008.
Communication addressed by CSIC, Mr. Ratnakar Gaikwad:

It is dated 18.06.2012 and is addressed to Chief Secretary, Government of
Maharashtra.

Hereunder are its contents translated in English:

On taking a review of the implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005
by various public authorities in the last seven years, it is noticed that the
implementation has not been adequate and effective as required by the law. As
the appropriate Government, at the State level i.e. various administrative
departments in the ministries some work is pending. Similarly, some work is
pending with majority of public authorities which are subordinate to
administrative departments in each ministry. These are specified below:

In terms of section 19(8), I request you to hold a meeting at your level
of all secretaries to formulate a time bound action plan for effective
implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and make arrangements
for coordination for its implementation at your level.

1. Appropriate Government – Pending work at the level of the State
Government:

• To develop a comprehensive RTI portal of the State for Right to

Information.

• In terms of section 26, for making aware persons from weaker sections

about the right to information, the appropriate Government to develop and
implement necessary programmes, training for public awareness, education,
campaigns.

• To prepare guidelines in local language for working of all the departments.

• To make strict implementation of Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005.

• To make a list of all public authorities subordinate to various

administrative departments in various ministries, their public information
officers and appellate authorities and to make it available on the States
website.

• Public Information Officers and public authorities of the State Departments

have to enter the account head after the application fee and information fee
has been paid. However, it cannot be withdrawn for the expenditure
required to be incurred for providing the information. Difficulties in respect
of this need to be solved.

• At the district level, the Collector should be appointed as the Nodal Officer.

He should hold a meeting of the heads of all public institutions in the
district and review the implementation of section 4(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.
Similar directions should be given to the Municipal Commissioners.

2. Pending work at the level of Public Institutions:

• In terms of section 4(1)(a) action to be taken to make all the office records

catalogued and indexed.

• In terms of section 4(1)(b) action to be taken to publish information in

respect of 17 items.

• To amend those rules, regulations and directions of the

State Government provisions which are at variance with rules, regulations
and directions of the Central Government.

• In the offices of all public authorities at prominent place, visible to the

public, boards should be put up informing place where information about 17
items published in terms of section 4(1)(b) is available and the names of
public information officers and appellate authorities.

• To use on all official stationery the RTI logo published by the Central

Government.

Deficiencies in the implementation of this Act and necessary remedies
at the State level have been given in the circulars issued from time to time by
the Government. However, there has not been any substantial improvement. I
request you that at your level hold monthly meetings to take
urgent action, make a time bound action plan and coordinate the
implementation; and keep the Commission informed about the action taken by
you.

• Central RTI (Amendment) Rules 2012

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances And Pensions (Department of
Personnel and Training) have notified amendments in RTI Rules 2012. I
reproduce only one clause thereof hereunder:

3. Application Fee – An application under sun-section (1) of section 6 of the
Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinary not
contain more than five hundred words, excluding annexure, containing
address of the Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant:

Provided that no application shall be rejected only on the ground that it contains
more than five hundred words.

Full text will appear in the next issue of BCAJ.
r2i JAI HO !
With regards,
Narayan Varma
Jt. Managing Trustee PCGT
Encl: Article for August 2012

RTI Clinics being run by four organizations:

BCAS FOUNDATION

7, Jolly Bhavan No. 2, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020
Email: bca@bcasonline.org Visit us at www.bcasonline.org
runs RTI Clinic on 2nd, 3rd & 4th Saturdays every month between 11.00 a.m.
to
13.00 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 61377600

PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST (PCGT)

B/2 Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 026
Email: publicconcern@gmail.com Visit us at www.pcgt.org
runs RTI Clinic on every Tuesday between 04.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. .
RTI Helpline No – 93 2288 2288

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2352 6426

GIANTS INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST

2nd floor, Orient Club Building, 9, Chowpatty Sea Face, Mumbai – 400 007
Email:giantwld@mtnl.net.in
Visit us at www.giantsinternational.org
runs RTI Clinic on 1st & 3rd Mondays of every month between 4.30 p.m. to
6.30 p.m.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 2367 9698

INDIAN MERCHANT’S CHAMBER
IMC Building,Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020
runs RTI clinic on 1st & 3rd Wednesday of every month from 4 .00pm to 6.00
pm.

• For more details and fixing an appointment call 22046633

Please visit any of these clinics

Right to Information

Narayan Varma

Chartered Accountant

PartA: Orders of Courts

Section 5(3), (4) to (5) of the RTI Act
A very interesting and unusual matter came before the High Court of Delhi. The same is
summarized as under:

• “The petitioner challenged the order dated 16th January, 2009 of the Central

Information Commission (CIC) imposing penalty u/s.20 of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 on the petitioner of Rs. 12,500 deductible in two instalments of Rs.6, 250
each from the salary of the petitioner,starting from 3rd March 2009. The petition
came up before the Court first on 2nd March, 2009, but no stay was granted. The
petitioner on 14th December, 2009 informed that the penalty amount had been paid to
the CIC and further submitted that the fault leading to the imposition of penalty was
not in his functioning as the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the DDA, but
of Shri S. C. Gupta, the then Dy. Director (Housing) of the DDA. It may be noticed
that the CIC has vide the impugned order, while levying penalty of Rs.12,500 on the
petitioner, levied penalty of Rs.12,500 on the said S. C. Gupta also, deductible from
his salary. On the said contention of the petitioner, the said Shri S. C. Gupta
was impleaded as respondent No. 4 to the petition and in fact he alone has been
served with the notice of petition.”

• “It is the case of the petitioner that he, as PIO of DDA had acted with promptitude

and has on the very next day of receiving the RTI application, sought information
from the respondent No. 4 and the delay in providing information was of the
respondent No. 4. It is further the case of petitioner that in pursuance to the
directions of the First Appellate Authority to provide further information also, the
delay in providing the same was of the said Shri S. C. Gupta.”

• The CIC however has in the order dated 16th January, 2009 impugned in this

petition held that it had in the earlier order dated 26th September, 2008 (which is not
before the Court) held that it is the not the delay in response for which the petitioner
had been held liable, but the petitioner had failed to provide the information sought
and had simply forwarded a report to the information seeker without caring to
examine whether the Report even addressed the information sought. It was thus held
that the petitioner had abdicated his responsibility as PIO. It was further held that the
petitioner as the PIO of the DDA was responsible for providing the information and
what was being passed on. The said conduct of the petitioner was held to be
amounting to deemed refusal of information.

The Court stated:

• “It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the designated PIO u/s.5 of the Act of

the DDA.U/s.5(3) of the Act it was for the petitioner to deal with the request and
render reasonable assistance to the information seeker. The PIO u/s.5(4) is
authorized to seek the assistance of any other officer as may be considered
necessary for the purpose of providing information and section 5(5) mandates
such officers to render all assistance to the PIO. Section 5(5) also deems such
officers from whom information is sought, as the PIO for the purpose of any
contravention of the provisions of the Act.”

• “The contention of the petitioner appears to be that he as PIO was merely

required to forward the application for information to the officer concerned and/or
in possession of the said information and upon receipt of such information from
the concerned officer furnish the same to the information seeker. He would thus
contend that as long as he as PIO has acted with promptitude and forwarded the
application to the officer in possession of the information and furnished the same
to the information seeker immediately on receipt of such information, he cannot
be faulted with and liability for penalty if any has to be of such other officer from
whom he had sought the information and cannot be his.”

“The argument aforesaid reduces the office of the PIO to that of a Post Office, to receive
the RTI query, forward the same to the other officers in the department/administrative
unit in possession of the information, and upon receipt thereof furnish the same to the
information seeker. It has to be thus seen from a perusal of the Act, whether the Act
envisages the role of a PIO to be that of a mere Post Office.

• The Court then provided definition of ‘dealt with’. In Karen Lambert v. London

Borough of Southwark, (2003) EWHC 2121 (Admin) it was held to include
everything right from receipt of the application till the issue of decision thereon.
U/s. 6(1) and 7(1) of the RTI Act, it is the PIO to whom the application is
submitted and it is he who is responsible for ensuring that the information as
sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act.
Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the
department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought
information, the PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken. The
RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act.

The Court further noted

• “This Court in Mujibur Rehman v. Central Information Commission held that

information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for and are not to be driven
away through filibustering tactics and it is to ensure a culture of information
disclosure that penalty provisions have been provided in the RTI Act. The Act has
conferred the duty to ensure compliance on the PIO. He cannot escape his
obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to
collect documents and information; that the Act as framed casts obligation upon
the PIO to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied. Even
otherwise, the settled position in law is that an officer entrusted with the duty is
not to act mechanically. The Supreme Court as far back as 1995 in
Secretary, Haila Kandi Bar Association v. State of Assam, [1995 supp. (3) SCC
736] reminded the high-ranking officers generally, not to mechanically forward
the information collected through subordinates. The RTI Act has placed
confidence in the objectivity of a person appointed as the PIO and when the PIO
mechanically forwards the report of his subordinates, he betrays a casual approach
shaking the confidence placed in him and duties the probative values of his
position and the report.”
The Court finally held

“Thus no fault can be found with order of the CIC apportioning the penalty of Rs.25,000
equally between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4.There is thus no merit in the
petition; the same is dismissed.”

[J. P. Agrawal v. Union of India and Ors., W.P. (C) 7232/2009, decided on 4-8-2011.
Reported in Right to Information Reporter — RTI RI (2012) 353 (Delhi)]
Section 8(1)(d)&(a) of the RTI Act

• Two writ petitions were heard together, since common arguments were

canvassed and common questions are involved, they were disposed of by this
judgment.

• The petitioner functions as service provider to the Government of Maharashtra. It

provides the facility of Smart Card-based Registration Certificate. It is stated that
considering the need for computerisation, the Government switched over to the
latest technology in its various departments. In the transport sector, the
Government aimed at modernising the Regional Transport Offices which was
aimed at streamlining the entire process undertaken at these offices and obviously
to make functions of these Regional Transport Offices efficient, prompt and easy.
In this backdrop, the Central Government took a policy decision to introduce
‘Smart Card’ with micro processor chip and it was decided to permit the use of
Smart Cards for issuing registration certificates in electronic form. It is stated that
this micro processor chip based Smart Card obviously has various advantages
over the regular paper-based registration books. A reference is made to the
Central Government’s guidelines issued on 17-10-2001. The implementation of
this policy required amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and
therefore, the amendments were made on 31-5-2002 and Rule 2(s) was added to
define the term ‘Smart Card’. It is stated that the registration certificate is now
issued to the motor vehicle owners in the form of Smart Cards and thereafter,
several provisions of the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal, august 2012
103 Motor Vehicles Act have been referred to. It was submitted that the
Government of Maharashtra floated a PAN India tender for appointing a service
provider to comply with requirement of issuance of ‘Smart Cards’. The petitioner
participated in the tender process and was declared successful. A contract dated
30-11-2002 came to be executed. It is stated it is not an ordinary contract, but it is
an outcome of exhaustive statutory project. The project which the petitioner is
implementing must be seen in the backdrop of the policy decision of the
Government to provide a more standardized and tamper-proof registration of the
vehicles. The policy of the Government is to adopt a technology which will
prevent tampering of registration books by the anti-social elements. It is stated
that this contract is confidential in nature. The project has been undertaken by the
petitioner, but attempts are made to exploit the petitioner for personal gains by
various unscrupulous elements. The RTI Act, according to the petitioner, does not
give an absolute right to a person to obtain any information and it is therefore,
contended that Shri Sanjay Bhole, the respondent No. 4’s attempt to obtain the
information must be seen in this light.

• SCIC in its order had directed the Transport Commission to furnish the

information requested for. The same is challenged in this writ petition. While the
Court agreed that clause (a) of section 8(1) is in no way applicable. However, as
to clause (d), order notes:

• “Clause (d) provides that the information can be disclosed if the competent

authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants such disclosure.
Therefore, that clause as admitted by (Advocate of the appellant) Mr. Manohar is
not absolute. It does not say that information including commercial confidence,
trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which, would harm the
competitive position of a third party; cannot be demanded or if demanded, cannot
be disclosed even if larger public interest warrants the same. The State
Information Commissioner has held that the disclosure of both agreements would
not result in disclosure of trade secret or intellectual property. His conclusion is
that the tenders were for an important work which affects large number of vehicle
owners and drivers of vehicles. The agreements have to be entered into for
providing a service in the form of making of Smart Cards for registration of motor
vehicles and driving licences at enhanced fees. Further, the conclusion is that the
disclosure of information would enable public scrutiny of the process and
contracts and therefore, it is desirable in larger public interest that the information
is provided.”

Final Order

“In the light of this conclusion, both writ petitions fail. Rule is discharged, but without
any order as to costs. At this stage, it is prayed that the ad interim orders passed by this
Court be continued so as to enable the petitioners to challenge this judgment in higher
court. This request is opposed by the respondent No. 4. In such circumstances, the request
made to continue the ad interim orders is rejected and particularly, when the information
as directed to be given under the impugned orders is as early as on 23-3-2011.”

[Writ petitions No. 2912 & 3137 of 2011, Shonkh Technology Ltd. & United Telecom
Ltd. v. Shri Sanjay Bhole & State IC, Joint Transport Commissioner &PIO decided on 1-
7-2011: Information Decisions’ 2012 (1) ID 268) Bombay High Court]

Part B: The RTI Act,

Note circulated by Shri Shailesh Gandhi (Who retired at CIC on 6-7-2012) on the
subject- Very operation of RTI in this country:

“Some very malicious and false charges have been made in a writ in the Delhi High
Court against me just for doing my duty. These cast aspersions on my abilities, work and
integrity.

I have been told that these have been reported in some media, and I feel hurt since they
are false.

I am issuing the following statement to put the facts in public domain:

I was given charge of hearing and deciding on second appeals against the Central
Information Commission by the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) in January-
February 2012. While hearing one matter on 19 April, 2012, I saw some contradictions in
the facts and records before me, and therefore decided to enquire into the matter. I called
the relevant persons who could assist me in the enquiry with records on 16 May 2012. I
received notes from Mr. Aakash Deep Chakravarty Joint Secretary (Law) of the
Commission on 9 and 15 May challenging my right to enquire and saying that the Chief
Commissioner was going to refer the matter to a Full Bench. Nobody came for the
enquiry and I had not received any order from the CIC directing me to transfer the case,
therefore I adjourned the matter. On 22nd May, I had a meeting with the Chief
Information Commissioner and JS (law), in which I explained to the CIC my view that
referring a part heard matter to a Full Bench by the CIC has never been done and would
not be right legally and ethically. The CIC said he would not issue such an order. Hence
next day

I issued a notice to the First Appellate Authority to come and assist me in the enquiry
with the Records on 29th May.

Mr. Chakravarty filed a writ petition and on 28 May, the Delhi High Court issued exparte
stay asking me to stay the proceedings. Very malicious and false allegations have
been made against me personally alleging bias, prejudice and a cavalier approach. The
Delhi High Court has issued a stay, effectively ensuring that the enquiry cannot be
conducted, which appears to have been the objective of Mr. Chakravarty (since I was
retiring on 6th July). This case has serious implications for the autonomy and functioning
of the Information Commissions. By this precedence any PIO can go to Court and allege
bias by a Commissioner and stop the Commissioner from functioning.

I am attaching the Interim orders passed by me, the writ petition and my counter affidavit
for Friends who wish to see them. I believe the issues in this petition are very important
for the functioning of the Information Commissions in the Country and RTI.
Unfortunately, the Central Information Commission has not been able to appreciate the
serious implications it can have on its functioning.

The following are important issues being raised by me in the counter-affidavit:

• Should reasons be given for interim orders? If reasons are not given how would a

respondent know on what issue a prima facie view was taken by the Court
in favour of the petitioner?

• Was it necessary to grant an ex-parte stay? Since the only order made was for an

enquiry to commence which would have taken some time, what was the urgency
to grant ex-parte stay? How was the balance of convenience in favour of the
petitioner? What substantial loss/irreparable injury could have occurred to the
petitioner if the stay had not been granted?

• While granting ex-parte stay and keeping the matter in November the proposed

enquiry was stopped for a considerable period of time. By this precedence, any
PIO will make a charge of bias and make charges of prejudice against any
Commissioner. If the Court stays the proceedings of the Commission on such
charges, the Information Commission or such other bodies would not be able to
function.

• Are the provisions of Article 226(3) mandatory and binding in that all ex-parte

orders will either be confirmed or vacated within 2 weeks of the making of the
application for vacation of stay? l Should matters be entertained ex-parte where
personal allegations are made against statutory authorities? Will such ex-parte
orders not give an impression that the High Court was prima facie satisfied that
the allegations of mala fides were made out? This will result in reducing the
respect for statutory bodies resulting in disrespect for their orders.

• This matter has an importance larger than the specific facts of this case inasmuch

as it appears that the Delhi High Court has made ex-parte stay orders in a
considerable number of petitions impugning orders of the Central information
Commission. After the ex-parte stays are granted the proceedings languish in the
High Courts and, as a result of the stay, the proceedings before the Commission
come to a standstill for long periods of time. This frustrates the entire purpose of
the RTI Act where, u/s.7 of RTI information is required to be provided by the
Public Information Officer within 30 days of the application
forinformation being received. It is therefore in the larger public interest for this
Court to look at the various cases pending in the High Court where ex-parte stays
have been granted and continue as such without vacation or confirmation for long
periods of time. Para wise reply: (to the charges made in the writ petition)

• That I say that each and every averment, allegation and submission contained in

the writ petition and the same may be deemed to specifically traversed and denied
unless expressly admitted by the respondent hereinafter.

• That I say that the present writ petition lacks merit since:

• At para (xxi) of writ petition, the petitioner has cleverly created the impression

that I am not authorised to conduct any proceedings. The petitioner knows that
this is false. I am conducting hearings in cases until 6-7-2012, when I demit office
based on Office Circular dated 25-5-2012 which provides for holding of
proceeding by the respondent No. 1 till 6-7-2012. Copy of the Office Circular
dated 25-5-2012 which provides for holding of proceedings by the respondent No.
1 till 6-7-2012.

• In reply to Ground (ii), the petitioner states “It is submitted that the petitioner is

subjected to penalty proceedings without being given a notice to appear”. I state
that no penalty proceedings are mentioned anywhere in the impugned orders. In
fact the last order of 23-5-2012 did not even mention the petitioner, but only
asked the First Appellate Authority to appear before the Commission.

• In reply to Ground (v), the petitioner alleges, “Submitted that the respondent No.

1 has no authority to continue the impugned proceedings despite having received
and acknowledged the order of the CIC for constitution of a larger Bench. By
continuing with the proceedings, the respondent No. I exhibits a mala fide intent,
with an intention to cause prejudice to the petitioner herein. The respondent had
no authority to continue enquiry”. This is a false statement since I have received
no such order.

• With regard to Grounds (vii), I say that the allegation of prejudice and mala fide

against petitioner is false and without any evidence. I have no reason to have any
prejudice or bias against the petitioner.”

Part C: Information On & Around

Protect RTI Activists

Attacks on three prominent RTI activists within the span of a fortnight highlight the
vulnerability of crusaders. While Assam’s Akhil Gogoi had exposed Government
corruption, Uttarakhand’s Bharat Jhunjhunwala and Chhattisgarh’s Ramesh Aggarwal led
grassroots protests against dam and mining projects. The UPA Government should
immediately pass the whistleblowers’ protection Bill, stuck in the Rajya Sabha.

Shailesh Gandhi retires

Outspoken RTI activist and Information Commissioner (IC) Shailesh Gandhi retired on
6-7-2012. He described the Commission as a “Senior Citizens’ Club”, taking a dig at the
government’s penchant for appointing retired bureaucrats. “We need younger people in
the commission,”he said, adding the number of civil society representatives as
Commissioners should be higher as well. Gandhi said scathingly, “It is easier to find God
than government today.”

CIC can’t call for President-PM letters on 2002 Gujarat riots

• The Delhi High Court on 11-7-2012 ruled that the Central Information

Commission could not have access to correspondence between the President and
the Prime Minister.

• Allowing the Centre’s appeal against the CIC, Justice Anil Kumar set aside the

Commission’s order to reveal to it the communication between former
PMAtal Bihari Vajpayee and then President K. R. Narayanan on the 2002 Gujarat
riots.

• Reason being, it is barred under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India.

The Court pointed out that only Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts had the
power to call for such material (the communication) to peruse them under Articles 32 and
226 of the Constitution.

“The CIC cannot claim parity with the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High
Courts,” the HC said, adding that the Commission’s interim order for perusal of records
was “wholly illegal and unconstitutional.”

While reversing the order of the full bench of CIC, Justice Kumar, who retired on
Wednesday, also dismissed RTI applicant C. Ramesh’s plea, saying he was not ‘entitled’
to the communication exchanged between the then President and Prime Minister over the
Gujarat riots.

The HC, while setting aside the CIC order, also observed that Article 74(2) of the
Constitution could not be made subservient to the transparency law as the same could not
have been the intention of the Legislature and even if it was, the same could not come in
effect without amending the Constitution.

RTI officer arrested for demanding bribe

On Friday, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) arrested a Right To Information (RTI)
officer employed at the election office in Goregaon, for accepting a bribe of Rs.8, 000
from a painter. The painter had sought information regarding the 1995 voters list.

The accused, Padmini Padmanabh Puranik was caught by the ACB officials
at Vidhansabha Matdar Sangh office, Unnat Nagar, Goregaon (west). A day after the
complainant filed an RTI and asked for the information, Puranik called him on his mobile
phone and told him that fee for lists numbered 205-207 will be Rs.1, 548.

She also suggested that if he wanted the list immediately, he should be pay Rs.2, 000 per
list, which totals Rs.8, 000.

The painter then complained to the ACB officials, who arrested Puranik.

Pay Rs.500 for RTI at Allahabad HC

The average per capita income of a person in Uttar Pradesh may be Rs.70 per day, but if
s/he has a question on State Judiciary under the RTI Act, then s/he will have to pay
Rs.500.

A PIL in the SC said the excessive fee demanded under the new RTI rules framed by the
Allahabad High Court to entertain an RTI plea was hindering the citizens’ right to know.

PART D:GOOD GOVERNANCE

Corruption is worse than prostitution
We have to sham this attitude of ‘Sab Chalta Hai’ and the attitude that nothing can move
without Corruption.

— Kanwaljeet Arora, CBI judge
We need to keep up the fight against corruption which stifles innovation and is one of the
biggest barriers to job creation and economic growth around the world.
— US President, Barack Obama
Please respond and let us do something to contain cancerous corruption which prevents
happiness to be reality for large number of citizens.

Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal, August 2012

Your feedback may be sent to rti@bcasonline.org/publicconcern@gmail.com