RTI ACT which is talk of country at this juncture wherein 360 degree turn about is seemed in terms of dominance of bureaucratic over citizen, & you made such training session very interesting alluring all participants to remain active whole heartedly.
I would also like to share certain issues immerged while training session as pointed out to you during session it self, but due to time constraint we could not debate at length for your kind perusal & through discussion with your fellow faculties to as pointed by you for clarification to facilitate better implementation of the act.
Fee:- Against provision under rules to receive by o9nly three modes, i.e. cash, NJS & Pay order if received as per discussion by the way of court fee, revenue stamp or postal order or money order may create certain problem of misuse of the stamps in multiple use or embezzlement or misappropriation of fund in case of MO Or postal order in the absence of full proof system.
Right to apply:-
As discussed under section 3 of the act citizens have been given right to seek info but under section 6 of the act right to apply is there to person & not only citizen.
Because citizen is restricted term compared to person. For which I would like to draw your kind attention towards section 2(31) of the income tax act. Thus under RTI act never provides to verify citizenship status.
SIC judgments:-
We had elaborate discussion on various important judgments with good spirit. Principle of resjudicata is applying to the Judgments of SIC but it does not automatically amend the act because in similar situation in other case it may very, earlier judgment may be superseded or reversed or may be upheld or confirmed. Under the circumstances it becomes inevitable to reduce quasi judicial process to amend the act on experience & observation to apply uniformly.
Application without Fee:-
Under rule 3 & form b of the rules even without fee application also we are supposed not only to accept but also to enroll under the act. & if within reasonable period applicant fails to pay accordingly application may be disposed off considering even preamble & spirit & provision of the act.
Appeal Fee:-
Under Rule 5 it is pretty clear that every application---
& also under section 6 (1) of the act also application is to be accompanied with the fee. Under the circumstances why there should not be appeal fee?
Personal Information:-
One of the issue discussed was the details of property furnished by employee is to be treated as personal information.
As per the provision of the act under section 8 (j) when any info given in confidence--- is to be treated as such. Also when under section 23 of the act official secrets act it self has been scrapped up to the extent & considering spirit of the preamble of transparency & containing corruption why this sham should be there?
PIO at lower level & multiple DAA:-
As you are aware act provides for transparency along with accountability under the circumstances if lower rank officials or employees will be designated as PIO & there immediate officer as DAA multiple DAA will be there in the same public authority. This may not fulfill the very purpose of act of accountability as aggrieved person from lower level are compelled to resort to RTI & the same will be PIO how & up to what extent justice can be expected from them?
Also if multiple DAA will be there in the same public authority consistency & uniformity may not be maintained. For similar kind of matter varied decisions may be there in the same P.A. This will create more hassle. Even from the aspect of getting justice from SIC to P.A. this may be obstructive.
As under section 2 of the I.T. Act 1961 public authority is person & can resort to SIC in complicated cases.
Communication:-
This is very important factor in deciding cause of action.
When PIO is dispatching letter to pay further fee to the applicant by post UPC if applicant is not receiving or receiving late & later claim to provide fee or on the same ground if resorting to appeal prima facie appeal may be admitted thus period of communication should be from the date to dispatch to postal authority & not actually received by the applicant. Even if referred the contract act 1872 section 4 of communication support this claim.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Right to Information - Rule making & better implementation
This is from the media report only i.e. without referring the rules i am sending confusion crop up to my mind with due respect to H/High court,
1/If read section 28 of RTI competent authority may ----- make the rules to “carry out the provisions of this act.
2/In particular, & without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rule may be------" which includes to decide cost of the medium or print price, fee payable under s 6(1) & 7(1) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.
The rules of the HC as amended seems from media report pertains to any other matter i.e. last item of s 28(2) but the question arise is can any competent authority make the rules in violation of basic structure of RTI? Because if read to carry out the provision of this act & without prejudice etc the answer is NO.
If again refer the media report the issue of public domain, or does not relate to judicial function etc how one authority can withhold the same because if referred s 6(3) of the RTI it is obligatory on the part of public authority to transfer the same to another public authority. While so far as the matter of confidentiality is concerned s 22 is pretty clear to RtI have an overriding effect on any other law for the time being in force including official secrets act 1923.
Even otherwise under the RTI Act it self under s 8 & 9 exemptions are provided except those provision it becomes obligatory on the part of public authority to divulge the info.
Under the circumstances question arises are-
1/ if these kind of rules are made can it have dominating effect?
2/ if any appeal is being preferred against the same to the state commission will it become sustainable?
3/ Can the commission decide the matter putting aside the rules if made in violation of basic structure of the RTI i.e. preamble, section 2 (f), (I), & (j) definition of information, record & right to information respectively.
4/ The last but not the least if read section 23 of the RTI Bar of jurisdiction of courts who will interpret the matter finally if the verdict given by commission is in favour of applicant & dispute arise ?
5/ Can the same matter be referred to the central Government to remove the difficulty before completion of two years?
1/If read section 28 of RTI competent authority may ----- make the rules to “carry out the provisions of this act.
2/In particular, & without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rule may be------" which includes to decide cost of the medium or print price, fee payable under s 6(1) & 7(1) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.
The rules of the HC as amended seems from media report pertains to any other matter i.e. last item of s 28(2) but the question arise is can any competent authority make the rules in violation of basic structure of RTI? Because if read to carry out the provision of this act & without prejudice etc the answer is NO.
If again refer the media report the issue of public domain, or does not relate to judicial function etc how one authority can withhold the same because if referred s 6(3) of the RTI it is obligatory on the part of public authority to transfer the same to another public authority. While so far as the matter of confidentiality is concerned s 22 is pretty clear to RtI have an overriding effect on any other law for the time being in force including official secrets act 1923.
Even otherwise under the RTI Act it self under s 8 & 9 exemptions are provided except those provision it becomes obligatory on the part of public authority to divulge the info.
Under the circumstances question arises are-
1/ if these kind of rules are made can it have dominating effect?
2/ if any appeal is being preferred against the same to the state commission will it become sustainable?
3/ Can the commission decide the matter putting aside the rules if made in violation of basic structure of the RTI i.e. preamble, section 2 (f), (I), & (j) definition of information, record & right to information respectively.
4/ The last but not the least if read section 23 of the RTI Bar of jurisdiction of courts who will interpret the matter finally if the verdict given by commission is in favour of applicant & dispute arise ?
5/ Can the same matter be referred to the central Government to remove the difficulty before completion of two years?
Right to Information - better implementation
To gscic on 8th april07
Sir,
Indeed it is matter of proud for gujarat to have Chief Information commissioner like you.
i had an opportunity to attend couple of hearing at the commission as a representative of public authority & being a citizen attended the workshop cum seminar organized at surat where in you were key note speaker as distinguished guest.
Sir,
Your gentleness, nobility & enthusiasm to deal the appeal going at micro level, even receiving the same of aggrieves applicant at auditorium at surat which being an independent quasi judicial authority one is not supposed to any where, your interpretation skill & adeptness/acumen to handle the appeal is impressive & worth appealing.
But sir, when implementation of the act is in nascent stage & in transition while on other side due to NGO & media publicity the expectation of the citizen are quite much high for instant result. Our administration & especially babudom is not well equip for the same to change the mind set reciprocally, under the circumstances it will take some time to unshackle the myriad administrative control & people may not have the patient to wait. considering the situation it becomes multi level member commission along with couple of deputing senior level staff to assist the commission to sustain the credibility & the reputation commission has earned.
Sir,
Indeed it is matter of proud for gujarat to have Chief Information commissioner like you.
i had an opportunity to attend couple of hearing at the commission as a representative of public authority & being a citizen attended the workshop cum seminar organized at surat where in you were key note speaker as distinguished guest.
Sir,
Your gentleness, nobility & enthusiasm to deal the appeal going at micro level, even receiving the same of aggrieves applicant at auditorium at surat which being an independent quasi judicial authority one is not supposed to any where, your interpretation skill & adeptness/acumen to handle the appeal is impressive & worth appealing.
But sir, when implementation of the act is in nascent stage & in transition while on other side due to NGO & media publicity the expectation of the citizen are quite much high for instant result. Our administration & especially babudom is not well equip for the same to change the mind set reciprocally, under the circumstances it will take some time to unshackle the myriad administrative control & people may not have the patient to wait. considering the situation it becomes multi level member commission along with couple of deputing senior level staff to assist the commission to sustain the credibility & the reputation commission has earned.
Right to information - implementation review
As observed in past 17 months post of right to information act it has received overwhelming response from the citizen. By & large even though of reluctance on the part of BABUDOM to share public record with public even under the fear of this act the very purpose of the act is being served. In majority of the cases where under normal course citizen might not have got the info for couple of months now they are receiving in couple of days. After the independence of almost 6 decades & 5.5 decades of republic India now one can say in real sense it has come true.
Sir,
as per my observation still to implement the act in true letter & spirit i am suggesting some points, if you fill worth considerable may I REQUEST YOUR GOODSELF TO DIRECT CONCERNED AUTHORITY under section 26 /27 of the act.
Still in many of the cases at first instance citizen is not getting Thus he/she has to resort to appellate provision. the very purpose of the act enshrine for sharing & providing the info at grass root level. for which statistics may be obtained from all PIOS & appellate authorities. Where ever the appeals are nil or minimum poi may be appreciated with some recognition. in the adverse scenario pio should pay the price by way of demotion/moving to insignificant post etc after due process of departmental inquiry.
the same should be the case for appeal authority who by disposing at his level satisfied the citizen may be rewarded as the less number of appeals will be there to state info commission vis.vis.
At state level appeal the copy of appeal should be sent to pio/ appellate authority before attendance & simultaneously before attendance they should be asked to furnished the copy of relevant act/ rules proviso ions to facilitate the commission to take the decision in right direction in first sitting itself.
because in many of the cases rather than replying pointed questions in simple answer the same may be circumvented ultimately the citizen may be deprived of right direct reply which may be justified by H/ commission.
Still integrated training seems inevitable on the part of all departments .
Sir,
as per my observation still to implement the act in true letter & spirit i am suggesting some points, if you fill worth considerable may I REQUEST YOUR GOODSELF TO DIRECT CONCERNED AUTHORITY under section 26 /27 of the act.
Still in many of the cases at first instance citizen is not getting Thus he/she has to resort to appellate provision. the very purpose of the act enshrine for sharing & providing the info at grass root level. for which statistics may be obtained from all PIOS & appellate authorities. Where ever the appeals are nil or minimum poi may be appreciated with some recognition. in the adverse scenario pio should pay the price by way of demotion/moving to insignificant post etc after due process of departmental inquiry.
the same should be the case for appeal authority who by disposing at his level satisfied the citizen may be rewarded as the less number of appeals will be there to state info commission vis.vis.
At state level appeal the copy of appeal should be sent to pio/ appellate authority before attendance & simultaneously before attendance they should be asked to furnished the copy of relevant act/ rules proviso ions to facilitate the commission to take the decision in right direction in first sitting itself.
because in many of the cases rather than replying pointed questions in simple answer the same may be circumvented ultimately the citizen may be deprived of right direct reply which may be justified by H/ commission.
Still integrated training seems inevitable on the part of all departments .
Right to Information - better implementation
As per my observation after attending couple of sessions before State information Commission may i seek your kind permission to express some suggestion for your kind perusal & consideration.
Sir, H/ commission is an independent body having powers to make own system but voice of citizens & observations of experienced d may prove pivotal role in bringing reform. here my intention is never to criticize any body but to keep the mission get going with grand success.
1/ Day by day more & more appeals are being flooded in commission. I.e. in the beginning from 12 to 15 per day now daily board seems for more than 35 for a single member commission which has increased the work burden of commission significantly. Now it becomes inevitable to increase the strength of the commission u/s 15 of RTI.
2/On watching the daily board applicants & officers are rushing from all for corners of the state traveling 100 to 300 km. of journey. To mitigate the sufferings to applicant as well as officials & by that way public exchequer we may consider to establish regional benches of the commission like North, east, South, & west for speedy disposal & sustain the credibility 7 faith of people in commission in general & spirit & provision of the act to believe the people indeed citizens are supreme in country.
3/Untill the implementation suggested in 1& 2 Commission may consider to list out the board that first 5 matters may be local &adjoining & than priority to matters of long distance people than again to local & adjoining facilitate better reducing hardship to the applicant & authority coming form remote area.
4/at present only single commission member is there in CIC. it becomes quite tiresome, exhaustive exercise for the commission to go into minor aspect of the appeal single handedly consuming lot of time of rest of the daily board attendance indirectly that becomes valuable wastage of manpower & precious time too. Rather the system may be developed having Joint/ Deputy information commissioner to scrutinized the appeal in early stage for the issues like information sought by applicant in form A, given/refusal by PIO, first appeal by applicant, decision of appellate authority, details of form a is matching with the detail in form g or not? Ground of rejection either on the part of pio or appellate is in consonance with the provision of the act or not & the persistence of applicant is justified prima facie or not? On verifying the same many applications / appeals may be disposed off by directly issuing appropriate order by H/ commission including the matter referring for first appeal where ever not availed.
5/ Un many of the cases in transit period or during the pendancy of the appeal & coming to the board info might have been provided by the public authority or pio in those cases it remains sheer formality of putting the matter on board calling both the part etc if the same may be under the intimation to H/ commission these kind of matters as under 4 on scrutiny may be disposed off directly with just letter to applicant in that regard & still they have grievance may approach the commission in a given time.
6/ In some of the matters after seeking info applicant may not be interested either in getting the info or keep the matter continue on settlement of grievance these cases may also be as stated under 4 on scrutiny directly disposed off by the commissio0n without calling to public authority with letter dropping in that regard to applicant sending copy to public authority.
7/ This 4,5,& 6 will definitely save valuable time as well as government exchequer too avoiding undue hardship also. as ion an average if 15 to 20 matters are from beyond ahmedabad average cost for each authority may be calculated 5000 to 7000 for 2 to 3 officers apart from vehicle driver & applicant cost. The time saved may be utilized for alternative service redresses in public authority.
As per S/ 19(8)a & S/25(g) may I request H/ commission to exercise powers vested in it to keep up faith of people &credentials of H/ commission.
Sir, H/ commission is an independent body having powers to make own system but voice of citizens & observations of experienced d may prove pivotal role in bringing reform. here my intention is never to criticize any body but to keep the mission get going with grand success.
1/ Day by day more & more appeals are being flooded in commission. I.e. in the beginning from 12 to 15 per day now daily board seems for more than 35 for a single member commission which has increased the work burden of commission significantly. Now it becomes inevitable to increase the strength of the commission u/s 15 of RTI.
2/On watching the daily board applicants & officers are rushing from all for corners of the state traveling 100 to 300 km. of journey. To mitigate the sufferings to applicant as well as officials & by that way public exchequer we may consider to establish regional benches of the commission like North, east, South, & west for speedy disposal & sustain the credibility 7 faith of people in commission in general & spirit & provision of the act to believe the people indeed citizens are supreme in country.
3/Untill the implementation suggested in 1& 2 Commission may consider to list out the board that first 5 matters may be local &adjoining & than priority to matters of long distance people than again to local & adjoining facilitate better reducing hardship to the applicant & authority coming form remote area.
4/at present only single commission member is there in CIC. it becomes quite tiresome, exhaustive exercise for the commission to go into minor aspect of the appeal single handedly consuming lot of time of rest of the daily board attendance indirectly that becomes valuable wastage of manpower & precious time too. Rather the system may be developed having Joint/ Deputy information commissioner to scrutinized the appeal in early stage for the issues like information sought by applicant in form A, given/refusal by PIO, first appeal by applicant, decision of appellate authority, details of form a is matching with the detail in form g or not? Ground of rejection either on the part of pio or appellate is in consonance with the provision of the act or not & the persistence of applicant is justified prima facie or not? On verifying the same many applications / appeals may be disposed off by directly issuing appropriate order by H/ commission including the matter referring for first appeal where ever not availed.
5/ Un many of the cases in transit period or during the pendancy of the appeal & coming to the board info might have been provided by the public authority or pio in those cases it remains sheer formality of putting the matter on board calling both the part etc if the same may be under the intimation to H/ commission these kind of matters as under 4 on scrutiny may be disposed off directly with just letter to applicant in that regard & still they have grievance may approach the commission in a given time.
6/ In some of the matters after seeking info applicant may not be interested either in getting the info or keep the matter continue on settlement of grievance these cases may also be as stated under 4 on scrutiny directly disposed off by the commissio0n without calling to public authority with letter dropping in that regard to applicant sending copy to public authority.
7/ This 4,5,& 6 will definitely save valuable time as well as government exchequer too avoiding undue hardship also. as ion an average if 15 to 20 matters are from beyond ahmedabad average cost for each authority may be calculated 5000 to 7000 for 2 to 3 officers apart from vehicle driver & applicant cost. The time saved may be utilized for alternative service redresses in public authority.
As per S/ 19(8)a & S/25(g) may I request H/ commission to exercise powers vested in it to keep up faith of people &credentials of H/ commission.
Right to Information - better implementation
As per my observation after attending couple of sessions before State information Commission may i seek your kind permission to express some suggestion for your kind perusal & consideration.
Sir, H/ commission is an independent body having powers to make own system but voice of citizens & observations of experienced d may prove pivotal role in bringing reform. here my intention is never to criticize any body but to keep the mission get going with grand success.
1/ Day by day more & more appeals are being flooded in commission. I.e. in the beginning from 12 to 15 per day now daily board seems for more than 35 for a single member commission which has increased the work burden of commission significantly. Now it becomes inevitable to increase the strength of the commission u/s 15 of RTI.
2/On watching the daily board applicants & officers are rushing from all for corners of the state traveling 100 to 300 km. of journey. To mitigate the sufferings to applicant as well as officials & by that way public exchequer we may consider to establish regional benches of the commission like North, east, South, & west for speedy disposal & sustain the credibility 7 faith of people in commission in general & spirit & provision of the act to believe the people indeed citizens are supreme in country.
3/Untill the implementation suggested in 1& 2 Commission may consider to list out the board that first 5 matters may be local &adjoining & than priority to matters of long distance people than again to local & adjoining facilitate better reducing hardship to the applicant & authority coming form remote area.
4/at present only single commission member is there in CIC. it becomes quite tiresome, exhaustive exercise for the commission to go into minor aspect of the appeal single handedly consuming lot of time of rest of the daily board attendance indirectly that becomes valuable wastage of manpower & precious time too. Rather the system may be developed having Joint/ Deputy information commissioner to scrutinized the appeal in early stage for the issues like information sought by applicant in form A, given/refusal by PIO, first appeal by applicant, decision of appellate authority, details of form a is matching with the detail in form g or not? Ground of rejection either on the part of pio or appellate is in consonance with the provision of the act or not & the persistence of applicant is justified prima facie or not? On verifying the same many applications / appeals may be disposed off by directly issuing appropriate order by H/ commission including the matter referring for first appeal where ever not availed.
5/ Un many of the cases in transit period or during the pendancy of the appeal & coming to the board info might have been provided by the public authority or pio in those cases it remains sheer formality of putting the matter on board calling both the part etc if the same may be under the intimation to H/ commission these kind of matters as under 4 on scrutiny may be disposed off directly with just letter to applicant in that regard & still they have grievance may approach the commission in a given time.
6/ In some of the matters after seeking info applicant may not be interested either in getting the info or keep the matter continue on settlement of grievance these cases may also be as stated under 4 on scrutiny directly disposed off by the commissio0n without calling to public authority with letter dropping in that regard to applicant sending copy to public authority.
7/ This 4,5,& 6 will definitely save valuable time as well as government exchequer too avoiding undue hardship also. as ion an average if 15 to 20 matters are from beyond ahmedabad average cost for each authority may be calculated 5000 to 7000 for 2 to 3 officers apart from vehicle driver & applicant cost. The time saved may be utilized for alternative service redresses in public authority.
As per S/ 19(8)a & S/25(g) may I request H/ commission to exercise powers vested in it to keep up faith of people &credentials of H/ commission.
Sir, H/ commission is an independent body having powers to make own system but voice of citizens & observations of experienced d may prove pivotal role in bringing reform. here my intention is never to criticize any body but to keep the mission get going with grand success.
1/ Day by day more & more appeals are being flooded in commission. I.e. in the beginning from 12 to 15 per day now daily board seems for more than 35 for a single member commission which has increased the work burden of commission significantly. Now it becomes inevitable to increase the strength of the commission u/s 15 of RTI.
2/On watching the daily board applicants & officers are rushing from all for corners of the state traveling 100 to 300 km. of journey. To mitigate the sufferings to applicant as well as officials & by that way public exchequer we may consider to establish regional benches of the commission like North, east, South, & west for speedy disposal & sustain the credibility 7 faith of people in commission in general & spirit & provision of the act to believe the people indeed citizens are supreme in country.
3/Untill the implementation suggested in 1& 2 Commission may consider to list out the board that first 5 matters may be local &adjoining & than priority to matters of long distance people than again to local & adjoining facilitate better reducing hardship to the applicant & authority coming form remote area.
4/at present only single commission member is there in CIC. it becomes quite tiresome, exhaustive exercise for the commission to go into minor aspect of the appeal single handedly consuming lot of time of rest of the daily board attendance indirectly that becomes valuable wastage of manpower & precious time too. Rather the system may be developed having Joint/ Deputy information commissioner to scrutinized the appeal in early stage for the issues like information sought by applicant in form A, given/refusal by PIO, first appeal by applicant, decision of appellate authority, details of form a is matching with the detail in form g or not? Ground of rejection either on the part of pio or appellate is in consonance with the provision of the act or not & the persistence of applicant is justified prima facie or not? On verifying the same many applications / appeals may be disposed off by directly issuing appropriate order by H/ commission including the matter referring for first appeal where ever not availed.
5/ Un many of the cases in transit period or during the pendancy of the appeal & coming to the board info might have been provided by the public authority or pio in those cases it remains sheer formality of putting the matter on board calling both the part etc if the same may be under the intimation to H/ commission these kind of matters as under 4 on scrutiny may be disposed off directly with just letter to applicant in that regard & still they have grievance may approach the commission in a given time.
6/ In some of the matters after seeking info applicant may not be interested either in getting the info or keep the matter continue on settlement of grievance these cases may also be as stated under 4 on scrutiny directly disposed off by the commissio0n without calling to public authority with letter dropping in that regard to applicant sending copy to public authority.
7/ This 4,5,& 6 will definitely save valuable time as well as government exchequer too avoiding undue hardship also. as ion an average if 15 to 20 matters are from beyond ahmedabad average cost for each authority may be calculated 5000 to 7000 for 2 to 3 officers apart from vehicle driver & applicant cost. The time saved may be utilized for alternative service redresses in public authority.
As per S/ 19(8)a & S/25(g) may I request H/ commission to exercise powers vested in it to keep up faith of people &credentials of H/ commission.
Right to information - better implementation
as observed three categories of officers are noticed
1/Who are with malign intention not willing to disclose the info. i.e. reluctant to divulge the public record.
2/ who are having no any malign intention or ulterior motive in making the record public but either not in a position to interpret the true spirit & provision of the act or having no seriousness of the repercussions of their dereliction, or their superiors/ subordinate not supporting or assisting falling in the category of 1 or 3.
3/who are responsive to the act & ready to react but either system or record preservation is not allowing them to do so.
Sir, the provision of section 5(5) deemed PIO, 19(b) to award compensation to the applicant suffered loss under this act by the commission, & 20(1) &(2) to impose penalty & refer the case for disciplinary action by H/ commission will take care of category 1.
Section 4 proactive disclosures, & 26 proper publicity & make arrangement for proper training will take care of category no. 2
But sir if H/ commission is taking recourse to section 25(g) 25(g)direction by H/ COMMISSION TO CONCERNED PUBLIC authority for category 3 positive early results are sure.
as sir we have millions of educated unemployed youth out of 55 million population of India in the age group of 15 to 40,l under the circumstances if certain youth are directed to engage exclusive for classification of the record in specified categories of A,B,C,D,E etc under the classification of the record that will be much more easy, convenient & user friendly to provide the record under this act. Also the same will prevent public authority/ shirkers form showing frivolous excuses & suffering of citizens will be minimized along with time being employment generation to the youth. even under JN employment guarantee scheme also this can be done.
Especially when H/ Cm Gujarat has declared this year as NIRMAL Gujarat Year this will definitely serve multi purpose.
1/Who are with malign intention not willing to disclose the info. i.e. reluctant to divulge the public record.
2/ who are having no any malign intention or ulterior motive in making the record public but either not in a position to interpret the true spirit & provision of the act or having no seriousness of the repercussions of their dereliction, or their superiors/ subordinate not supporting or assisting falling in the category of 1 or 3.
3/who are responsive to the act & ready to react but either system or record preservation is not allowing them to do so.
Sir, the provision of section 5(5) deemed PIO, 19(b) to award compensation to the applicant suffered loss under this act by the commission, & 20(1) &(2) to impose penalty & refer the case for disciplinary action by H/ commission will take care of category 1.
Section 4 proactive disclosures, & 26 proper publicity & make arrangement for proper training will take care of category no. 2
But sir if H/ commission is taking recourse to section 25(g) 25(g)direction by H/ COMMISSION TO CONCERNED PUBLIC authority for category 3 positive early results are sure.
as sir we have millions of educated unemployed youth out of 55 million population of India in the age group of 15 to 40,l under the circumstances if certain youth are directed to engage exclusive for classification of the record in specified categories of A,B,C,D,E etc under the classification of the record that will be much more easy, convenient & user friendly to provide the record under this act. Also the same will prevent public authority/ shirkers form showing frivolous excuses & suffering of citizens will be minimized along with time being employment generation to the youth. even under JN employment guarantee scheme also this can be done.
Especially when H/ Cm Gujarat has declared this year as NIRMAL Gujarat Year this will definitely serve multi purpose.
Section 8 H & I Of Right to Information view
On referring section 8(h) & (I) T queries raised to are referring for your kind perusal & consideration.
Under (H0 apprehension is there in between "impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders" these two is logical &rationale with the word "impede" but apprehension is not seems to. does it mean to say impede apprehension if it is so how it can be said offensive? If it mean to say to spread or incite or provoke or encourage the apprehension don't you think appropriate word seems to be missing to complete the very intention of the section 8(h)?
Like wise if referred 8(i) it provides under exception of s/8 records of deliberations of Secretaries and other officers too with cabinet or council. Second proviso makes obligatory to divulge the info of the decision taken, including reasons & materials on the basis of which it has taken for council of ministers.
Thus if carefully read does it mean to say that record of deliberation of meeting of secretaries & other officers are still under exception even after decision is taken & matter is completed?
Second proviso of s/8 (i) excludes the meeting of officers is this not contradictory too. when the same info for council of ministers is accessible to public why not of officers? if taken the spirit of the act the intention does not seems to exclude the same but existing provision may be misinterpreted & that may be hurdle in transparency.
when decision is already taken & matter is completed
(h) Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
(i) Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:
Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:
Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed
Under (H0 apprehension is there in between "impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders" these two is logical &rationale with the word "impede" but apprehension is not seems to. does it mean to say impede apprehension if it is so how it can be said offensive? If it mean to say to spread or incite or provoke or encourage the apprehension don't you think appropriate word seems to be missing to complete the very intention of the section 8(h)?
Like wise if referred 8(i) it provides under exception of s/8 records of deliberations of Secretaries and other officers too with cabinet or council. Second proviso makes obligatory to divulge the info of the decision taken, including reasons & materials on the basis of which it has taken for council of ministers.
Thus if carefully read does it mean to say that record of deliberation of meeting of secretaries & other officers are still under exception even after decision is taken & matter is completed?
Second proviso of s/8 (i) excludes the meeting of officers is this not contradictory too. when the same info for council of ministers is accessible to public why not of officers? if taken the spirit of the act the intention does not seems to exclude the same but existing provision may be misinterpreted & that may be hurdle in transparency.
when decision is already taken & matter is completed
(h) Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
(i) Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:
Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:
Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed
Third Party Information & Right to Information
As per the provision contained under s/ PIO/Appellate officer is supposed to provide the info within 30 days while in case of third party information as per s/ 11(3) within 40 days including the opportunity to the third party being heard.
Under section 19 (3) third party may prefer an appeal within 30 days to the appellate officer & within 90 days to the H/ commission
if read all the provisions simultaneously in the case either pio has rejected the objection or reservation of third party against disclosure obviously in that case PIO or appellate will provide the information within stipulated period of 40 days, thus on hearing third party within 30 days. in this case if third party prefers an appeal even though meanwhile PIO MIGHT HAVE PROVIDED THE INFO TO THE APPLICANT. SAME IS THE CASE WITH APPELLATE OBVIOUSLY WITHIN 30 DAYS APPELLATE MIGHT HAVE PROVIDED THE INFO TO THE APPLICANT. Under the circumstances if third party goes in to appeal info might have already been received by the applicant BECAUSE THER IS NO PROVISION OFINTERIM STAY OR TO WAIT FOR 30 DAYS OR 90 DAYS APPELLATE PERIOD GIVEN TO THIRD PARTY BEFORE GIVING INFO TO THE APPLICANT WHERE THIRD PART IS INVOLVED
Sir is this not contradictory provision? also when info is already disclosed it becomes worthless to make appeal for third part as once disclosed info can't be turn back. & in case third party may be quite right there will no repair or remedy.
Is there any clarification or amendment by way of notification of Central government under section 30 of the right to information act to remove the difficulty?
7. (1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 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:
2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in
10 THE GAZETTER OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—
writing the notice of his decision to the third party.
(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.
(2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.
(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:
30. (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removal of the difficulty:
Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act.
Under section 19 (3) third party may prefer an appeal within 30 days to the appellate officer & within 90 days to the H/ commission
if read all the provisions simultaneously in the case either pio has rejected the objection or reservation of third party against disclosure obviously in that case PIO or appellate will provide the information within stipulated period of 40 days, thus on hearing third party within 30 days. in this case if third party prefers an appeal even though meanwhile PIO MIGHT HAVE PROVIDED THE INFO TO THE APPLICANT. SAME IS THE CASE WITH APPELLATE OBVIOUSLY WITHIN 30 DAYS APPELLATE MIGHT HAVE PROVIDED THE INFO TO THE APPLICANT. Under the circumstances if third party goes in to appeal info might have already been received by the applicant BECAUSE THER IS NO PROVISION OFINTERIM STAY OR TO WAIT FOR 30 DAYS OR 90 DAYS APPELLATE PERIOD GIVEN TO THIRD PARTY BEFORE GIVING INFO TO THE APPLICANT WHERE THIRD PART IS INVOLVED
Sir is this not contradictory provision? also when info is already disclosed it becomes worthless to make appeal for third part as once disclosed info can't be turn back. & in case third party may be quite right there will no repair or remedy.
Is there any clarification or amendment by way of notification of Central government under section 30 of the right to information act to remove the difficulty?
7. (1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 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:
2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in
10 THE GAZETTER OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—
writing the notice of his decision to the third party.
(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.
(2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.
(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:
30. (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removal of the difficulty:
Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act.
Personal Information & RIGHT TO INFORMATION
This is with reference to the verdict delivered by H/ Central Information Commission in following matter. Wherein Honorable commission has directed the appellate officer concerned for disposal keeping in mind section 8(1) j & 11.
If we refer both of the sections information which relates to personal information______ & so on under section 8 (1) j while U/S 11 clearly provided that information which is treated as personal & confidential provided by the third party.
& simultaneously if we refer the concluding part of s/8 which provides that “Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person" reading the same with the definition of right to info u/s 2(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right ___"
Now the same is interpreted with this judgment the applicant seems to have sought the information of particular government/ public servant, which relates to Gs/PS's academic record as recorded in the service book of concerned by the government/ public office. Thus information is held & maintained by public authority under s 2 (j).
The details sought pertain to public servant which is not personal one.
Neither the same has been provided by the person treating as personal & confidential one because the degree awarded by the institution is also public authority falling under s/ 2
Same is officially made public by the institution.
The leave record etc & entries of the service book are neither provided by person in confidence but it has been made & maintained by public authority thus it becomes public record so section 11 can also not be invoked here.
Sir under the circumstances without resorting third party formalities should one not provide the information directly to the applicant?
Sir i am also dealing with the implementation of the act at appellate level & as per my observation many similar cases are crops up at by & large all pio/ appellate level & perhaps the most crucial part of the act lies in interpreting this third party provision properly to implement the act in true letter & spirit.
Sir, may I expect your appreciation in this regard to facilitate citizen in time to come with transparency & without delay?
If we refer both of the sections information which relates to personal information______ & so on under section 8 (1) j while U/S 11 clearly provided that information which is treated as personal & confidential provided by the third party.
& simultaneously if we refer the concluding part of s/8 which provides that “Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person" reading the same with the definition of right to info u/s 2(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right ___"
Now the same is interpreted with this judgment the applicant seems to have sought the information of particular government/ public servant, which relates to Gs/PS's academic record as recorded in the service book of concerned by the government/ public office. Thus information is held & maintained by public authority under s 2 (j).
The details sought pertain to public servant which is not personal one.
Neither the same has been provided by the person treating as personal & confidential one because the degree awarded by the institution is also public authority falling under s/ 2
Same is officially made public by the institution.
The leave record etc & entries of the service book are neither provided by person in confidence but it has been made & maintained by public authority thus it becomes public record so section 11 can also not be invoked here.
Sir under the circumstances without resorting third party formalities should one not provide the information directly to the applicant?
Sir i am also dealing with the implementation of the act at appellate level & as per my observation many similar cases are crops up at by & large all pio/ appellate level & perhaps the most crucial part of the act lies in interpreting this third party provision properly to implement the act in true letter & spirit.
Sir, may I expect your appreciation in this regard to facilitate citizen in time to come with transparency & without delay?
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Issues/ Challenges before country
Quality Education:-
Today's education is completely lacking ethics, morale, healthy competition, cultures & professional approach. The root cause of corrupt society lies in education. If compared today's education with a century ago or in ancestral era emphasis was on the issues sited abode. These are the charecteristics , human pecadillows every human being requires to built up the personality as good human being/ citizen in now a day's education these issues have been commpletely digressed.
Good Governance:- Folloup, Finance, Fine, Fear i.e. Four F formula is never applied to governance. Ofcourse it is not new one. Right from ancient era to modern management practice entre point of governance remain this formula but unfortuantely nowingly, intentionaly it has been ignored for factors better understood.In six decades of independence unfortunately government machinery is failed to fulfilled bare minimum expectation of the citizens. thanks to rampanent corruption,wrong persons on right jobs, nepotisam, favouritisam, minfluence & corrupt political system.Certain government policies are also equally seems responsible for it like comparatively less salary package, bureaucratic style of functioning re calling feudal system etc. Considering all these negative factors whole system requires to be reengired/ transformation. performance based package, reward to honesty & integrity, free hand to commited force, regular feed back from grass root level to have their voice in governance & the last but not the least the performance or evaluation should be two way unlike now a day's one way. i.e. subordinates should also fill up evaluation form of seniors annualy.
Community Development:-
Untill now country does not remain successful in curbing or containing corruption, bring transparency & accountability. The reasons most conspicuous are envy to each other's livind standard, increasing necesities of staff beyond minimum requirements, extraveganza of black money holders in the socity, right from birth place to crematorium or gravyard resulting in dissatisfaction, disgruntleness, inferiority complex amongst government staff which forced them to resort unethical, dishonest, disloyal ways & means to follow others. Best solution of these problems lies in community service devlopment like co- operative society's way to provide common facilities to common group.
Balance socio economic Growth:-Even after six decades of independence country is not succeded to solve this issue. rather it has been aggravated. rich became richer & pooer or middle class comperativelyremain same. If analysysed region wise too imbalanced growth is conspicuous. Eventhough of many incentives on the part of government no significance change is noticed. One of the prime reason is poor infracture development in under developed or backward. to cop up with this Industrial & agricultural zones should be decided in such areas, Sinlgle window clearence for industrial / agricultural sector should be offers putting aside all red tapism, Land on lease may be provided with certain conditions of regional preference & developing all infrastructuraL FACILITIES ON THA PART OF UNIT. Right from residential colonies to health, education, infrastructures, social & community services, special incometax, cntral/ state tax exemoption if offerd should be srupulously adhered to by implementin departments. of course many has been done to invite but it has been observed by & large that in majority of the cases such incentives are syphoned away by wested interest in nexus with babudom. To avert the same it should be scrupulously observed.
Today's education is completely lacking ethics, morale, healthy competition, cultures & professional approach. The root cause of corrupt society lies in education. If compared today's education with a century ago or in ancestral era emphasis was on the issues sited abode. These are the charecteristics , human pecadillows every human being requires to built up the personality as good human being/ citizen in now a day's education these issues have been commpletely digressed.
Good Governance:- Folloup, Finance, Fine, Fear i.e. Four F formula is never applied to governance. Ofcourse it is not new one. Right from ancient era to modern management practice entre point of governance remain this formula but unfortuantely nowingly, intentionaly it has been ignored for factors better understood.In six decades of independence unfortunately government machinery is failed to fulfilled bare minimum expectation of the citizens. thanks to rampanent corruption,wrong persons on right jobs, nepotisam, favouritisam, minfluence & corrupt political system.Certain government policies are also equally seems responsible for it like comparatively less salary package, bureaucratic style of functioning re calling feudal system etc. Considering all these negative factors whole system requires to be reengired/ transformation. performance based package, reward to honesty & integrity, free hand to commited force, regular feed back from grass root level to have their voice in governance & the last but not the least the performance or evaluation should be two way unlike now a day's one way. i.e. subordinates should also fill up evaluation form of seniors annualy.
Community Development:-
Untill now country does not remain successful in curbing or containing corruption, bring transparency & accountability. The reasons most conspicuous are envy to each other's livind standard, increasing necesities of staff beyond minimum requirements, extraveganza of black money holders in the socity, right from birth place to crematorium or gravyard resulting in dissatisfaction, disgruntleness, inferiority complex amongst government staff which forced them to resort unethical, dishonest, disloyal ways & means to follow others. Best solution of these problems lies in community service devlopment like co- operative society's way to provide common facilities to common group.
Balance socio economic Growth:-Even after six decades of independence country is not succeded to solve this issue. rather it has been aggravated. rich became richer & pooer or middle class comperativelyremain same. If analysysed region wise too imbalanced growth is conspicuous. Eventhough of many incentives on the part of government no significance change is noticed. One of the prime reason is poor infracture development in under developed or backward. to cop up with this Industrial & agricultural zones should be decided in such areas, Sinlgle window clearence for industrial / agricultural sector should be offers putting aside all red tapism, Land on lease may be provided with certain conditions of regional preference & developing all infrastructuraL FACILITIES ON THA PART OF UNIT. Right from residential colonies to health, education, infrastructures, social & community services, special incometax, cntral/ state tax exemoption if offerd should be srupulously adhered to by implementin departments. of course many has been done to invite but it has been observed by & large that in majority of the cases such incentives are syphoned away by wested interest in nexus with babudom. To avert the same it should be scrupulously observed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
