The DoPT, vide their circular No 1/5/2016-IR dated 31 Mar 2017, has invited suggestions from the public on the proposed RTI Rules, 2017 attached to it. These rules have nothing in them to ensure compliance of the law by PIOs, FAAs and ICs and are obviously intended to make it more difficult for information seekers to access information and easy for public servants to avoid providing them. If anything these proposals only expose the public servants who have drafted them and approved them for circulation as idiots and traitors!
Under the circumstances it has become necessary to draft an entirely independant set of rules for the effective implementation of the RTI Act in keeping with its objectives- 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 public authority and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed- as stated in its preamble.
This is the full judgement delivered by Chief Justice David Maraga and three other judges who supported the petition filed by Raila Odinga challenging the declaration of President Uhuru Kenyatta as the winner of the August 8 polls.
This is the full judgement delivered by Chief Justice David Maraga and three other judges who supported the petition filed by Raila Odinga challenging the declaration of President Uhuru Kenyatta as the winner of the August 8 polls.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
GA 2325 of 2018
WP 328 of 2018
RAJYASHREE CHAUDHURI
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. ORDER DT. 21/08/2018.
Eid uz Zoha Sacrifice of the cow was not an integral part of the festivaland was not a religious requirement under Islam....
State Govt agrees to stop nuisance of slaughter in public from next year.
No animal slaughter in public place: HC to West Bengal.
SEE FULL REPORT AT https://wp.me/pCXJT-9np .
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!
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)
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits in federal court have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation in federal court in Massachusetts. These lawsuits all claim money from the maker of GranuFlo and NaturaLyte, Fresenius Medical Care. NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were drugs used in the process of kidney dialysis. The FDA issued a Class I recall, its most serious, after it was discovered that NaturaLyte and GranuFlo could cause cardiac problems, including heart attacks and sudden death.
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were recalled March 29, 2012. A copy of the FDA Recall Notice can be found among the documents uploaded by Michael J. Evans here on SlideShare.
Because the two dialysis drugs were presumably not used after March 29, 2013, there is some reason to believe that most, if not all, NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits could have been filed by March 30, 2012. Therefore, in states which have a two-year statute of limitations, there is an argument that the statute of limitations would run on a NaturaLyte or GranuFlo lawsuit no later than March 29, 2014. Of course, there are some states with longer statutes of limitation, and there are legal arguments, such as tolling, that may allow some people to file NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits after March 29, 2014.
It seems risky to this lawyer to wait to file a NaturaLyte or GranuFlo lawsuit. On July 29, 2013, the MDL judge entered this order setting a scheduling conference for August 30, 2013. One part of the Order that should be of particular interest to people with NaturaLyte or GranuFlo claims is this: the judge ordered all plaintiffs' attorneys to provide settlement proposals to the defendants' lawyers no later than two weeks prior to the hearing. That deadline ran on August 16, 2013. The lawyers for Fresenius Medical Care are ordered to respond to the proposals at the August 30 hearing.
If you were seriously injured by dialysis, or lost a family member due to dialysis, before the NaturaLyte and GranuFlo recall on March 29, 2013, you should have already had your possible lawsuit reviewed by a law firm which is experienced in representing injured people in pharmaceutical and medical device lawsuits. If you or your loved one experienced serious cardiac problems, including a heart attack or sudden death during or after dialysis while NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were still on the market, you may have a valuable claim for money but be unaware of it. You probably wouldn't be told by Fresenius that you or your family member were injured (or died) due to NaturaLyte or GranuFlo. You may wish to contact a law firm which is willing to spend the money to get copies of the medical records (at no cost to you) to see if NaturaLyte or GranuFlo were used. I am part of a group of law firms that handles such cases, and we would be glad to investigate your possible case of cardiac problems or death due to dialysis. If we don't collect money FOR you, we don't collect and money FROM you. It's a risk-free opportunity.
The Competition (Amendment ) Bill, 2012, Bill No. 136 of 2012 ( the Amendment
Bill 2012) lapsed before it could become a law because of the dissolution of the then
lower house of Parliament just before the general elections leading to the present
Government, at the centre, came to power. One of the amendments, proposed in
this Amendment Bill 2012, sought to make changes in Section 26 of the Act to
allow some clear lee way to the Competition Commission of India (Commission) to
differ from the report of the Director General(DG) and close the matter despite the
DG having come to the conclusion that there is a violation of competition law
after he has investigated into the allegations of violations of competition law. Such
clarity, sought to be introduced by the Amendment Bill, 2012, is missing in the
relevant provisions of the Act as they stand today. In the appropriate provisions, as
they exist today, there is enough room for inquiry by the Commission in addition
to the investigation by the Director General(DG) after investigation by DG is
done. The natural corrollary is that a poorly investigated report by DG can not be
either a basis or excuse for not upholding violations of competition law if found in
a prima facie opinion of the Commission. However, it is a moot point if this part of
the mandate is being fully exercised at present or not.
It is this part of inquiry by the Commission after the report has been submitted by
the DG which the author, who headed the Antitrust Division of CCI to actually
see the implementation of functional regulations in real practice and also assisted
the Commission in drafting these regulations, discusses in this article.
Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017 entitled "OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS" filed on 18.01.2017 Vide Diary No. 2188 against Supreme Court of India for Evading Rule of Law; Violating set practice, procedure as laid down in the Handbook of this Hon'ble Court; protecting/shielding Bad Elements of State Apparatus and offending, harassing, victimizing the Petitioner-in Person and his Senior Citizen old age Oxygen dependent mother.
This happens to be last resort under legal remedy before the COURT OF LAW for us.
Political parties come under rti act- Central Information CommissionLalith Babu
The Central Information Commission (CIC) said that India’s political parties are public authorities and answerable to citizens under the Right to Information (RTI) Act
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
GA 2325 of 2018
WP 328 of 2018
RAJYASHREE CHAUDHURI
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. ORDER DT. 21/08/2018.
Eid uz Zoha Sacrifice of the cow was not an integral part of the festivaland was not a religious requirement under Islam....
State Govt agrees to stop nuisance of slaughter in public from next year.
No animal slaughter in public place: HC to West Bengal.
SEE FULL REPORT AT https://wp.me/pCXJT-9np .
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!
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)
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits in federal court have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation in federal court in Massachusetts. These lawsuits all claim money from the maker of GranuFlo and NaturaLyte, Fresenius Medical Care. NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were drugs used in the process of kidney dialysis. The FDA issued a Class I recall, its most serious, after it was discovered that NaturaLyte and GranuFlo could cause cardiac problems, including heart attacks and sudden death.
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were recalled March 29, 2012. A copy of the FDA Recall Notice can be found among the documents uploaded by Michael J. Evans here on SlideShare.
Because the two dialysis drugs were presumably not used after March 29, 2013, there is some reason to believe that most, if not all, NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits could have been filed by March 30, 2012. Therefore, in states which have a two-year statute of limitations, there is an argument that the statute of limitations would run on a NaturaLyte or GranuFlo lawsuit no later than March 29, 2014. Of course, there are some states with longer statutes of limitation, and there are legal arguments, such as tolling, that may allow some people to file NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits after March 29, 2014.
It seems risky to this lawyer to wait to file a NaturaLyte or GranuFlo lawsuit. On July 29, 2013, the MDL judge entered this order setting a scheduling conference for August 30, 2013. One part of the Order that should be of particular interest to people with NaturaLyte or GranuFlo claims is this: the judge ordered all plaintiffs' attorneys to provide settlement proposals to the defendants' lawyers no later than two weeks prior to the hearing. That deadline ran on August 16, 2013. The lawyers for Fresenius Medical Care are ordered to respond to the proposals at the August 30 hearing.
If you were seriously injured by dialysis, or lost a family member due to dialysis, before the NaturaLyte and GranuFlo recall on March 29, 2013, you should have already had your possible lawsuit reviewed by a law firm which is experienced in representing injured people in pharmaceutical and medical device lawsuits. If you or your loved one experienced serious cardiac problems, including a heart attack or sudden death during or after dialysis while NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were still on the market, you may have a valuable claim for money but be unaware of it. You probably wouldn't be told by Fresenius that you or your family member were injured (or died) due to NaturaLyte or GranuFlo. You may wish to contact a law firm which is willing to spend the money to get copies of the medical records (at no cost to you) to see if NaturaLyte or GranuFlo were used. I am part of a group of law firms that handles such cases, and we would be glad to investigate your possible case of cardiac problems or death due to dialysis. If we don't collect money FOR you, we don't collect and money FROM you. It's a risk-free opportunity.
The Competition (Amendment ) Bill, 2012, Bill No. 136 of 2012 ( the Amendment
Bill 2012) lapsed before it could become a law because of the dissolution of the then
lower house of Parliament just before the general elections leading to the present
Government, at the centre, came to power. One of the amendments, proposed in
this Amendment Bill 2012, sought to make changes in Section 26 of the Act to
allow some clear lee way to the Competition Commission of India (Commission) to
differ from the report of the Director General(DG) and close the matter despite the
DG having come to the conclusion that there is a violation of competition law
after he has investigated into the allegations of violations of competition law. Such
clarity, sought to be introduced by the Amendment Bill, 2012, is missing in the
relevant provisions of the Act as they stand today. In the appropriate provisions, as
they exist today, there is enough room for inquiry by the Commission in addition
to the investigation by the Director General(DG) after investigation by DG is
done. The natural corrollary is that a poorly investigated report by DG can not be
either a basis or excuse for not upholding violations of competition law if found in
a prima facie opinion of the Commission. However, it is a moot point if this part of
the mandate is being fully exercised at present or not.
It is this part of inquiry by the Commission after the report has been submitted by
the DG which the author, who headed the Antitrust Division of CCI to actually
see the implementation of functional regulations in real practice and also assisted
the Commission in drafting these regulations, discusses in this article.
Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017 entitled "OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS" filed on 18.01.2017 Vide Diary No. 2188 against Supreme Court of India for Evading Rule of Law; Violating set practice, procedure as laid down in the Handbook of this Hon'ble Court; protecting/shielding Bad Elements of State Apparatus and offending, harassing, victimizing the Petitioner-in Person and his Senior Citizen old age Oxygen dependent mother.
This happens to be last resort under legal remedy before the COURT OF LAW for us.
Political parties come under rti act- Central Information CommissionLalith Babu
The Central Information Commission (CIC) said that India’s political parties are public authorities and answerable to citizens under the Right to Information (RTI) Act
Neither in the present Draft nor in the RTI Rule 2012 time time line has been fixed for Commission. As of now, it has been left up to the discretion of Central Registry of Commission. It kills the innocent citizen and protects corrupt officials.
Time bound registration, allocation of file numbers, listing of matters and procedure of deciding second appeals/complaints to be more objective rather than subjective.
Duites and Responsibilities of Public Information Officer under the Right To ...ParthSagdeo2
Salient features of the RTI act and PIOs are officers designated by the public authorities in all administrative units or offices under it to provide information to the citizens requesting information under the Act. Any officer, whose assistance has been sought by the PIO for the proper discharge of his or her duties, shall render all assistance and for contraventions of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a PIO.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority PanchkulaSatish Mishra
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Adjudication of Complaints), Regulations, 2018.
(Published by the Authority in Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary)) Notification dated 09.02.2018. No. 333 RERA PKL/ 2018 - In exercise of the powers conferred on it under
Section-85 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and all
others powers enabling it in that behalf, the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula hereby makes the following regulations:
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.
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
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
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
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.
Russian anarchist and anti-war movement in the third year of full-scale warAntti Rautiainen
Anarchist group ANA Regensburg hosted my online-presentation on 16th of May 2024, in which I discussed tactics of anti-war activism in Russia, and reasons why the anti-war movement has not been able to make an impact to change the course of events yet. Cases of anarchists repressed for anti-war activities are presented, as well as strategies of support for political prisoners, and modest successes in supporting their struggles.
Thumbnail picture is by MediaZona, you may read their report on anti-war arson attacks in Russia here: https://en.zona.media/article/2022/10/13/burn-map
Links:
Autonomous Action
http://Avtonom.org
Anarchist Black Cross Moscow
http://Avtonom.org/abc
Solidarity Zone
https://t.me/solidarity_zone
Memorial
https://memopzk.org/, https://t.me/pzk_memorial
OVD-Info
https://en.ovdinfo.org/antiwar-ovd-info-guide
RosUznik
https://rosuznik.org/
Uznik Online
http://uznikonline.tilda.ws/
Russian Reader
https://therussianreader.com/
ABC Irkutsk
https://abc38.noblogs.org/
Send mail to prisoners from abroad:
http://Prisonmail.online
YouTube: https://youtu.be/c5nSOdU48O8
Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/libertarianlifecoach/episodes/Russian-anarchist-and-anti-war-movement-in-the-third-year-of-full-scale-war-e2k8ai4
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
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
PPT Item # 9 - 2024 Street Maintenance Program(SMP) Amendment
Rti rules 2017-redrafted by rti activist
1. P M Ravindran
2/18, 'Aathira', Sivapuri, Kalpathy-678003
Tele: 0491-2576042; E-mail: raviforjustice@gmail.com
File:RTI-rules2017-redraft-060417 06 Apr 2017
Note: The DoPT, vide their circular No 1/5/2016-IR dated 31 Mar 2017, has invited suggestions
from the public on the proposed RTI Rules, 2017 attached to it. These rules have nothing in
them to ensure compliance of the law by PIOs, FAAs and ICs and are obviously intended to
make it more difficult for information seekers to access information and easy for public servants
to avoid providing them. If anything these proposals only expose the public servants who have
drafted them and approved them for circulation as idiots and traitors!
In this context it is pertinent to recollect the Natchiappan Commitee of Parliament which had
invited suggestions from the public on the amendments required for the RTI Act. In fact even
that move was seen by activists working in this area as a move by the then government to
neutralise the good aspects of the transparency law. In the event many citizens wasted a lot of
their time and energy to give suggestions which did not see the light of the day.
Subsequently, the tainted PriceWater Cooper House was engaged (at considerable cost, of
course) to study the implemention of this law. And they did produce a glossy report which, in
my opinion, can be easily trashed. A copy of the report is in my posession and can be provided,
through email, to anyone seeking it.
Under the circumstances it has become necessary to draft an entirely independant set of rules
for the effective implementation of the RTI Act in keeping with its objectives- 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 public authority and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their
instrumentalities accountable to the governed- as stated in its preamble.
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION RULES, 2017
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 27 of the Right to Information Act,
2005 (22 of 2005) and in supersession of the Right to Information Rules 2012, except
as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, but the
procedures being applicable to all applications and appeals which are at different
stages of processing as on the date of these rules becoming effective, 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,2017.
(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,—
(a)"Act" means the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005);
2. (b) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-
government as defined in the Act and would include Members of Parliament
also.
(c)” First Appellate Authority (FAA) ” means the public servant superior to the CPIO
and designated as such as per Sec 19(1) of the Act.
(c) All other words and expressions used herein but not defined in these rules shall
have the same meanings as assigned to them in the Act.
3. Designation of Public Information Officers (PIO), Nodal PIO, Assistant PIO and
FAA(s) under Sec 5 and 19 of the Act.
(a) The head of a public authority having a strength of 5 or more public servants,
including himself, will designate a central PIO and also designate himself as
the appellate authority.
(b) Any public authority having a strength of 15 or more public servants shall
designate an additional central public information officer for every 15 public
servants or part thereof. Where there is more than one central public
information officer one of them shall be designated as the nodal central
public information officer who will co-ordinate activities with the others. The
nodal central public information officer shall be assisted by a central assistant
public information officer.
(c) There shall be an appellate authority for every 3 CPIOs in a public authority and
in cases where there is more than one appellate authority in a public
authority the head of the public authority shall be the nodal appellate
authority coordinating the activities of all the appellate authorities in the
public authority.
(d) In the case of public authorities having less than 5 public servants, the head of
the public authority shall be the CPIO and his superior (in another public
authority) shall be the appellate authority.
(e) In the case of single member public authorities like Members of Parliament,
who are provided with staff/allowance to maintain an office in their
constituencies, applications from citizens for information under the Act shall
be accepted and transferred, under sec 6(3) of the Act, to the concerned
public authorities dealing with the specific information sought.
4. Application.
(a) An application for information shall be in English or any other languages used
by the Union or in the State in the area where the public authority is
located*1.
(b) It shall preferably be listed, using paragraph numbers, for ease of providing
the information and for facilitating processing of appeals.
(c) It shall be made on plain paper or digitally and shall contain the contact
details of the applicant which may even be Post Box number in the name of
the applicant. The applicant may disclose his telephone/mobile numbers and
3. e mail id if he desires so. There shall be no fee required to be paid by the
applicant.*2
(d) There is no need for the applicant to disclose the purpose of seeking the
information.
(e) The applications shall be submitted in person or through a representative
which may even be a courier, including the post offices, or through electronic
means. Receipts/acknowledgements will have to be obtained in all cases.
5. Processing of applications.
(a) The application may be accepted directly or through the normal procedure
followed for receipt of mail.
(b) The recipient shall allot a unique number to the application that will identify
the public authority and the application and record its receipt in the register
meant for the purpose.
(c) The copy of the application, after masking the contact details, will be
uploaded on the website of the public authority or a common website created
for the purpose, along with the application number assigned to it. (Search
facility should provide for tracking the document and its docket using the
applicant’s name, name of the public authority, date of the application as
mentioned by the applicant, the subject and/or application number using any
of them independently or in combination.)
(d) The recipient of the application will then transfer it to the CPIO or ACPIO, as
the case may be. This transfer need not be through any hierarchical channels
as may exist in the public authority.
(e) In the case of applications, addressed to different public authorities, handed
over to the ACPIO, the ACPIO (or in his absence the Nodal PIO or PIO) shall
transfer the application to the addressee expeditiously but within 5 days of its
receipt in the public authority and endorse a copy of the letter transferring it
to the applicant also.
(f) The date of receipt of the application in the public authority, which is required
to provide the information, will be considered for the purpose of calculating
the period of 30 days specified in sec 7(1) of the Act.
(g) At every stage of transfer, the recipient of the application will send an
acknowledgement to the applicant through SMS/ email, if available, indicating
the application number. The information shall be updated in the relevant
docket at the web site too.
(h) The date and time of all transfers will be recorded in the docket, a copy of
which will be provided to the applicant even if such information has not been
sought by him.
(i) The CPIO will first re draft the application, if necessary, by reproducing the
request for information in English and in the form of a list and mark specific
requirements for the actual custodians of the information in the public
authority and transfer it to them within 24 hours of receipt of the application
with instructions to produce the information and copies of documents along
4. with a list of such documents as early as possible but not later than 15 days
from the date of transfer. If any custodian of information/documents, fail to
comply with the requirement he may be given an additional 2 days with the
approval of the appellate authority.
(j) In case of transfer of the application, in part or full, to another public
authority, sec 6(3) will be complied with by endorsing a copy of the letter
under which the transfer is effected, to the applicant also. Sec 6(3) will be
complied with for as many public authorities as are required to provide the
complete information sought.
(k) On receipt of information/copies of documents the CPIO will compile it, using
the format of the redrafted application indicating which all information are
being provided and action taken on those that are not being provided. It will
then be send to the applicant, along with a copy of the docket, with
information to the appellate authority.
(Note: No cost is demanded and the complete information and copies of
documents along with its complete list, is provided free of cost, for reasons given
at ser 2 of Comments)
(l) The reply by the CPIO will include the following information, even if not
sought specifically by the applicant: the name and his designation as the CPIO
as well as his regular designation in the public authority, full address of the
public authority including the Postal Index Number, telephone and mobile
numbers and e mail id. If he has not been provided with official
telephone/mobile numbers and e mail id, such details of his superior who has
been provided those, and similar details of the FAA will be provided.
(m) The reply by the CPIO will be in the language of the application and English
(repeat and English), if the language used by the applicant is not English. If
required by the applicant, copies of documents which are not in the language
used in the application, will be provided after being translated into English
and duly authenticated by the CPIO.
(n) For the purpose of calculating 30 days the date of handing over to postal
authorities/courier agencies will only be considered.
(o) If the CPIO fails, for whatever reasons, to communicate the contents of the
docket and the date of posting the reply cannot also be confirmed, it shall be
presumed that the application had been delivered to the CPIO 3 days after it
was posted/couriered and the reply had been posted/couriered 3 days before
the receipt by the applicant
(p) The onus of proving that the information/copies of documents sought have
been delivered to the applicant will be that of the CPIO.
6. Processing of 1st
appeal (by the designated FAA).
(a) T he applicant, on receipt of the information and copies of the documents, if
not satisfied with the response, may file a first appeal with the FAA within 30
days of receipt.
5. (b) The appeal may be submitted in person or through a representative which
may even be a courier, including the post offices, or through electronic
means. Receipts/acknowledgements will have to be obtained in all cases.
(c) The appeal may be processed like the application is processed as detailed in
para 5(a) to (c) with the following changes:
The appeal number shall be created by adding a suffix to the application
number already provided.
(d) The appeal shall then be transferred to the FAA.
(e) The FAA shall call for the relevant records and verify the contents of the
response of the CPIO as well as the contentions of the appellant. If any
deficiency has been noted in the response of the CPIO, even when such
deficiencies have not been explicitly mentioned in the appeal, he will take
necessary action to rectify them which may include the following:
(i) Direction to the CPIO to provide the missing information
(ii) Direction to the CPIO to comply with Sec 6(3) of the Act
(iii) Confirm compliance with the above direction
(iv) Disseminate the lessons learnt amoung all the public servants in the
public authority
(f) Communicate the action taken, findings and decision to the appellant.
(g) The details at para 5(l) to (p), as modified appropriately, applies for the FAA
also.
7. Duties of the Chief Information Commissioner.
(a) Apart from the duties listed at Sec 12(4) of the Act , it is necessary for the Chief
Information Commissioner to do the following in order to fulfill the
obligations of information commissioners to enforce the law in letter and
spirit.
(b) By exercising his powers under Sec 19(8) he should cause to be published by
the commission on its website all the subjects dealt with by various public
authorities and records held with each public servant of every public
authority. This should be done by providing links at this site to the
information published by the public authorities in pursuance of the
requirement at sec 4(1)(b)(i) and 4(1)(b)(v) of the Act.
(c) The Chief Information Commissioner shall divide the complaints/appeals
amoung the information commissioners in such a manner that the load on
each commissioner is comparable with that of others.
(d) The Chief information Commissioner should ensure that all complaints/appeals
received by the commission are decided on a first come first served basis,
except in the case of complaints/appeals involving life and liberty of citizens.
(e) In no case should a complaint/appeal filed one month earlier than the latest
complaint/appeal decided by any information commissioner be kept pending.
6. (f) In no case should any complaint/appeal be pending for decision beyond 90
days.
(g) The Chief information Commissioner should ensure that each information
commissioners decides atleast 30 appeals per day and for calculating the
work load one appeal shall be considered to be equal to 3 complaints.
(h) The Chief Information Commissioner should ensure that the proceedings are
conducted in English or the language used by the applicant if it is any of the
languages used by the Union or States. To facilitate this the public servants
employed in the Commission should be from all parts of the country who can
double as translators when the need the arises.
8. Processing of Complaint/2nd
appeal at the Central Information Commission.
(a) An applicant may file a complaint, for any of the reasons given in sec 18 (1)
of the Act or an appeal under Sec 19(3), if he is not satisfied with the decision
of the FAA, for whatever reasons, including delay in deciding the appeal, to
the Chief Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission.
(b) The complaint may be filed within 90 days of the events, listed at sec 18(1) of
the Act, happening.
(c) The 2nd
appeal may be filed within 90 days of receipt of the decision of the
FAA or on non receipt of the decision even after the expiry of 30 days of
submission of the 1st appeal.
(d) The complaint/2nd appeal will be accompanied by copies of the application,
reply/replies from the CPIO(s), 1st appeal(s) and the reply/replies from the
FAA(s), as applicable.
(e) On receipt of the complaint/cappeal along with the documents mentioned in
para 8(d) the recipient will process it as mentioned in para 5 till it is
transferred to the concerned IC who is required to decide on it.
(f) The IC will after going through the complaint/ 2nd appeal and the
documents submitted with it, will decide on the answers for the following
questions, as applicable, for each public authority involved:
(i) Had all disclosable information sought and held with the respective
public authorities been disclosed within the specified period?
(ii) In case of information sought but not held with the public authority had
Sec 6(3) of the Act been complied with, including communication of the
matter of transfer to the applicant?
(iii) Who are the CPIOs who have defaulted and what are the their defaults?
(iv) Who are the FAAs who have decided the 1st appeal and was there any
deficiency on their part?
(g) After having decided that specific CPIOs have defaulted and penalty needs to
be imposed on them, the IC will give them an opportunity to being heard by
seeking an affidavit from the defaulting CPIO(s) , duly countersigned by the
FAA, clarifying the deficiencies listed and reasons why the penalty should not
be imposed. The copy of this notice providing the opportunity to being heard
7. to the CPIO should also be provided to the appellant for his information and
records.
(h) On receipt of these affidavits, if the IC finds any merit in any of the reasons
given for not penalising, he shall provide a copy of the affidavit to the
appellant for his arguments to be submitted within 30 days of receipt of the
copy of the affidavit(s). Only after receipt of these arguments should he take a
final decision in the appeal. The decision should clearly bring out the reasons,
especially if no penalty is imposed. Direction to the superior authorities to
take administrative action against defaulting FAAs should also be part of the
decision.
(i) The decision should necessarily include a direction to the CPIO to provideto
the commission the information/copies of documents, duly attested, denied
to the applicant till then. This information/copies of documents shall be
provided to the appellant/complainant.
(j) Apart from the penalty imposed under sec 20 of the Act, the IC should also
recover the cost of documents provided free of cost to the appellant and the
compensation to be paid to the appellant, as per sec 19(8)(b), for the time,
effort and cost in pursuing the appeals.
(k) If the complete information had been provided before submission of the 2nd
appeal the CPIO should compensate the appellant to the tune of Rs 5000/-
and if it is provided only after the 2nd appeal the FAA should also pay a
compensation of Rs 5000/- to the appellant.
(l) No complaint or appeal should be returned unless the material documents
that are required for deciding them have not been provided by the
complainant/appellant.
(m) The final decision in all complaints and 2nd appeals should published on the
web site of the commission within 24 hours. This information along with the
URL of the decision should be communicated to the complainant/appellant
through SMS/ email in cases where the complainant/appellant has provided
hismobile number and or e mail id. If such information has not been provided
by the complainant/appellant copy of the decision will be despatched to him
within 24 hours.
(n) Onus of proving that it has been communicated to the complainant/appellant
will be that of the information commissioner.
Comments.
*1. Refer Art 350 of the Constitution of India
*2. In view of the provisions of sec 4(1)(b) and 4(2) and DoPT circulars directing
public authorities to upload applications, appeals and resposes to them on the
8. website of the public authority and nearly 12 years have passed since the Act has
come into force it is necessary to do away with the application fee.