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 a complaint I had sent to the President of India against Basant Seth, one such information commissioner at the Central Information Commission. This is of necessity somewhat long and would need your indulgence for quite some time!
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!
The only pro-democracy, citizen friendly law, the Right to Information Act, has been subverted blatantly by the very information commissioners who have been appointed at exorbitant cost to the exchequer to enforce it. Here is another example of such subversion by none other than the Chief Information Commissioner of Kerala, Vinson M Paul, former DGP and Direcor Vigilance of the State.
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!
The only pro-democracy, citizen friendly law, the Right to Information Act, has been subverted blatantly by the very information commissioners who have been appointed at exorbitant cost to the exchequer to enforce it. Here is another example of such subversion by none other than the Chief Information Commissioner of Kerala, Vinson M Paul, former DGP and Direcor Vigilance of the State.
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New DelhiOm Prakash Poddar
Second Appeal vide D.NO. 122864 dated 06.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal of Registration of Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017 entitled "OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS"
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...Om Prakash Poddar
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal to register Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dated 30.08.2016Om Prakash Poddar
True Copy of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 filed before Supreme Court of India dated 30th August 2016 against the State of Bihar for Quashing of criminal complaint case(P) 5591 of 2013 pending at SDJM Court no.16, Begusarai CJM division Bihar.
Additional document against Second Appeal D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Additional documents against Second Appeal vide D.No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 being filed vide D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017 before CIC New Delhi along with FAA, District & Session Judge's reply.
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New DelhiOm Prakash Poddar
Second Appeal vide D.NO. 122864 dated 06.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal of Registration of Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017 entitled "OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS"
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...Om Prakash Poddar
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal to register Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dated 30.08.2016Om Prakash Poddar
True Copy of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 filed before Supreme Court of India dated 30th August 2016 against the State of Bihar for Quashing of criminal complaint case(P) 5591 of 2013 pending at SDJM Court no.16, Begusarai CJM division Bihar.
Additional document against Second Appeal D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Additional documents against Second Appeal vide D.No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 being filed vide D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017 before CIC New Delhi along with FAA, District & Session Judge's reply.
7. Success in Cross-Cultural Business-Lesson 7-11 slidesJack Carney
Lesson 7: Taking the 3rd of 3 CCQ Assessments: 6 Continuum Polarities as applied to how differently cultures make Decisions & Communicate—rate and discover yourself and those from other cultures with whom you do business.
11 slides
Second Appeal against Registrar CIC dated 24.03.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Second Appeal against Registrar, CIC New Delhi for Non-implementation of Section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 in second appeal Diary no. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 (Registrar Admin, Patna High Court, FAA)
The RTI Act has been murdered by the bureaucrats appointed as CIC and ICs. This is an application of 21 Apr 2007 whihc i had filed with the President of India to remove the first CIC, Wajahat Habibullah
There was a report in media a few days back about a list of 5 persons having been prepared for recommending them to be appointed as ICs to the KSIC. However, the procedure followed for the selection of these candidates is not known. Hence this application under the RTI Act to bring clarity on the issue.
Mr Oommen Chandy, the Chief Minister of Kerala, India had gone around the districts in what was touted to be the CM's Public Contact Program. In each district 10s of thousands of complaints were filed in the offices of the District Collectors. The DCs distributed these complaints to the various authorities concerned, got their responses and these responses were given to the complainants. Needless to say these responses were typical bureaucratic responses offering no solutions whatsoever to the aggrieved citizens. In quite a few cases not even such a response was received. Here is one filed at Palakkad and for which no response has been received. This is about how the Kerala State Information Commission has been subverting the Right to Information Act.
This is a complaint I had filed for the Public Contact Program of the Chief minister of Kerala scheduled to held at Palakkad on 13 Jun 2015. It is against the office of the Chief Minister of Kerala himself.
It is 15 years since the Right to Information Act was introduced as another piece of legislation, only to cheat the masses once again. Touted as a sunshine act, as a panacea for corruption and introduce accountability of the public servants to the public, it has grown into one of the biggest, yet unrecognized, scams over the last 15 years.
Prudence dictates it is better to let sleeping dogs lie. But wisdom demands that the unpalatable and unpleasant, at least those in public domain, be discussed publicly and thrashed out in public interest.
The title is a quip from Malayalam, the regional language of Kerala, India. It means for the king who kills, the minister who eats. It is used to describe an unholy nexus where no evidence of any crime is left. This was written in the context of a scam where the Government of Kerala shared private information of Covid patients to a software firm in the US of A, flouting all laws on such transactions. A bureaucrat, the Principle Private Secretary of the Chief Minister claimed that he had done it on his own, absolving his boss, secure in the feeling that his boss would not give permission to prosecute him, a ridiculous requirement of our laws.
This is the copy of a leaflet prepared for distribution during a protest against Palat Mohandas, the then Chief Information Commissioner, Kerala State Information Commission, when he had come to Palakkad on 08 Dec 2007 to address a seminar on Right to Information. The original is in Malayalam and this post includes the original and its translated version in English.
On 19 feb 2009 there was open war in the Madras High Court premises when the police tried to control an unruly mob of advocates. Sree Krishna, former judge of the apex court, who inquired into the above incidence submitted an interim report on 4 Mar 2009. This report is documentary proof of how biased and unreliable our (former) judges are.
The only citizen friendly law in India- the Right to Information Act- has been totally subverted by the very commissioners appointed to enforce it. One of them, the Chief Information Commissioner of the Central Information Commission has been recently designated as the 1st Lt Governor of the newly created union territory of Ladhak. Shouldn't it be considered as a reward for treason?
The judiciary in India is a law unto itself. Recently, an apex court bench dusted an appeal of 2015 vintage and ordered 5 apartment complexes in Kochi to be demolished within one month- without having ensured that even one of the 350 odd owners of the flats had been heard.
For all the failures of the authorities to implement the laws the blame is invariably palmed off to the masses and their ignorance of the laws. This is a fraud. The performance of the authorities can be easily seen to be indifferent, incompetent and wayward by just studying their functions objectively. Whether it is the judiciary or the quasi judicial organisations they can all be seen most brazenly violating the laws which they are tasked, empowered, equipped and paid to enforce. The experience of those who know these laws is sufficient to indict these authorities.
Indian democracy is a unique system where unelected babus (bureaucrats) and judges dictate the terms. The civil military relationship should be the worst in India given the self serving nature of both the babus and judges and the helpless politicians acting as the sikhandi in the Mahabaratha though the former two can never be compared with Arjun.
The only thing that marks India as a democracy is the periodical visits to the polling booths. Government administration, led by the bureaucrats of the Indian Administrative Service, is a synonym for corruption and treason. The politically elected government is just a puppet in the hands of these bureaucrats. And the judiciary is a law unto itself.
The Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in the states have been established to deal with corruption and impropriety at the higher levels of government. But sad to say, these have been turned into another rehabilitation home for retired judges.
Short of a decade after Anna Hazare led Anti Corruption Movement took the nation by storm from Jantar Mantar, the Lokpal is a reality in the country. As soon as the agitation had begun gathering momentum, the then UPA government led by Man Mohan Singh brought in a Bill in 2011 that was derided by the activists as Jokepal. They came up with a draft bill touted as Jan Lokpal. After some stalemate the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 became a reality in 2014. To be precise it became effective from 16 Jan 2014. But the appointment of the first Chairman and members of the Lokpal took another five years.
The Constitution of India, touted as the most voluminous and most detailed, has the dubious reputation of its own architect, DR Ambedkar stating that "I was a hack. What I was asked to, I did much against my will. I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it. It does not suit anybody.” It has also been criticised as a revised version of the Government of India Act 1935 which had been legislated by the colonial rulers to grant limited self government to the locals. Suffice to say that on completion of almost 7 decades, it retrospect it can definitely be said that it needs to be rewritten keeping the aspiration of the new generation in mind.
I cannot say if the apex court judgment in the hands of Pinarayi led Government can be compared to a bouquet of flowers in the hands of a monkey or a murderous weapon in the hands of a serial murderer. The fact remains that the fear of their rights related to their faith being violated was writ large and there were reports of protests from devotees even in far away Australia, Canada and the US of A. This is a complaint to the CM, Pinarayi Vijayan, himself
Kerala, a small state in southern India has faced one of its worst natural disasters in recent times- a flood since the last one 1924! How the indifference of the government of the day made it worse and almost man made is the topic of this article.
This is the last part of a 5 part series wherein an effort has been made to expose how the public servants in India has subverted the only pro democracy, citizen friendly law in the country- the Right to Information Act. Here is a wake up call to alert citizens who are the mainstay of any democracy!
Up the Ratios Bylaws - a Comprehensive Process of Our Organizationuptheratios
Up the Ratios is a non-profit organization dedicated to bridging the gap in STEM education for underprivileged students by providing free, high-quality learning opportunities in robotics and other STEM fields. Our mission is to empower the next generation of innovators, thinkers, and problem-solvers by offering a range of educational programs that foster curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking.
At Up the Ratios, we believe that every student, regardless of their socio-economic background, should have access to the tools and knowledge needed to succeed in today's technology-driven world. To achieve this, we host a variety of free classes, workshops, summer camps, and live lectures tailored to students from underserved communities. Our programs are designed to be engaging and hands-on, allowing students to explore the exciting world of robotics and STEM through practical, real-world applications.
Our free classes cover fundamental concepts in robotics, coding, and engineering, providing students with a strong foundation in these critical areas. Through our interactive workshops, students can dive deeper into specific topics, working on projects that challenge them to apply what they've learned and think creatively. Our summer camps offer an immersive experience where students can collaborate on larger projects, develop their teamwork skills, and gain confidence in their abilities.
In addition to our local programs, Up the Ratios is committed to making a global impact. We take donations of new and gently used robotics parts, which we then distribute to students and educational institutions in other countries. These donations help ensure that young learners worldwide have the resources they need to explore and excel in STEM fields. By supporting education in this way, we aim to nurture a global community of future leaders and innovators.
Our live lectures feature guest speakers from various STEM disciplines, including engineers, scientists, and industry professionals who share their knowledge and experiences with our students. These lectures provide valuable insights into potential career paths and inspire students to pursue their passions in STEM.
Up the Ratios relies on the generosity of donors and volunteers to continue our work. Contributions of time, expertise, and financial support are crucial to sustaining our programs and expanding our reach. Whether you're an individual passionate about education, a professional in the STEM field, or a company looking to give back to the community, there are many ways to get involved and make a difference.
We are proud of the positive impact we've had on the lives of countless students, many of whom have gone on to pursue higher education and careers in STEM. By providing these young minds with the tools and opportunities they need to succeed, we are not only changing their futures but also contributing to the advancement of technology and innovation on a broader scale.
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
Understanding the Challenges of Street ChildrenSERUDS INDIA
By raising awareness, providing support, advocating for change, and offering assistance to children in need, individuals can play a crucial role in improving the lives of street children and helping them realize their full potential
Donate Us
https://serudsindia.org/how-individuals-can-support-street-children-in-india/
#donatefororphan, #donateforhomelesschildren, #childeducation, #ngochildeducation, #donateforeducation, #donationforchildeducation, #sponsorforpoorchild, #sponsororphanage #sponsororphanchild, #donation, #education, #charity, #educationforchild, #seruds, #kurnool, #joyhome
What is the point of small housing associations.pptxPaul Smith
Given the small scale of housing associations and their relative high cost per home what is the point of them and how do we justify their continued existance
Many ways to support street children.pptxSERUDS INDIA
By raising awareness, providing support, advocating for change, and offering assistance to children in need, individuals can play a crucial role in improving the lives of street children and helping them realize their full potential
Donate Us
https://serudsindia.org/how-individuals-can-support-street-children-in-india/
#donatefororphan, #donateforhomelesschildren, #childeducation, #ngochildeducation, #donateforeducation, #donationforchildeducation, #sponsorforpoorchild, #sponsororphanage #sponsororphanchild, #donation, #education, #charity, #educationforchild, #seruds, #kurnool, #joyhome
ZGB - The Role of Generative AI in Government transformation.pdfSaeed Al Dhaheri
This keynote was presented during the the 7th edition of the UAE Hackathon 2024. It highlights the role of AI and Generative AI in addressing government transformation to achieve zero government bureaucracy
A process server is a authorized person for delivering legal documents, such as summons, complaints, subpoenas, and other court papers, to peoples involved in legal proceedings.
Canadian Immigration Tracker March 2024 - Key SlidesAndrew Griffith
Highlights
Permanent Residents decrease along with percentage of TR2PR decline to 52 percent of all Permanent Residents.
March asylum claim data not issued as of May 27 (unusually late). Irregular arrivals remain very small.
Study permit applications experiencing sharp decrease as a result of announced caps over 50 percent compared to February.
Citizenship numbers remain stable.
Slide 3 has the overall numbers and change.
This session provides a comprehensive overview of the latest updates to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (commonly known as the Uniform Guidance) outlined in the 2 CFR 200.
With a focus on the 2024 revisions issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), participants will gain insight into the key changes affecting federal grant recipients. The session will delve into critical regulatory updates, providing attendees with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate and comply with the evolving landscape of federal grant management.
Learning Objectives:
- Understand the rationale behind the 2024 updates to the Uniform Guidance outlined in 2 CFR 200, and their implications for federal grant recipients.
- Identify the key changes and revisions introduced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the 2024 edition of 2 CFR 200.
- Gain proficiency in applying the updated regulations to ensure compliance with federal grant requirements and avoid potential audit findings.
- Develop strategies for effectively implementing the new guidelines within the grant management processes of their respective organizations, fostering efficiency and accountability in federal grant administration.
Comp prez-exposing the idiots n traitors amoung public servants-basant seth-ic-cic nd-300515
1. P M Ravindran
2/18, 'Aathira', Sivapuri, Kalpathy-678003
Tele: 0491-2576042; E-mail: raviforjustice@gmail.com
File: Comp-prez-cic-300515 30 May 2015
Sri Pranab Kumar Mukherji
President of India
Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi-110001 - through e mail presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
COMPLAINT-TREASON BY PUBLIC SERVANTS: BASANT SETH, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
1. Please see the following two orders of Basant Seth, Information Commissioner (IC),
Central Information Commission, New Delhi (copies attached for ready reference):
1.1. Order dated 8/5/15 in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/001138/7578 on my 2nd appeal filed on
3/7/14 and
1.2. Order dated 15/5/15 in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/001202/7631 on my 2nd appeal filed on
9/5/14
2. Both these orders pertain to BSNL, one against the PIO and FAA, o/o the Executive
Engineer, BSNL, Nashik, Maharashtra (referred to as order 1 henceforth) and the other
against the PIO and FAA, o/o the GM, BSNL, Palakkad, Kerala (referred to as order 2
henceforth). The information sought from these public authorities have been listed in the
order itself. However they are reproduced here for ease of understanding.
2.1. Info sought from o/o the Executive Engineer, BSNL, Nashik, Maharashtra on 12/3/14,
leading to order 1:
1. Please provide the following information and copies of the documents:
1.1.Information published in compliance with Sec4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
1.2. The details of all works being carried out in your jurisdiction from 1/1/14 to 28/2/14. The
details, in a table form, should include the name/description of the project, the purpose of the
project, the estimated cost, whether executed directly or through contractors, in both the cases
the name and designation of the officer of the BSNL responsible for supervision, the name and
address of the contractor, date of commencement of work, expected date of completion, (based
on the estimated cost) the percentage of work completed as on 28/2/14, the amounts for which
bills have been presented/paid/pending. If a particular project is being executed at more than
one site then the details should be provided project and sitewise.
1.3. The details of documents to be submitted by the contractors claiming payment and the
details of the procedure followed till the payment is made. The details should include the name
and designation of all those who handle the claim and the action taken by each of them
including the time frame (prescribed and actual) till the payment is made.
1.4. The name and designation of the officer of BSNL who is responsible for ensuring that
labour laws are being complied with where ever labourers are employed directly or through the
contractors.,
Continued…
2. -2-
1.5. In the cases where BSNL is directly executing projects provide the number of skilled and
unskilled employees, sitewise alongwith the name and designation of the employees of the
BSNL who have been supervising the work at the sites. Further, the number of permanent and
casual/temporary employees in each category should also be provided. If an employee of the
BSNL: is responsible for more than one site the distance between the sites should also be
provided in the remarks column.
1.6. In the cases where projects are executed through contractors all the details as in para 1.5
above.
1.7. Copies of documents that are accepted as proof of compliance with applicable labour laws.
2.2. Info sought from o/o the GM, BSNL, Palakkad, Kerala on 1/1/14, leading to order 2:
1. Refer the following:
1.1. Report in the media regarding BSNL Palakkad Telephone Adalat in the 4th week of
Jan 2014.
1.2. My complaint Comp-bsnl- 3g datacard-131207 dated 07 Dec 2013 addressed
to the GM, BSNL, Palakkad and handed over to the EE, CSC, BSNL, HPO
Complex, Palakkad-678001 but not acknowledged or receipted
1.3. Your office letter No PRO/GMT/Pkd/GC/2013-14/11 dated 17/12/13.
2. As per the report at para 1.1 above, no complaints submitted at the last adalat will be
entertained this time. It indicates that there are complaints that cannot be resolved at
these adalats. Given that only complaints that could not be resolved throuh normal
course will be entertained during the adalats, please provide the following
information:
2.1. What are the nature of these complaints that have not been resolved during
the earlier adalats. Please provide the following information for the last three
adalts- the nature/subject of the complaint/ number of such complaints at
each adalat, reason why it could not be resolved
2.2. For the last three adalts, please provide the following information- the date,
total number of complaints received, the number of complainants who had
appeared for the adalat, the number of complaints that were resolved, the
nature of these complaints, the reasons why they could not be resolved in the
normal course and any subsequent action taken to resolve such complaints in
normal course.
2.3. Regarding my complaint at para 1.2 please provide the information on action
taken on my complaints referred to at para 1 and 3 therein. The action taken
may be provided in chronological order till date of providing the information
and should include action taken by any other authorities, if any, to whom the
complaints have been referred.
3. Needless to say, most of the information sought was not provided leading to the 2nd
appeals. But the decisions are not merely idiotic but treacherous.
Continued…
3. -3-
4. In the context of the info sought, leading to order 1, please note the following:
4.1. the info sought at para 1.1 pertains to compliance with Sec 4 of the RTI Act
4.2. the info sought at para 1.2 pertains to only 2 months from 1/1/2014 to 28/2/2014.
4.3. the info sought at para 1.3 and 1.4 pertains to info required to be disclosed suo moto
under Sec 4(1)(b)(iii)
4.4. the info sought at para 1.5 and 1.6 pertains to info required to be disclosed suo moto
under Sec 4(1)(b)(i) and (ii)
4.5. the info sought at para 1.7 pertains to info required to be disclosed suo moto under
Sec 4(1)(b)(v)
5. Against info sought at para 1.1 the IC has stated (see para 6 of order 1) 'As regards
information relating to Section 4(1)(b) the respondent has submitted that the same is in
public domain and is displayed on the department's website.' He has also quoted a
subversive order of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 as ".....it would
mean that once certain information is placed in publicdomain accessible to the citizens
either freely or on payment of a predetermined price, that information cannot be said
to be 'held' or 'under the control'of the publicauthority and thus would cease to be an
'information' accessible underthe RTI Act."
In this context the following questions beg answers:
5.1. Has the PIO shown the available info on the website to the IC? If not, how has the
IC come to the conclusion that the info is available on their website? I did look for it
but could not find it. To the best of my knowledge and understanding the o/o the
Executive Engineer, BSNL, Nashik does not have a website and the website of the
parent organisation does not have the info pertaining to the o/o the Executive
Engineer, BSNL, Nashik.
5.2. As far as the law is concerned nowhere does it state that any info available in
public domain shall not be provided under the RTI Act. Specifically Sec 7(1) states
that 'on receipt of a request under section 6 (the Central Public Information Officer)
shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of
the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be
prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9'.
And information published on a website in not included in either Sec 8 or 9!
6. Against info sought at para 1.3 to 1.7, the IC has stated (see para 6 of order 1) 'From the
CPlO's representative submissions it appears that all information has been provided
other than that sought under query 1.2 and that displayed on the website under Section
4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
In this context the following question begs answer:
Continued…
4. -4-
I had submitted copies of all documents received by me from the PIO/FAA along with the
2nd appeal. Did the IC see any of the information claimed tohave been provided by the
PIO in them? Or, did the PIO produce additional documents claiming to have been
provided to me? Since the IC has also not provided them to me shouldn't this statement of
the IC be viewed as a blatant lie?
7. Against info sought at para 1.2 the IC has stated (see para 5 of order 1) as follows:
We agree with the Respondents that collecting this information would disproportionately
divert their resources from the day to day work. The Appellant has not established any
larger public interest, which would warrant a directive to the respondents to collect the
information, sought by him, even at the cost of diverting their resources from their day
to day work.
And the corresponding order is
'If, however, the appellant so desires, the CPIO should permit him to inspect the relevant
records relating to his RTI application dated 12/03/2014 and also allow him to take
photocopies/extracts there from, free of cost, upto 50 pages within 15 days from the
date of receipt of this order.'
Now, the following questions beg answer:
7.1 Which part of the RTI Act differentiates between public interest and private
interest in deciding the quantum of info to be provided? To put matters in their
correct perspective some relevant extracts of the RTI Act are reproduced below.
7.1.1. The Preamble says it is 'An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of
right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the
control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and
accountability in the working of every publicauthority'
7.1.2. It also says as its objective 'whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry
and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to
contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities
accountable to the governed'.
7.1.3. The only places where the Act mentions public interest are in Sec 8(1) (d), (e)
and (j) which state as follows:
8 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
obligation to give any citizen,—
xxx
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or
intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive
position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that
larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
Continued…
5. -5-
(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless
the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants
the disclosure of such information;
xxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of
which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would
cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the
Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or
the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied
to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
So, where is the info sought at para 1.2 of the application- The details ofall works being
carried out in your (EE, BSNL, Nashik) jurisdiction from 1/1/14 to 28/2/14-leading to order 1
covered by the above sections? The answer is that it is not covered by any of these
sections!
7.2 Now when the PIO has claimed that the info sought at para 1.2 is voluminous and
the IC has accepted it at face value, isn’t it ridiculous to direct the PIO to ‘allow him
(the appellant) to take photocopies/extracts there from, free of cost, upto 50 pages’
only?
7.3 Then again, where is the legal or moral authority for the IC to restrict the info to be
provided to a certain number of pages? Has the IC perused the available records and
identified these documents?
8. In the context of the info sought leading to order 2, please note the following:
8.1. the info sought at para 2.1 and 2.2 pertains to clarification of an info disseminated
through the media
8.2. the info sought at para 2.3 pertains to action taken and status of two complaints
submitted by me for which there had been no response even though one of them
had been submitted by me as early as on 11/6/2013 (almost 6 months before filing
the application seeking info on 1/1/14)!
9. Relevant extract of Order 2 is given below:
…however, eliciting answers to queries, redressal of grievance, reasons for non
compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are
outside the purview of the Act.
Continued…
6. -6-
From the PIO's submissions it appears that the information, as available on record, has
been provided. lf, however, the appellant has any doubt in the matter the CPIO should
permit him to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application dated
01/01/2014 and also allow him to take photocopies/extracts there from, free of cost,
upto 1O pages within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. Here again the following questions arise:
10.1. Where in the Act is seeking information through querying prohibited? Isn’t asking
questions the most basic form of seeking information?
10.2. Where in the application for information have I sought redressal of grievance? Is
seeking information on status of action taken on a complaint redressal of
grievance?
10.3. Where in the Act is seeking info on reasons for failure to comply with orders
prohibited? In fact the Act, right in the preamble, states that its very purpose is ‘to
promote transparency and accountability in the working of every publicauthority'
and ‘to hold Governments and theirinstrumentalities accountable to the
governed'.
10.4. What does the IC mean by stating ‘lf, however, the appellant has any doubt…’?
There is no doubt I had projected in my 2nd appeal!
11. Interestingly, the IC has not talked about the public interest part. Here is para 9 (a) of the
2nd appeal:
9. Ground for the prayer or relief:
(a) The information sought is of public interest because the BSNL even when providing
costly gadgets like Datacards for their (3G) services do not ultimately provide the
service, that is broadband communication (in this case). Also those claiming to be
providing communication to the Nation and ‘connecting people’ cannot give absurd
responses like misuse of fax facility provided in their Customer Service Centre! It
needs to be noted that info sought at para 2.3 of the application is about the action
taken on my complaints whereas the response of the PIO at Point 1 is about having
send my complaint to another public authority and having got a report. But neither the
action taken by the other public authority has been communicated nor copies of the
relevant report provided. Similarly against Point 3 there is only a comment and not info
about action taken!
12. You are also request to note that order 1, dated 8/5/15, is on a 2nd appeal filed on
3/7/14 whereas order 2, dated 15/5/15, is on an appeal filed on 9/5/14! How did the 2nd
appeal filed later get a senior number (1138 compared to 1202 for the one filed earlier)
and got decided earlier? Doesn’t it indicate the wayward mannerof processing the 2nd
appeals by the information commission?
Continued…
7. -7-
13. That the information commissionerhas grossly failed to fulfill his assigned task should
be adequately clear from the above mentioned facts. But it is not an isolated case. Your
attention is invited to my very first complaint, dated 21/4/2007, against the then CIC,
seeking his removal under Section 14(3)(d) of the RTI Act! Copy of this complaint (less
appendices) is also attached for ready reference. More such exposures of treason can be
read at the following blogsites:
http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/150522-exposing-idiots-and-traitors-amoung-
public-servantssharat-sabharwaliccic
http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2014/08/140826-rtia-exposing-idiots-and.html
http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2014/08/140809-rtia-exposing-idiots-and.html
http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2014/03/140331-rtia-exposing-idiots-and.html
http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-ksicsec5n6140422fmpio190514
14. Not only their failure to impose mandatory penalty has murdered the law for
transparency, the loss to exchequer can be considered to be of the magnitude of the
Vadhragate or 2G and Coalgate scams put together! There is also a valid suspicion that
the information commissioners may actually be corrupt in that they could be taking
bribes from defaulting PIOs only to fail to impose the mandatory penalty! This may need
to be investigated by the CBI under the supervison of the apex court itself!
15. It may be pertinent to place on record the fact that the task of the information
commissioners is easier than that of a munsif. Disposing of complaints should not take
more than a minute. In the matter of appeals, it could be 10 minutes per appeal. The
commissioners should be able to decide the basic questions of law involved- whether the
info sought is disclosable or not and if disclosable the extent of default on a simple
perusal of the appeal. There after the only thing required for the information
commissioner to do is to provide an opportunity to being heard to the PIO seeking
reasons for not imposing the penalty. After providing this opportunity, which need not
be through a personal hearing, if the reasons given are not satisfactory or in precise
terms, legally tenable the IC is required to mandatorily impose the prescribed penalty.
Various high courts across the country have while dealing with cases involving the RTI
Act, ruled that penalty has to be imposed even for mere delays and that reasons like
records are not traceable/not available cannot be accepted as valid and the information
commissioners can order inquiry to trace such records or to find out the reasons why
those records are not available. Relevant extract s of certain orders of high courts and
information commissioners are appended to this complaint.
Continued…
8. -8-
16. The status and perks given to information commissioners under Secs 13(5) and 16(5) of
the RTI Act has only reduced this imporant office to a rehabilitation home for the most
useless clerks who had served in the government. Given the universally accepted norm of
equal pay for equal work, it is important to amend the above sections of the RTI Act to
read as ‘ The salaries and allowances payable to and otherterms and conditions of
service of the CIC and ICs shall be the same as that of a munsif. The CIC shall be paid an
additional allowance equal to 10 pc of the basic pay‘.
17. While there is a need to introduce transparency right from the appointment of
information commissioners, the government cannot absolve itself of its responsibility
when it comes to making these public servants deliver what they are tasked,
empowered, equipped and paid to deliver. Specifically in the context of the RTI Act, Sec
26 and 27 needs to be implemented in letter and spirit by the government and
defaulters should be punished exemplarily.
Yours truly,
(P M Ravindran)
Copy to:
1. Sri Hamid Ansari, Vice President through e mail vpindia@sansad.nic.in
2. Sri Narendra Modi, Prime Minister through e mail pmindia@pmindia.nic.in,
pmosb@pmo.nic.in
3. Speaker, Lok Sabha through e mail speakerloksabha@sansad.nic.in
4. Sri H L Dattu, Chief Justice of India through e mail supremecourt@nic.in
5. Basant Seth, Information Commissioner through e mail b.seth@nic.in
6. Media and NGOs through e mail
7. Blog at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in
EXTRACTS OF CERTAIN HIGH COURT/ INFORMATION COMMISSION ORDERS
IN THE MATTER OF RTI ACT
Note: These are those orders that are in the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. There are more
that are subversive of the law which are being quoted by PIOs and FAAs and are being
accepted by the ICs to justify their illegal, anti-transparancy and anti-accountabilty decisions.
Some examples are there in the copies of the orders attached with this complaint itself.
1. High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 3845/2007:
14. xxx… Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act
prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or
filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends
that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions.
These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust
and functioning democracy.
Continued…
9. -9-
15. In the above circumstances, Court is of the opinion that the impugned order to the
extent it discharges the sixth respondent of the notice under Section 19 (8) and does not
impose the penalty sought for has to be declared illegal. In this case, the penalty amount
(on account of the delay between 28.12.2005 and the first week of May, 2006 when the
information was given) would work out to Rs.25,000/-. The third respondent is hereby
directed to deduct the same from the sixth respondent's salary in five equal
installments and deposit the amount, with the Commission.
16. In the circumstances of the case, the third respondent shall bear the cost of the
proceedings quantified at Rs.50,000/- be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from today.
2. High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. NO. 1924 of 2008:
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.
3. Madras High Court in W.P.NO.20372 of 2009 and M.P.NO.1 of 2009:
The right to information having been guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the
administrative difficulties in providing information cannot be raised. Such pleas will
defeat the very right of citizens to have access to information.
4. High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. NO. 15850 of 2010:
The primary contentions raised in the affidavit are the shortage of staff, joining of the
petitioner after the notice had been issued, the extension of time for registration of the
plots by the Government which led to the rush of registration of plots by the owners and
essential duties of Census as per the directions of the Election Commission. These are
internal matters which have to be dealt with and taken care of by the Administration
and cannot be taken as a ground or a defence for not supplying the information within
the time stipulated under the 2005 Act itself. The provisions as contained under the
2005 Act have to be given effect to achieve the objective of this Act which are to bring
transparency and accountability of public officials and to establish the right of the citizen
to have the information and these excuses, if taken into consideration, the 2005 Act itself
will be rendered ineffective and the purpose with which the Statute has been brought
into existence would be frustrated. Therefore, the reasons assigned for not supplying the
information at an early date to the complainant cannot be accepted.
5. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (as reported in the media)
Chandigarh: Creating a precedent the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that if
the public Information Officer (PlO) of a department has been penalised by a State
Information Commission on account of withholding information the officer cannot
appeal against the order through the state. The court has held that the PIO will have to
approach the court in personal capacity.
Continued…
10. -10-
6. Delhi HC (as reported in the media):
The Delhi HC said the Chief Information Commission can direct a government
department to inquire into "missing" files "wherever it is claimed...information sought is
not traceable."
7. CIC, New Delhi in File No CIC/DS/A/2013/001788-SA:
13. Based on the above discussion, the Commission thus holds: Unless proved that
record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is
deemed that record continues to be held by public authority. Claimof file missing or not
traceable has no legality as it was not recognized as exception by RTI Act. By practice
‘missing file’ cannot be read into as exception in addition to exceptions prescribed by RTI
Act. It amounts to breach of Public Records Act, 1993 and punishable with imprisonment
up to a term of five years or with fine or both. Public Authority has a duty to initiate
action for this kind of loss of public record, in the form of ‘not traceable’ or ‘missing’. The
Public Authority also has a duty to designate an officer as Records Officer and protect the
records. A thorough search for the file, inquiry to find out public servant responsible,
disciplinary action and action under Public Records Act, reconstruction of alternative file,
relief to the person affected by the loss of file are the basic actions the Public Authority is
legitimately expected to perform.
8. CIC, New Delhi in Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG:
There are numerous instances where RTI applications have been transferred by one
public authority to another and none of them appears to know where the information is.
In this scenario for public authorities to take a position that they will only transfer to one
public authority is unreasonable and the law certainly does not state this. Public
Authorities claimthat it would be difficult to transfer RTI applications to multiple
authorities since it would mean putting a lot of resource. …. If public authorities do not
meet commitments implied in the RTI Act, the citizen cannot be denied his
fundamental right.
The Commission rules that DOPT’s office memorandum no. 10/02/2008-IR dated
12/06/2008 is not consistent with the law.
The PIO is directed to transfer the RTI application to various public authorities before 25
June 2011, who must provide information for the last two years to the Appellant as per
the provisions of the RTI Act.
9. SIC, Maharashtra in Appeal no. 489 + 331/Pune, Dashrath Ghenbhau Shevkari versus
First Appellate Authority and District Collector, Pune
"One month had been granted earlier for conducting a diligent search of the lost file, as
mentioned eariler in this Order. That period is now being extended for another one
month i.e. till 15.12.2007. The relevant information should then be promptly provided to
the appellant. In case the file is yet not found then an FIR should be lodged against the
concerned officer / staff member. This would be the responsibility of the Appellate
Authority and the Collector, Pune. Completion of this procedure should be reported to
the Commission by the Collector, Pune by 30.12.2007."