The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been subverted most blatantly and with impunity by the information commissioners appointed to enforce the very same law. Here is an e mail I had sent to Sharat Sabarwal, one such information commissioner at the Central Information Commission. This feedback on one of his orders amply illustrates how the law is being subverted by some of the worst traitors in the world!

1. 150522-RTIA-EXPOSING IDIOTS AND TRAITORS-SHARAT SABARWAL, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
from: Ravindran P M <raviforjustice@gmail.com>
to: sharat.s@nic.in cc: vijay.bhalla@nic.in
date: Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:57 PM
subject:Idiotic order dated 7/5/15 in file ClC/SH/ A 2014/000330
1. I am in receipt of your final order dated 7/5/15, posted only on 13/5/15, vide ED 873390048 IN of
PO-110066.
2. Before going to justify the succint comment about the order given in the subject line it is placed
on record (refer para 11 of your order) that your order to provide the info sought (see para 4 of the
order) has NOT been complied with. The current CPIO has merely sent a letter on 1/4/15 (Copy
attached for your ready reference.) but NOT provided the information sought at para 1.2 and 1.3 of
my application.
3. Now here are the details that justify my comment about the order being idiotic:
3.1. Refer para 3 of your order. Who is asking to hold multiple hearings? In fact, given my experience
of attending such hearings in the past, it is fraud that the Commissioners are perpetrating during
these hearings. In fact by holding such hearings, in person or through video conferencing, the
commissioners are causing avoidable waste to the exchequer apart from the other resources in
terms of time and effort of the 'public servant' and of course the appellant! Sec 20 does provide for
provide an opportunity for being heard to the PIO if the commissioner has decided to penalise
him/her for default. Note the provision to that section:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed
on him.
So holding a preliminary hearing of both the PIO and the appellant is legally unwarranted. It is
pertinent to highlight the fact that the PIO has been provided another opportunity to being heard
(see para 6 of your order!). It would have made some sense if the apellant is made party to this
second hearing, which you have not done!
3.2. Refer para 5 of your order. You have stated that there was no need to interfere the responses of
the CPIO to para 2 and 3 of the application. How can the response-Pension has been revised wef
24/9/12 in respect of all eligible pensioners and the same has been paid to all pensioners/family
pensioners- to the query -As per a recent order pension has been revised with effect from
24/09/2012. Has the pension been paid at the revised rates to all the pensioners/family
pensioners?- be a valid response to the query-3.As per directions of the RBI, if the pension has not
been paid at the revised rates by the due date and interest @8 pc per annum was required to be
paid for the delayed period. Has this been complied with in the case of all delayed payments?
3.3. Refer para 9 of the order. You have stated that 'Shri K. Ramachandran also submitted that in
compliance of the direction contained in paragraph 4 of our interim order dated 12.3.2015,
additional information has been forwarded to the Appellant vide the letter dated 1.4.2015 of the
current CPIO' Now, you would also have received this letter dated 1/4/15 from the current CPIO.
Where in this letter has the CPIO mentioned about complying with your order regarding providing
copies of the documents sought at para 1.2 of the application? Atleast I could not find it anywhere
in the letter that they were providing me copies of the covering letters under which the Annx IV
were sent to PCDA (P) Allahabad. Now what is meant by the claim 'The issue of such Annexure lV by
the branches is not on record in the pension records submitted to CPPC.'? If it is not on the records
of the CPPC then it should be on the records of the branch, isn't it? Can there be a greater example
of tomfoolery intended to perpetrate a fraud?

2. And nothing has been mentioned about compliance with your order on para 1.3 of my application!
Now compare this with the compliance with your order on para 1.1 of my application. The current
CPIO states that 'As on 31/12/2005, the number of Defence Pensioners drawing pension from our
Bank are 37580.'. So does it not mean that the data was centralised on or before 31/12/2015, long
before the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare letter
No No 17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pen/Policy) dated 11.11.2008 was issued and compliance with it was
required much later? Or should one believe that this data was compiled from 100s of their branches
within the period between 12 Mar 2015 (date of your interim order) and 1/4/15 (date of reply of teh
current CPIO!)?
3.4. Refer para 10 of the order. The Delhi HC order quoted amply proves your judgement to be
wrong in not providing an opportunity to being heard for me during the hearing on 6/5/15, as
demanded by me in my reply to your notice for the hearing on 24/2/15!
3.5. Refer para 11 of the order. The Delhi High Court and Supreme Court orders quoted are
irrelevant. Here is an extract order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which is more applicable in
the letter and spirit of the law:
A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act makes it obvious that the Commission
could impose the penalty for the simple reasons of delay in furnishing the information within the
period specified by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. (High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
C.W.P. NO. 1924 of 2008)
The apex court order is not applicable in the present case as this was an appeal filed under Sec 19(3)
of the RTI Act. If it is being quoted in so far as it mandates establishing the lack of bonafides in the
conduct of the CPIO then you are guilty of subverting of the law. This is evident from the wording of
Sec 20 which states '...without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for
information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of
section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete
or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or
obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information..', the malafide being applicable only to
denial of info and not for 'knowingly giving(sic) incorrect, incomplete or misleading information'
which is applicable in this case. The PIO failing to provide the info due to lack of understanding of
the details in the application could have been justified had teh info been provided atleast after the
1st appeal. But even that has not happened. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be argued that
both the CPIO and FAA had failed to understand the same details!
3.6. Refer para 12 of the order. The appeals were not pursued for fun. It did involve effort and
expenses (for example the CAPIO did not collect them from my house in any case!). When Rs 100 Cr
compensation can be paid to a citizen in a defamation case only because he felt that the apology
tendered by the video news channel was not genuine, Rs 10,000/- is peanuts when demanded as
compensation for the effort and resources spend in pursuing the appeals necessitated only by the
delinquency of the CPIO and connivance of the FAA
3.7. Refer para 12 of the order. You are wrong here also. As per the law every public authority has to
designate PIOs. And branches of banks are public authorities under the law. If your logic is applied
then there would be need only for PIOs and an FAA to be designated at Rashtrapathi Bhavan only to
cater for all central public authorities!
4. To conclude, your order provides yet anotehr example as proof of my hypothesis that all public
servants are either idiots or traitors unless proved otherwise!
Yours truly,
P M Ravindran