CHAPTER 8,9 RTI FOR FSL

Chapter 8
Forensics science lab and RTI


Documents held in the control of the FSL are divided into two categories:
• Technical
• Administrative
Administrative documents are on par with all other offices and would be dealt with in a similar manner and pro active disclosure for public is necessary both in the manual form and in web page or in electronic form.

Technical documents would need to be examined with reference to exemptions listed out due to their nature of affecting the life and liberty of different people and the sub judicious nature of the proceedings which they relate to:
• Section wise
• 13 sections

They consist of :
Rules regulations instructions
• Rules
• Instructions by internal authorities
• Internal circulars
• Internal memos
• Do letters
• Internet downloads
• Internet uploads
• Web page content
• Emails received
• Emails sent
• Email drafts

Common to all sections
• Fir
• Inquest/panchnama
• Pm report
• Statements recorded by police
• Statements by panch witnesses
• Letter of advice forms submitted by police
• Court authorisation letters
• Requisition letter from designated authority accompanying the material objects
• Medical exam reports from doctors / experts indicating the health status of the subject undergoing polygraph.
• Passports
• Visas
• Marks memos
• Land documents
• Wills
• Bank documents
• House sale deeds
• Mortgage documents
• Receipts for payments made
• Bonds / securities
• NSC/KVP/small saving certificates
• Stocks and shares [demat]
• Travel cheques

Records
• Documents
• Manuscripts
• Files
• Catalogues and index
• Microfiche microfilm
• Facsimile copy of documents
• Draft examination notes
• Proformae, while conducting examination for noting readings and results
• Printouts of charts in different instrumentation used in investigation

E documents
• CD/DVD
• Floppy
• Zip
• Flash drive
• External drive
• HDD
• IPOD
• Mpeg players

Mobile
• Chip
• Sim card
• Flash memory cards
• Printouts

Plastic money
• Credit card
• Debit card
• ATM card
• Smart card
• Money card
• Travel card
• Stored value card
• Telephone card

The different stake holders would be:
The courts who send case material to the fsl.
The forensic medicine who send us samples taken from dead bodies and others.
The accused and their lawyers.
The state and its prosecution lawyers.

People who demand info can be categorized as under:
• NGO
• Women associations
• Women’s commission
• Civil liberties
• Human rights bodies/ commissions
• Print and electronic media
• SC/ST/BC/Minority commission
• Individual public
• Lawyers
• Private investigators
• Public and private associations
• Film industry

Types of cases undertaken by the FSL can be classified as under:
• Paid cases – private parties
• Cases received from state
• Cases received from other states
• Cases received from other Govt agencies

Other docs of research and audit
• Collaborative research
• Internal R&D
• Instrument calibration
• Validation study for method
• Reliability tests
• Statistical significance studies/tests
• Internal auditor reports
• ISO auditor reports
• NABL auditor reports
• Peer review reports

Manuals books
• Department wise procedure manual
• Fs procedure/ FS instructions manuals
• Audit manuals
• Surveillance audit
• Internal audit
• Proficiency test audit
• Inter lab proficiency test
• Blind proficiency test
Reports and opinions
• Report to the magistrate
• Report to private party who paid for the services
• Report to other agencies both in state/ other states and central
• Second opinion reports received from other states/ courts/ authorities
• Second opinion reports on cases referred by private bodies individuals
• Expert deposition in courts by scientists
• Judgement copies
• Certified copies of the reports.

Clues/ mobile units and the documents generated by them which are under the control of FSL:
• Spot test
• Reports : short / preliminary to aid investigation
• Evidence collection
• Documentation
• Plan drawing – physical
• Electronic 2d/ 3d/ cad
• Photograph
• Videograph
• Observation notes
• Crime scene risk management documentation

Materials which are seized from the scene of crime are as under:
• Crime scene objects
• Materials collected from mo
• Materials seized from accused / possession and person of the accused.
• Samples
• Specimens
• Controls
• Standards
• Reference materials

Materials related to sting operations, intelligence operations and undercover operations
• Stings on MPS MLA MINISTERS other public figures – related material received for authentication in video and audio
• Porno CD / obscene material on electronic media for authentication
• Telephone tapping voice samples for audio authentication
• Busting operations of organized criminal group
• CCTV footage for identification and authentication and analysis
• RFID/ GPS technology based items for analysis and authentication and identification
• Embedded chips for software analysis
• Application software for copyright violations
• Developing software for piracy
• Audio video piracy
Trade mark copyright IPR trade secret
• Software for breach investigation
• Labels and trade marks for copying
• Packages and covers wrappers for copying allegations/ trade mark infringement

The detailed document flow is given in A P Police Manual. Order 549 volume 2 part 1.
List of documents to be sent along with physical evidence
11. Depending upon the nature of physical evidence forwarded, the following documents should be sent along with the covering letter.
A. Forwarding letter/authorisation letter of competent authorities. (order-8)
b. Letter of advice from investigating officers.
C. Doctor’s report (post-mortem examination) in toxicology cases, medical examination report of victim and accused (if arrested) in rape and serology cases.
D. Confessional statements of suspects/accused, statements of witnesses, etc., in polygraph cases.
E. Inquest/panchanama copies in toxicology cases.
F. Fir copies where desirable.
G. Sample seal on a sheet of paper, or on forwarding letter/letter of advice.
H. Any other document relevant for examination.
The authorities competent to forward physical evidence to FSL
Authorities competent to forward physical evidence to forensic science laboratory
8- a. Judiciary
• judicial officers of the courts in Andhra Pradesh
• judicial officers of the courts in other states in exceptional cases.
• special officers of judicial commissions, inquiries and other state government officers holding judicial, quasi-judicial functions like A.P. Administrative Tribunal, A.P. Industrial Tribunal Etc.
B. Police
• Officers of the state police departments of the rank of sub divisional police officer and above.
• Officers of other states and Central government police establishments in exceptional cases.
B. Revenue
Revenue officers of A.P. State Government, discharging ex-officio functions of magistrates such as collector and district magistrate, RDO and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mandal Revenue Officer and Executive Magistrate.
D. Government departments
Officers’ in-charge of state government departments in Hyderabad and other district headquarters holding the rank of Dy. Superintendent of police or above. This includes officers of the above rank and in- charge of co-operative societies and other government bodies and government undertakings. In exceptional cases, Central government cases and cases from other state governments will also be accepted.
E. Medical officers of the rank of asst. Professors and above of the AP Medical and Health Department.
F. Other officers of
• banks.
• financial institutions.
• industrial organisations.
• other institutions or individuals at the discretion of the director/DGP.
4. In order to make the facilities and expertise available in APFSL to the public, in civil matters, it has been decided to extend these services in genuine cases by levying/collecting user charges to meet the analytical expenses. The following services are available for public on payment of fees indicated.
G.o.ms.no. 170 fin. & plg. (fw:b4) dept., dated 23-4-2001
Sl. No. Description Fees Unit
1. Document cases in civil matters referred by courts. Rs. 750/- Per case according to G.O.Ms. No. 335 of home (police-c) department, dated
5-8-1993
2.
document cases in civil matters consisting of large number of documents. Rs. 2000/-
3. Document cases in civil matters with large number of documents and complicated examinations Fees to be fixed by director, apfsl.
4. Document cases in corporate matters. Rs. 5000/- Per case consisting of up to 10 documents
5. Document cases in personal individual matters Rs. 1000/- Per case consisting of 5 documents
6. Dna profiling Rs. 6000/- Per case up to 3 samples
7. Poison testing:
A) commercial establishment

b) individual cases
Rs. 3000/-
rs. 500/- Per sample
8. Lie detector examination:
A) corporate & commercial
B) individual cases
Rs. 2500/-
Rs. 1000/- Per subject
9. Gems, stones, gold & other precious materials testing Rs. 250/- Per sample
10. R&d facilities for students:

research scholars/postdoctoral scholars Rs. 100/- Per sample
11. Testing of petrol/diesel oil etc., referred from vigilance & civil supplies department. Rs. 1000/- Per case consisting up to 3 samples
12. Liquor analysis referred by excise department Rs. 1000/-
13. Drugs analysis referred from drugs control department Rs. 1000/-
The cases done for fees lie under the exemption of fiduciary relationship and need not be disclosed.



Chapter 9
Case law by CIC and other courts HC /SC

1. High court order in Discoms under RTI saga. Delhi High Court raps CIC for passing orders without giving hearing to persons likely to be affected. Furthermore - “speaking orders” to be given by CIC in decisions. [in the High Court of Delhi at new Delhi w.p.(c) 6833/2006 n.d.p.l. ….. Petitioner versus the Central Information commission]
2. The Central Information commission has asked public authorities to use their minds and judiciously apply exemption clauses. The immediate provocation for the observation was the union home ministry’s refusal to reveal a fax sent by it to the west Bengal government on handing over investigations into the Purulia arms-dropping case to the CBI . The ministry refused to part with the information, saying the case was “highly sensitive” from the security point of view and it would not be possible to classify any part of the case as “non-sensitive”.the commission junked this argument, observing that the message had not even been classified under the official secrets act. It was expected that this provision is not invoked “lightly or frivolously”. “passing the buck is a safer bet but, sadly enough, it is not conducive to accelerating decision-making or to building popular trust in the department’s commitment to transparency,”
3. The CIC received 3059 cases till 8th sep 2006. Out of these, CIC claims to have disposed 1531 cases. But the website of CIC contains only 800 cases. Where are the balance 731 cases? All these cases were rejected without any hearing by the staff themselves. According to Mr Singhi, director in CIC, “these cases were not found fit for admission.” This appears contrary to judicial practices because in courts, a hearing is held even to decide whether a case is fit for admission(except, when there is a technical error, where the registry issues a deficiency notice and you are given a chance to rectify it). Cases have not been rejected by the CIC staff merely on technical grounds. They were rejected on substantive grounds also. For instance, P C Shekhar wanted to know the number of people who applied for VRS, after he did. His application was rejected, saying that he was seeking opinion and not information. Ajay goel’s application was not only rejected but he was also reprimanded for filing such application. Do the staff have the jurisdiction to reject cases and reprimand appellants? Can the Commissioner s delegate their judicial functions to their staff? These questions were raised by the people at the hearing. Interestingly, none of the rejection orders, which were passed by the staff, are put up on the commission’s website. Even in those cases, which were heard by the Commissioner s themselves, they did not consider it necessary to hear appellants of the 800 cases heard by the Commissioner s, 353 cases were disposed by them without calling the appellant. So, out of 1531 cases disposed by the commission till 8th sep 2006, 1084 cases i.e. 71% cases were disposed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Mr Habibullah defended commission’s practice of not hearing appellants on three grounds that if they granted hearing in every case, it would slow down their disposal rate; that if they were giving a Judgement in favor of the appellant, there was no need to hear him; and that sometimes the case is so simple that it could be decided on the basis of records itself. Our analysis shows that not hearing an appellant increases workload rather than decreasing it. Almost every such appellant files a review petition, thus increasing commission’s workload. When Mr Habibullah was still insisting that there was no need to hear appellants before deciding cases, Mr t s Krishnamurthy, former chief election Commissioner , suggested that perhaps all the Information Commissioner s may like to undergo training in judicial processes by some retired Supreme Court judges.
4. Penalty: of the 1531 cases disposed by the commission so far, penalties have been imposed only in two cases (this is as on 8th Sep). One of them has been subsequently withdrawn. The other one is in the process of being withdrawn. this is having disastrous impact at the level of PIOS. A word has spread that nothing happens to you whether you give Information ORNOT. As a result, most of the PIOS have simply stopped responding to RTI applications. Or they just reject your application citing some section. So, almost all applications have to be taken in appeal. On 8th sep, there was a pendency of 1528 appeals. There is already a waiting list of seven months at CIC, CIC is already receiving 2000 cases per month. CIC just cannot handle that kind of workload. CIC refused to impose penalties even in very gross violations of RTI act also.
5. Some of the reasons given for not imposing penalties:• the PIO was busy attending meetings and doing other work and did not get time to attend to RTI applications • one of the Information Commissioner s has dropped penalty saying that though that was a fit case for imposing penalty, however she was not doing it because she did not know the name of the PIO. She has done this in two cases • many penalties have been dropped on the ground that the PIO was still learning RTI act.• maybe the PIO did not get the notice of hearing. So far, CIC has issued show cause notices 59 cases to the PIO as to why penalty should not be imposed on him/her. Time given in the show cause notices has long elapsed. But the outcome of none of these notices is there on the CIC website.
6. Many cases of out of turn disposals have come to light. Date of filing appeal at CIC date of hearing Dr Suresh 29.12.05 2.8.06; R K Gupta 19.4.06 15.5.06; R P Jain 16.2.06 1.9.06; Piyush Mohapatra 20.3.06 30.5.06
7. Many cases have been dismissed on the ground that Information asked for was fiduciary in nature. Some instances: 1. Someone applied for a petrol pump. He did not get it. He asked for the manner in which the interview board had evaluated the applicants and how much marks did each one get. This Information was refused saying that the relationship between the interview board and HPCL was fiduciary. 2. The relationship between examiner and board of examination has also been declared as fiduciary. 3. Relationship between government employee and government has also been termed as fiduciary. 4. Every citizen files his income tax return to the government in his fiduciary capacity. There are some relationships, which have been universally recognized as fiduciary like that of a doctor and a patient, advocate and client, banker and constituent.
8. Many appeals had been dismissed on the ground that the Information sought was private and had no public interest. Some instances: • someone made an application for something in a government department. He lost his application. He applied under RTI for a copy of his own application, which was rejected saying that this was private information, which had no public interest.• someone was appointed as deputy director in ministry of commerce despite being declared unfit. Someone asked for copy of his medical report. This was rejected under the same clause.• someone applied for a kerosene depot. He filed an application asking for the status of his own application. It was rejected saying that this was private Information and had no public interest. Firstly, private Information can be denied only if it violates the privacy of an individual. My own Information cannot violate the privacy of any other individual.
9. Summary of recommendations, which emerged during the public hearing of applicants and activists by the CIC Habibullah were [ nana hazare present] held on 24th sep 2005: opportunity of being heard should be given to both parties in every case. It is up to the party to decide whether they wish to be physically present or send their written comments or decide not to avail of the opportunity. 2. No case should be closed, just by ordering that Information be provided in the next 15 days etc. In most of the cases, it has been seen that the PIO does not comply with such an order. As a result, the appellant has to again approach the commission and again wait for 7 months for his/her turn to come. Therefore, after passing an order, the case should be adjourned, and not closed. On the next hearing, if the appellant confirms having received Information to his/her satisfaction, only then should a case be closed. This is the practice which is being successfully followed by public grievance commission in Delhi for the last five years and also by state Information commission of up. 3. The Information Commissioner s should undergo training in judicial processes from some retired Supreme Court judges.4. Penalty should be imposed in every case of violation by government officials. Else RTI would soon be dead 5. Some guidelines should be made on the terms like “fiduciary”, “private information” and “public interest”, which should be uniformly adhered to by all the Commissioner s. 6. Appeal number should be given to every appellant/ complainant and it should be communicated to him within 24 hours of receipt of his appeal/complaint. Within the next 24 hours, it should be put up on the website. Status of every appeal should be provided on the website, even if it is treated as inadmissible ab-initio. 7. No case should be taken up on out of turn basis, unless there is some grave public interest involved, which should be mentioned in the order. 8. There should be a public hearing every three months, which should be attended by all Commissioner s.
10. The CPIO and the appellate authority have given para-wise response to his request for information, yet the appellant is not satisfied with their responses. Since there is no denial of Information as per the provision of he act, the appellant may take up the matter relating to his grievances to the appropriate authority.”[this order has been passed without calling any of the parties. Thus para wise answers to questions would satisfy the CIC norms irrespective of whether the applicant is satisfied with the Information thus provided] quality is thus not the criterion]
11. We find that in case of evaluated answer papers the Information available with the public authority is, in his fiduciary relationship, the disclosure of which is exempt u/s 8(1)(e). In addition, when a candidate seeks for a copy of the evaluated answer paper, either of his/her own or others, it is purely a personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public interest or activity and this has been covered u/s 8(1)(j) of the act…”
12. Thirty-eight residents of east Delhi filed individual RTI applications seeking status of the daily progress made on their complaints to the DDA. On not receiving any response within the time limit specified, the applicants filed first appeals. Again, no response was received. The applicants hen filed a second appeal in the CIC. CIC issued notice of hearing to the DDA. DDA did not show up for the first hearing on 29.05.06. Next date was fixed for 17.08.06. DDA again did not turn up. CIC’S office contacted CPIO on telephone during the hearing but could not get any Information about his whereabouts. The CIC issued show cause notice to the CPIO why a penalty should not be imposed on him in each of the 38 cases and another date of hearing was fixed. Finally, CPIO turned up on the next date. CIC dropped the penalty stating that the CPIO “has taken action on the applications made in this case but has not informed appellants of the action taken…CPIO has pleaded that he applicants of this nature were more than 245, making it time consuming supplying Information to all….” The only action that CPIO had taken was to transfer all the cases to the education department, whereas the applications pertained to him and he was supposed to provide information.
13. Forty residents from east Delhi made individual requests for Information to the deputy director education (east) on 1.12.05 on the issue of admission of students from economically weaker section to public schools. Many of them did not receive any response in 30 days. First appeal was filed on 18.01.06. The applicants were invited to the first appeal hearing on 10.02.06. The appellate authority observed that Information had been provided to the satisfaction of appellants, which was blatantly wrong. A second appeal was filed on 6.03.06 with the CIC. CIC scheduled a hearing on 23.03.06. The PIO was directed to provide Information in 15 days and was issued a show cause notice as to why he should not be penalized for not providing Information within 30 days. The CIC also ordered that the government of NCT would examine if there were any suspicions of venality in admission warranting an enquiry by the CBI . To date no response has been received. In the meanwhile, Mr Habibullah dropped the penalty, when CPIO met him in his chamber and pleaded mercy. This order of dropping penalty is also not there on CIC’S website. When people came to know that Mr. Habibullah has dropped penalties, they filed a review petition.
14. Mrs. Bina Popli is a widow of a former senior inspector in CSO, department of statistics. She applied for Information seeking copies of documents in the personal file of her late husband Shri Popli. On not receiving a response even after the lapse of 45 days, she applied for inspection of files. No response was received on this request as well and she filed an appeal. Her first appeal request was dismissed on the ground, “personal file of late Joginder Singh Popli is not traceable in this office, as this is a 20 year old case… his name has been struck off from roll of this department.” The appeal was heard by CIC and it noted that several documents concerning Shri Popli are available within the public authority. The CPIO /AA had in fact lied to the applicant. However, the CIC refused to impose penalty on the round ” CPIO who bears the principal responsibility for ensuring that the appellant is kept informed is, therefore liable to penal action u/s 20(1). However, he has retired since. Also there were several officials who processed the papers who become liable for penal action u/s 5(5) for misinforming the CPIO and appellant regarding availability of the record”.
15. Sunita Vs Reserve Bank Of India [19.06.06] some employees of Gurgaon Gramin Bank fraudulently withdrew money from the account of a housewife, Mrs Sunita. She complained to RBI and also filed a criminal complaint. Later, she filed an RTI application in RBI asking for action taken on her complaint. RBI rejected her request. When she appealed to CIC, CIC rejected her request saying that relationship between RBI and Gramin bank was fiduciary: “…the matter relates to the complaint of the appellant about the alleged unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from the saving account of the appellant in Gurgaon Gramin Bank. The appellant has stated that she has filed a case in the court and she wanted to file the reply of the reserve bank in the court…” CIC ruled “…in the instant case, file notings in possession of RBI is furnished by the Gramin bank (third party) in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the exemption u/s 8(1)(e) has been correctly applied by the public authority.”
16. Dr. K H Jambhulkar Vs Hpcl [31.08.06] in response to an advertisement by the HPCL for retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership at Nandanvan, Nagpur, under freedom fighters’ category, the appellant had applied and was finally unsuccessful. Aggrieved by the decision of the HPCL, he sought a copy of the application and their related documents submitted by the first empanelled candidate. While part of the Information was furnished the other part was denied on the ground that the Information sought pertain to third party, the disclosure of which does not fall under the public domain u/s 8(1)(d) &(j) of the act. The commission ruled that “the marks awarded by the panel experts to each candidate under different parameters are of confidential nature and this act has been carried out by them in fiduciary capacity, which is exempt u/s 8(1)(e). The appeal is accordingly disposed off.”
17. Bhagwan Chand Saxena Vs. Safdarjung Hospital [03.04.06] & eic [13.04.06] the appellant sought for a certified copy of medical certificate issued in respect of one Sh. Jaipalan who had been allegedly appointed as assistant director in ministry of commerce even though he was declared as medically unfit. CIC ruled, “disclosure of medical reports of any citizen would amount to invasion of his privacy. Appeal is dismissed.”
18. In several cases, people have asked for annual property returns of officers. These have been denied saying that this is personal information.
19. Mahender kumar vs NABARD [26.07.06] the appellant asked for Information on the number of vigilance cases pending enquiry and other related information. It was held that “the appellant who is an officer in NABARD, has sought Information related to administrative issues within the bank, through various correspondence. “ CPIO denied Information saying that there was no public interest CIC held “there is no denial of information. “
20. A. X. S. Jiwan vs Commissioner Central excise [29.03.06] “in the present case Information seeker has asked several questions expecting the CPIO to reply in yes” or “no”, which the CPIO ought not to do.”
21. While directing the Indian Red Cross Society, ludhiana, to furnish Information relating to its accounting system to the appellant, the Central Information Commissioner (CIC) ruled that the Right to Information act was applicable to the society as it had been established by a law made by parliament.
22. New Delhi, aug. 12: the Central Information commission has taken strong objection to the allegations of harassment and misbehaviour by the government officials when people have gone to file their applications under the Right to Information act. The CIC has warned the department of education, food and civil supplies department and the MCD against mistreatment of complainants who came to file their applications under the RTI act and have asked these departments to set up proper system in their offices to deal with the applications. In three different cases, complainants have appealed to the CIC against the mistreatment they faced in these departments. When she approached the office of the assistant Commissioner (south) in the food & civil supplies department, Delhi, to ask for an Information regarding her application for kerosene oil, she was told that the officer was not present and her application could only be accepted after he returns. After waiting for 2 to 3 hours, she was told that the officer would not return that day. She, therefore, complains that her time was wasted together with rs 100 in ravel costs. Mr prem of lal gumbad complained that on January 12 he sought some Information from the deputy Commissioner (south), mcd regarding safai karamcharies employed in lal gumbad, panchshil park where he lives. Before he obtained the information, some persons from the mcd visited his house and threatened him with dire consequences if he persisted with his request and that he should not again ask for information.
23. The Central Information commission has directed the centre to produce in a sealed cover the letters exchanged between the former President K.R. Narayanan and the former Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee on the 2002 Gujarat riots. It wants to peruse the letters to decide whether or not to make them public. The commission passed this interim order on an appeal filed by c. Ramesh of vellore in tamil nadu seeking a direction to the government to disclose the correspondence.
24. Government stand the government took the stand that the entire correspondence between Narayanan And Mr. Vajpayee, protected under article 74 2), was exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information act (RIA) and the constitution. The decision not to disclose the Information was taken with the utmost responsibility. His correspondence was exchanged during a critical time in a state and any disclosure would result in damage to the public interest. Rejecting this contention, the commission, quoting Supreme Court decisions, aid: “it may be inferred that articles 74 (2), 78 and 361 do not per se entitle the public authorities to claim “privilege” from disclosure. Now since the RIA has come into force, whatever immunity from disclosure the state could have claimed under the law, stands virtually extinguished except on the ground explicitly mentioned under section 8 and in some cases under section 11 of the RIA.” The commission said: “it is difficult to understand on what grounds the Information has been denied. It is also difficult to comprehend how the disclosure of the Information is going to affect the strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state. It appears that the denial has been communicated in a mechanical manner. “prima facie, the correspondence involves a sensitive matter of public interest. He sensitivity of the atter and involvement of a larger public interest have also been admitted by all concerned including the appellant. We consider it appropriate that before taking a final decision on this appeal, we should personally examine the documents to decide whether the larger public interest would require their disclosure or not.” Only then would the commission issue appropriate directions to the public authority. It directed the public authority to produce the documents on august 22 through a senior officer, who would be present during the perusal and would hereafter seal and take them back.
25. A day after filing an application under the Right to Information act at the ministry of urban development for non-allotment of official residence, Information Commissioner o.P. Kejriwal got a house allotted to him. Not allotted Mr Kejriwal an official residence since the last nine months after he took charge as Information Commissioner
26. Many people who went to file their applications for delay of issue of passports were instead handed over their passports instead of accepting their applications
27. The Central Information commission has turned down the demand of the former law minister, Arun Jaitley, for a direction to the Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI ) to make available to him all documents connected with Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, accused in the Bofors payoff case. In its order, the commission said: “in the instant case, the Information sought huge and available in a large number of files, housed in two large rooms and kept n several cupboards under the custody of the CBI . Any attempt to compile the voluminous information, so as to comply with the request of the appellant, may disproportionately divert the public resources, which is not permissible.” On the documents relating to the freezing and de-freezing of Mr. Quattrocchi’s bank accounts by the order of the queen’s High Court, the commission said the CBI admitted that the matter was pending for adjudication before the Supreme Court (coming up for hearing on august 21), the Delhi High Court and the chief metropolitan magistrate court, Delhi . Also, the investigation was still in progress, and a red corner notice issued by Interpol and a non-bailable warrant issued by the special judge, Delhi, were still in force. As the courts were duly seized of the matter, there was every hope and possibility that public interest, in general, and national interest, in particular, would surely be taken care of. The Information sought was covered under the exemption category as they were “privileged documents,” the order said, rejecting Mr. Jaitley’s plea. “the CBI has been investigating the case for nearly 16 years without much success. Though the CBI has claimed exemptions from disclosure of the Information on valid grounds, these exemptions would not be available after the expiry of 20 years of such public actions under the provisions of the act”
28. The CIC agreed that the RTI act does not mandate that a request for seeking any Information from a government organisation has to be made out in a prescribed form. It can just as well be written down on a plain sheet. But, at the same time, the CIC held that DDA or any other government body was free to issue forms for the purpose. Allowing each organisation to have its own form, creates another bureaucratic hurdle.
29. “the Information act is a vital tool in the hands of the general public and the greatest disadvantage that the government faces now is the clause that does not allow it to ask the seeker of Information his requirement for the information. The officer providing the Information does not know what he will do with the Information at hand and it is this power of the unknown that gives added edge to its users,” said chief Information Commissioner wajahat Habibullah
30. The applicant, Mahendra Gaur, had submitted an application to the Rashtrapati Bhawan’s secretariat on march 1 this year seeking to know the status of the complaint he had made to the president against the then chairman of the Indian Oil Corporation. However, it was alleged that Ashish Kalia, public Information officer (PIO) of he president’s secretariat, refused to accept gaur’s application and instead directed that he approach the IOC directly for redressal of his grievance. Following this, gaur moved the CIC seeking a direction to the president’s secretariat to furnish him the required information. The commission held that under section 6 (3) of the RTI, the public authority to which the application is made, shall transfer the application or such part which may be appropriate to that other public authority which either holds the Information or is more closely connected with the subject matter of the application. It was pointed out by the CIC that no transfer has in fact been made by the PIO of the secretariat who simply advised the applicant to approach the PIO of the ministry of petroleum & natural gas.
31. Breaching the confidentiality of the union cabinet for the first time, the Central Information commission (CIC) has allowed an appellant access to cabinet papers and communication between the Central vigilance commission (CVC) and CBI . From the department of personnel and training (DOPT) regarding the appointment of MTNLS CMD.
32. The Central Information commission (CIC) discouraged the misuse of Right to Information (RTI) act by saying that citizens have the right to access government documents under the act, but they cannot force officials to give further explanation on the Information obtained. “once an applicant has been provided access to the information, he cannot ask the public authority questions about the ho and the why of those documents,” the CIC said, while dismissing the appeal of one Mr. Madal Lal Mirg who had come to the commission on an appeal concerning the home ministry. Though Mr. Mirg had received orders to allow him access to all documents and files he had asked for from the Central public Information officer (PIO), he later came up with 38 questions in respect of the documents he had already seen and of which he had made copies. The commission agreed with the CPIO and home ministry officials’ position hat the Information sought by the appellant was in the nature of seeking opinion and advice of the department in respect of the files and documents he has already perused. “a perusal of the 38-point query made by the appellant makes it clear that he as been asking the public authority to further dilate on the Information which is already in his hands,” the Information Commissioner s said. According to them, the appellant or an Information seeker cannot use the resources of public authority to build up an arguable case for himself which can then be put up before a legal forum. “what we notice is that the appellant wants to make the department do all the research work for him and hand over to him a completed case on the basis of which he can proceed to seek appropriate relief from courts. This does not fall within the ambit of the RTI,” the Information Commissioner s added.
33. Complainant Kailash Mishra of Bhopal had applied to public Information officer(PIO), BSNL recently for some Information about the projects completed by its switching and installation wing in Bhopal circle. BSNL asked him to deposit Rs 9810 which included rs 9732 for the man hours utilized to collect the Information to e supplied. The first appellate authority to whom Mr Mishra applied on February 20, 2006 communicated to him on march 18 that the additional fee was justified. Thereafter, he filed an appeal with this commission, stating that as far as he knew all the Information he had requested for was available at the circle office of the department at Bhopal. After pursuing the provisions of section 7 of the RTI act and the fee rules prescribed there under, a bench comprising dr. O.p. Kejriwal and dr. M.M. Ansari concluded that such action of the department was only a subterfuge for avoiding supply of Information to the appellant. ”since all the Information was available at one place, there was no reason for deployment of extra manpower for supplying the information.” It also regretted that the BSNL had not responded to the appellant’s request for providing details of computation whereby the department had arrived at the above figure. The commission ordered the respondent to show all the files/records relating o the Information asked for nd provide the complainant copies of the documents he desired at the fee prescribed under the act. ”there was no doubt in the commission’s mind that calculating and demanding the fee from the applicant showed an utter disregard or the letter and spirit of the act and was obviously a malafide attempt on the part of CPIO , BSNL for denial of information,” the bench said.
34. Vimal Kishor, an employee of the Patna branch of the NABARD, had filed a complaint with the CIC alleging that the cvc was refusing to furnish him Information pertaining to a departmental inquiry launched against him. According to kishor, he filed a request under the RTI act to the CVC director l ahuja to provide him the required Information to prove his innocence in the case. File missing however, it was alleged that Ahuja initially claimed that the file was missing and later stated that he needed concurrence of the Central vigilance officer of NABARD to part with the information. But even four months after the request the cvc failed to comply, following which kishor moved the CIC. The CIC hold Ahuja guilty of violating the provisions of the act by not furnishing the Information within the stipulated 30 days.
35. Earlier the treatment was free at AIIMS. Lakhs of poor people from across the country used to come to AIIMS daily to get treatment. However, recently, AIIMS decided not to provide any free treatment and charge fee on actual cost basis, which suddenly made the treatment at AIIMS very expensive. One newspaper reported that this decision was taken at AIIMS without going through the prescribed process. I filed an RTI on 5.12.05 to inspect all the files through which this decision was taken. My application contained 18 questions, some of which were innocuous like copy of AIIMS act, objectives of AIIMS etc.2. I received no reply in 55 days.3. I filed first appeal on 1.2.06. I did not receive any reply to my appeal. But i received a letter dated 2.2.06 asking me to come for inspection on 6.2.06. When i went for inspection, i was shown records related to 8 questions out of 18 asked by me. However, none of the files related to user charges were shown to me. They just showed me a copy of AIIMS act, objectives of AIIMS etc.4. I filed my objection on the spot. After inspecting whatever records were shown to me, i requested copies of some of them. I received a letter dated 28.2.06 asking me to deposit certain fee. However, according to sec 7(6), no fee can be charged if the public authority fails to provide Information within the time limits specified in the act. So, i demanded that i should be provided Information free of charge.5. I filed second appeal in march 2006. The commission sought comments from AIIMS, who informed the commission that they had shown me all the records and had asked me to deposit fee but since i did not deposit fee, they could not provide information.6. Obviously, AIIMS misled the commission because they showed me records related to only 8 questions. And that the fee should not have been charged as per sec 7(6). I had already mentioned these details in my appeal. 7. Based on the reply filed by AIIMS, Mrs Padma has disposed off my appeal, without giving any hearing or listening to me. She has asked me to file first appeal again. I had already filed first appeal, for which i did not get any response
36. All the following judgements are clearly in violation of the provisions of RTI act 2005. # the process of petrol pump allotments is always mired in corruption. Manish dnyaneshwar applied for a petrol pump. He did not get it. Under RTI act, he asked for copies of all applications and marks given by interview board to each applicant. Mr ansari ruled that such Information couldn’t be provided, as it would violate the privacy of the interview board and the applicants. # one often hears that corruption and nepotism guide promotions within the government. Tapas dutta wanted copy of minutes of meeting of departmental promotion committee in one of the government departments. CIC ruled it could not be made public as it would violate the privacy of candidates. # government officer faced corruption charges. But no action was taken against him. Ravi kumar wanted to know whether the government proposed to take any action against that officer, CIC denied even this information. # in a completely bizarre judgement, in the case of Axs Jiwan, Ansari ruled that one cannot ask for any information, which could be replied in “yes” or “no”. In another case, ansari ruled that you cannot ask any questions which started with “why”, “when”, “whether” etc. # in one case, ansari laid down a new rule, “the expected benefits from disclosure of Information should invariably outweigh the costs of providing it.” This is nowhere written in the act which was passed by the parliament.
37. Two requests summarized as requests for the following documents from NIC and Karnataka Govt :1. Requests from the departments 2. Communications taken place between the departments and NIC 3. Receipts issued against receipt of payments by NIC to various departments 4. Cost details for the development 5. Cost details of maintenance 6. Requirement specifications 7. Features of the software developed 8. Letters written to various departments of Govt of Karnataka about the pending payments. In response to my requests for the above documents, the CPIO has intimated the following to me: under the section 8(d) of RTI act, the development of website, web based applications are considered as software related work. This type of work is covered under intellectual property rights and commercial confidence, which can not be disclosed (specially because you are a software developer yourself). In my grounds of first appeal i stated the following three points: 1. I sincerely believe based on the copyright act that these documents can't carry any intellectual property rights as there can't be any patents granted for these documents for the simple reason that, these documents are in no way could be considered as invention. 2. The PIO has not substantiated his claim that the documents sought by me are covered under intellectual property rights and commercial confidence. 3. Thus, the statement of the PIO that these fall under intellectual property and can't be spared particularly to me only proves that, he is not against sharing the documents with any one else but he is against sharing the same with me with his malafide intention which is against the spirit of the Right to Information act 2005 and against equal rights amongst equals. The appellate authority has intimated the following : i am to inform you that your case has been once again examined and the reply from sh. B. V. Sarma, sio, karnataka state unit as given by vide letter no. 7(147)/2005-ksu/sio/1871 dt.31.12.2005 is found to be in order. further regarding other issues raised by you, i am to clarify that : NIC being pure it promotional outfit of Govt of India, hence no trading is involved by NIC in serving the state government related matters. Decision of the Central Information commission. According to them, the appellant himself is a vendor and all software development done in NIC and related Information is IPR work of NIC and cannot be shared with any vendor who is its competitor. They also produced a copy of the memorandum of understanding with karnataka government from which we find that NIC has undertaken to respect Information propriety to various state departments and to provide all mutually agreed safeguards. Having heard the representative of the public authority and going through the material placed before us, we are convinced that the CPIO has correctly applied the provisions of section 8(1)(d) to decline to provide the Information sought for by the appellant and accordingly dismiss the appeal.
38. A Mumbai citizen was denied Information under the Right to Information (RTI) act because he had made the application in his position as honorary secretary of a co-operative housing society. He was told by the Central Information commission (CIC) that as per section 3 f the RTI, which says that ‘all citizens shall have the ight to information’, only queries from individuals can be entertained. Powai resident shashi Kumar Nanda described the ruling as ‘unfair and Illogical’. [section 3 of the RTI says that ‘all citizens shall have the Right to Information ’ subject to the provisions of this act. The act is silent on the right of societies, associations, groups and institutions to information.]
39. Ic ansari : ‘i can easily make out from the perusal of papers submitted to us. One cannot ask for Information that are clearly barred under the act and that without establishing the case for human rights violations or corruption. One should not feel shy in making the case, if any.’’ ”you are not alone who are in the garb of public interest seeking personal or confidential or third party Information for promotion of personal interests” “people are misusing the act. We’ve identified a number of appellants who frequent the commission to get Information for vested interest,[ with a motive to blackmail public sector units (PSUS).]” 1. P k Sharma of panchkula, haryana sought access to certain bank accounts that had been reported to the Central vigilance commission and the Central bureau of investigation. The CIC disallowed the appeal saying that the Information was about a third party.; 2.N Anbarasan, a software vendor based in Bangalore, wanted Information about a website run by nic Bangalore. However, NIC said he was a competitor. The Central Information commission (CIC) found this to be true and denied his appeal.;3. Appellant was running over 40 websites and had filed about 30 cases against PSUS, which did not advertise on his websites. The appellant blackmailed the PSUS by asking for details of use of their guest houses, foreign travel of their officials, their cars and other expenses.;4. An overwhelming majority of the appeals pertained to denial of employment, promotions, contracts, tenders or sought details of rival business groups or cases lodged with anti-corruption agencies. There are also the cases of surrogate appeals.
40. The Central Information commission (CIC) has ruled that a contract with a public authority cannot be categorised as confidential. In case of "quotations, bid or tender or any other Information prior to conclusion of a contract, it could be categorised as trade secret, but once concluded the confidentiality of such transactions cannot be claimed". The commission has directed the national institute of science communication and Information (NISCAIR) to furnish Information sought by an applicant under the Right to Information (RTI) act. The appellant, Ramesh Chand Sai, had sought from NISCAIR details of a contract with a firm, deep security services, and the employees deployed by the firm.
41. Pratap Singh Gandas complained in his appeal to the commission that he had been filing complaints or petitions to the police since 2003 to bring to their notice a range of illegal acts. On October 31, 2005, Gandas submitted to deputy Commissioner of police Ravindra Singh a list of 144 petitions filed by him and desired to know what action was taken on them. In respect of 84 cases, the DCP'S reply stated "not substantiated". In 58 cases the reply was "filed" and in two cases, the official said "record being destroyed over three years". The DCP'S reply was upheld by the department's appellate authority and joint Commissioner of police Bhim Sain Bassi, following which Gandas complained to the commission and claimed the replies given to him were "evasive" and "perfunctory". However, the commission felt police authorities had given Gandas their conclusions about each of the cases. "the RTI act cannot be used to make a public authority to do certain things or take certain decisions. It can be invoked only for access to permissible information," chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah and Information Commisioner A N Tiwari observed in their ruling.
42. An association or a company is not and cannot be treated as a citizen even though it may have been registered or incorporated in the country. A natural born person can only be a citizen of India under the provisions of part-ii of the constitution. Section 3 of the Right to Information act, 2005 gives the Right to Information to all citizens. Thus, it is quite clear that a person who is not a citizen cannot claim this right. The issue is decided accordingly. The appellant has submitted the application under the Right to Information act, 2005 in his individual capacity, signing no doubt as president of his association, but not for a separate entity. Requested Information has been furnished to the applicant by the CPIO S, deputy director, directorate of estates and executive engineer (headquarters) CPWD vide letters dated 17th and 19th January, 2006, copies whereof have been annexed at 3 annexure ‘f’ and ‘g’ of the appeal. The appellate authority also in its order dated 17.1.2006 has stated that the applicant can still seek the Information in his individual capacity as a citizen. Although the act guarantees Right to Information only to a citizen, in the instant case, the appellant is seeking Information on behalf of other members of the association, or simply a group of citizens, not a body corporate. The basic objective of the act is to give information, rather than to withhold or deny a right recognized by other CPIO S in the ambit of the same ministry of urban development. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to provide the requested information. Since delay has taken place, albeit, without any fault from the side of CPIO /AA, the Information may be given free of charge.
43. A 70-year-old woman from haryana has used the Right to Information act to gain access to file notings regarding the pension and other benefits of her son, a Delhi traffic police constable who was killed in a road accident over five years ago. Laxmi devi of Bhiwani district in haryana had appealed to the Central Information commission (CIC) for gaining access to file notings made by authorities on her son’s dossier regarding the payment of terminal benefits totalling about rs four lakh and his family pension. The CIC’s ruling giving her access comes amidst a controversy over a government proposal to amend the RTI act to prevent the public from viewing most file notings. The septuagenarian, who was entirely dependent on her son anoop singh, was left penniless after his death on january 29, 2001 as her daughter-in-law mamta, who received all the benefits and was drawing the family pension, re-married in august 2005, her petition said. The benefits were stopped following mamta’s re-marriage. This was despite the fact that laxmi devi was listed as the legal nominee of her son in his records from the date of his death to December two last year, the petition said. “the appellant’s (laxmi devi) interest is direct and legitimate. Documents connected with pension settlement and terminal benefits of her deceased son may be accessed by her,” the CIC said in its order dated July 13, 2006. The commission allowed Laxmi Devi to access a letter written by mamta to the deputy Commissioner of police, asking him to stop the family pension following her re-marriage.
44. The Central Information commission has ruled that the process of selection of judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts need not be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI ) act.’ was in the nature of “personal Information provided by a third party” and exempted under section 11 (1) of the RTI act. Disclosing such Information violated the fiduciary relationship as well as the confidence and trust between the candidates and the Supreme Court, and was exempted from disclosure by section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI act.’
45. The commission came to the conclusion that prima facie the CISCE is not covered by the definition of a public body since it is neither funded nor controlled by the government or any other public body. However, going by the definition of the term Information under section 2(f) of the RTI act, which includes ‘Information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force’. The respondents are thus directed to obtain the Information from the CISCE within 15 days and supply it to the appellant within 21 days of the issue of this order.
46. Four years after former finance minister Yashwant Sinha slapped a defamation case against industrialist sr Jindal, the case has shot to limelight again.the Central Information commission (CIC) has directed the ministry of finance to allow the appellant access to file notings related to the case. The former union minister had filed a criminal complaint against the chairman and managing director of Jindal Aluminium Ltd, sr Jindal, for allegedly defaming him by making statements in july 2001 accusing him of favouring the rival Aluminium Giant, Hindalco. Following this, Jindal Aluminium V-p Alok Gupta submitted an application under the Right to Information (RTI ) and sought inspection of the file related to the case, notes and the total expenditure incurred by the government on the case. Some Information was given to him but file notings related to the case were denied.
47. Reasons for rejecting the tender has to be made known.
48. income tax return is in the nature personal information, the disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual
49. In a single public authority no transfer of application.
50. Where the Information is not available in the particular form requested, the applicant may be allowed if he desires to inspect the documents
51. (a) copy of the notification for recruitment (b) recruitment & promotion policy (c) panel of names of interviewees and merit list (d) copy of recommendations of selection committee and its approval --- be given
52. PAN no.is a personal Information and may not be given.
53. (a) certified copy of te statement (paid copy) (b) certified copy of completed tour itinerary (c) details of meetings attended during the tour--- be given
54. There is no question of denial of Information if a public authority is prepared to provide the documents, in the form in which it is available with them.
55. Noting in the despatch register showing the despatch of reply / intimation is not enough. There has to be actual receipt.
56. Bank account details are not to be disclosed to others.
57. RTI act cannot be confused with an instrument for grievance redressal, although the Information obtained can be used for this purpose.
58. if Information is not available in electronic form, it need not be created.
59. The assessment reports by the superior officers are personal and confidential Information and therefore exempt under section 8(1)(j).
60. If the Information seeker asks several questions expecting the CPIO to reply in yes or no,the CPIO ought not do so.
61. If there is already a provision for seeking Information , the applicant can be advised to obtain the Information accordingly.
62. There is no question of denial of Information in this case.
63. income tax returns are confidential information, relates to third party and are submitted in fiduciary capacity.
64. However, tax assessment is a public action and there is no reason why such orders should not be disclosed.
65. Bio-data submitted in the application for appointment is a public document and can be made available.
66. However, medical reports are purely personal to the individuals and can be denied.
67. at the appeal stage, an applicant cannot ask for additional information
68. The appellate authority is right in advising the appellant to give specific details about the Information / documents sought from the CPIO .
69. the cost effectiveness aspect of disclosure of Information ought to be kept in mind.
70. Information relating to donations, expenditure on transport and salary drawn by the staff can be disclosed.
71. Information relating to future course of action which is not in any material form is not Information within the definition of Information in section 2(f).
72. inspection of records when the process of recruitment is at the interim stage cannot be entertained.
73. The personal assessment forms submitted by the staff to the employer in fiduciary relationship cannot be shared.
74. The views recorded in confidence by the peers on the matter of performance appraisal may not be disclosed , since it mat lead to personal acrimony
75. Applicant’s entitlement for Information is only in respect of categories of Information mentioned in section 2(f).
76. It is not open to an applicant to ask, in the guise of seeking information, question to the public authority about the nature and quality of their action.
77. The RTI act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries with prefixes ,such as why, when, what and whether.
78. Disclosure of Information i.e agreed list would defeat the very purpose of surveillance which is conducted through the established procedure of preparation of agreed list.
79. Keeping some body’s name in the agreed list and rewarding him with promotion and higher postings, albeit to non-sensitive post ,on the other are contradictory.
80. There is no reason why the names of officers who were promoted or placed in sensitive positions while they were concurrently under discreet watch i.e “agreed list” should not be disclosed.
81. Conduct of examinations and for identifying and short listing the candidates in terms of technical competence right attitude ,etc is a highly confidential activity. Therefore, answer-sheets should not be disclosed .
82. The award of marks need not be kept secret.
83. True copies of the mark sheets of the successful candidates may be supplied.
84. The onus for timely despatch of replies to the applicant lies on the CPIO alone under section 7(1) of the act.
85. If found disproportionately diverting resources of a public authority, Information can be denied in the form requested but has nevertheless to be made available in any other convenient form.
86. Appellant Shri S.C.Sharma requested for a copy of the order, in which the union home secretary had authorised the special secretary home to take action under section 5(2) of the telegraph act.
87. The Information was denied on the ground of being harmful to the security, integrity and sovereignty of India section 8(1) (a).
88. CIC- authorisation by the union home secretary to specific agencies to intercept telephones would not qualify to attract the exemption under section 8(1)(a)
89. From the stand-point of technicality of the RTI act, the role of APIO is limited to only to receiving applications for Information and appeals and transmitting the same to the proper CPIO .
90. The CIC does not see any legal difficulty in the CPIO using the services of an APIO to transmit the former’s decision;
91. This would not lead to any miscarriage of justice or place any undue restriction on an Information seeker’s rights under RTI act.
92. It is, however, cautioned that any order issued by the APIO on behalf of CPIO must clearly state that the former was only transmitting the orders of the latter, and should also state the name and the designation of the PIO on whose behalf the aPIO might be acting;
93. The appellant sought for specific reasons for denial of promotion and benefits of ACP;
94. CIC- CPIO was directed to ascertain from the minutes of the DPC as well as the screening committee whether any specific reason has been indicated in the minutes regarding the appellant and communicate the same to him within 15 days.
95. The appellant sought for the details of the academic and technical qualifications mentioned in the service book, of certain working and retired employees;
96. It was denied on the ground of being personal information;
97. CIC- it is rather surprising that CPIO and the appellate authority should have taken the view that details of the qualification of govt. Officials is personal in nature and as such cannot be supplied;
98. It is the right of every citizen to know about the qualifications of public servants and posts held by them,
99. Further even the format in which the appellant has sought for the Information is so simple that the same would not attract the provisions of section 7(9) of the RTI act.
100. The appellant sought for various Information like the address, the dates of and posts from which postal officials had retired, the amount of pension paid for more than 10 years,
101. CPIO rejected the Information applying the provisions of section 8(1)(i) .
102. Upheld by the CIC
103. The appellant sought Information regarding the income tax return of certain firm;
104. The CPIO informed the appellant that the Information relates to third party and the documents could be given after the necessary concurrence of third party as per the act;
105. Third party objected to the disclosure which was not accepted by the CPIO and the third party was accordingly informed and advised to appeal;
106. CIC- income tax returns relates to personal Information ,submitted in fiduciary capacity, and cannot be disclosed without the concurrence of third party.











A BOOK ON RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005











SHARADA AVADHANAM
I/C DD[FS]
AP POLICE ACADEMY


INDEX

SL. NO CHAPTER NAME PAGE NO
1 Right to Information act:
Salient features in FAQ form 1
2 Duties of public authorities and PIO/ APIO
19
3 Exemptions under the act section 8 [ ten as below] and
Section 9 [ private copyright]
Exemptions for FSL section 8[2][5][7]&[8]
33
4 A critique of proposed amendments : Anna Hazare
35
5 Work and time schedule of functions for all agencies
42
6 Position of RTI implementation in AP 49
7 International background and basis
For Right to Information
56
8 Forensics science lab and RTI
63
9 Case law by CIC and other courts HC /SC
74-106




FOREWORD

World has shrunk and has become more uniform than any one of use care to acknowledge. The dominant ideology has been acknowledged universally as the freedom of thought and speech and democratic way of governance which presupposes transparency and accountability.

Prodded by the international conventions and the desi versions of jan sunvais and jan andolans the GOI has come out with a radical and revolutionary piece of legislation which for the first time had contribution of the public at large from the moment ‘go’. The media and the public at large with the help of the networking afforded at the cost of click have involved themselvesin the imoplementation of the act and the ground realities of day to day use of the act to correct the imbalance between the governing class and the governed. RTI has become the beacon of hope for the common man to get back the thread of his life into his hands from the all powerful state and its public authorities.
In police and FSL we deal with the lives and liberties of public and we are the first level use of state power both for good or bad. It is our endeavour to make our transition to a people friendly institution within the norms laid down in the act and the natural justice doctrine while protecting the interests of the innocent parties and within the restrictions placed by the courts and the stake holders in forensic science and criminal justice system.

This work shop is an effort to lay bare the act and the case law which is the first one of its kind in the official circles. We hope the deliberations will enhance our understanding of the details of working of the act and make us equipped to deal with various situations and challenges thrown at us by the public at large or interested citizens.

I congratulate sharada avadhanam for the splendid effort put in bringing out the present volume as a reference ready reckoner.

CHAPTER 6,7 RTI FOR FSL

CHAPTER 6
Position of RTI implementation in AP:

Tirupati: state Information Commissioner R. Dileep Reddy has expressed his displeasure over the lack of proper response from the various government departments in enforcing the Right to Information (RTI) act. During his surprise visit to a dozen departments in the town on Tuesday, he could hardly conceal his dismay over the `indifferent attitude’ of the departments even in displaying related circulars on notice boards of their respective office. At one stage he reportedly warned the officials concerned that they could be fined up to rs.25,000 each for not displaying the circulars duly highlighting the 17 items on which public could seek Information from them under the RTI. According to officials who accompanied the Commissioner , the latter was particularly unhappy with the commercial taxes office, office of the executive engineer (roads and buildings) and the e.e (irrigation).

Visakhapatnam: Jana Chaitanya Vedika on Sunday organised an elocution and essay writing competition on the role of Right to Information (RTI) act, 2005.

Vijayawada: the centre has taken up a pilot project in 24 districts across 12 states for effective implementation of the Right to Information act (RTI) by 2008, according to state Information Commissioner K. Sudhakar Rao. During his visit to several government offices in the city to examine the implementation of the act, Mr. Rao said that the centre and the United Nations Development Programme had selected Hyderabad-based Centre For Good Governance and pune-based Yashwanth Rao Chavan Academy Of Development Administration as implementing agencies for the pilot project.

R2i.net portal launch

Training would be given to officials at the state and district level, representatives of civil society organisations and media persons to make them resource persons for better enforcement of the act. Besides, a portal called would be hosted, in addition to holding workshops and publishing booklets. Mr. Rao said both the centre and the state government were keen on implementing the act in its true spirit. The state Information commission had received 840 appeals so far, out of which 600 had been disposed of. He wanted the officials to try giving the Information sought before the stipulated time frame. If the Information sought was not immediately available, whatever was ready should be provided and the remaining be given later.

Mr. Rao visited the Vijayawada municipal corporation (VMC) and expressed satisfaction over the manner in which the act was being implemented in the civic body. He suggested that the VMC’S website be linked to the district portal. In response to a point made by town planning officials that people were seeking building plans and layouts, Mr. Rao suggested that they be displayed at the public libraries and other offices. The Commissioner also visited the offices of VGTM-UDA, divisional forest officer, superintending engineer of irrigation, executive engineer of irrigation and deputy transport Commissioner . Mr. Rao made no secret of his displeasure over the implementation of the act when he paid a surprise visit on the office of deputy education officer. He wanted the manuals to be prepared in 15 days.

Hyderabad: private institutions that are “substantially-funded” by the government and those governed by Indian laws are also liable to be covered under the Right to Information (RTI) act, according to chief Information Commissioner , Government of India, wajahat habibullah. Inaugurating a workshop on `Right to Information ’ organised by the academic staff college of the university of Hyderabad on Monday, he described the RTI act as one of the most radical pieces of legislation even if comparisons were drawn with matured democracies. He said that the implementation of the act depended upon whether people wanted good governance and were ready to participate in the process of governance. At the same time, the RTI should not be an instrument of humiliating the government. Mr. Habibullah said enormous amount of awareness was needed across the country on the act and how to use it, as very few people made use of its provisions. He said the official secrets act had always been undemocratic and draconian and the RTI act would rectify these shortcomings. Answering a question from the audience about reports of dilution of the RTI provisions, he said that the commission was only concerned with what the parliament had passed. State chief Information Commissioner C.D. Arha said it was important for government employees not to view the RTI act as an adverse legislation that would affect their interests or functioning. “the act is pro-development”, he added.

Tirupati: the top brass of Sri Venkateswara University is in a fix over providing Information to an employee, who is presently under suspension. the vacillation on the issue has landed registrar N. Prabhakar Rao in trouble as the Information Commissioner has issued summons asking him to appear before the commission on July 28. The authorities would have had the last word under normal circumstances, but university engineer Ravi Shankar, who is presently under suspension, sought vital Information under Right to Information act. The details pertained mostly to the alleged irregularities in his very department. When the university did not act, he moved the appellate authority, who is the vice-chancellor himself. When there was still no action, he moved the Information Commissioner , who ultimately issued summons.


Karimnagar: state Information Commissioner s R Dileep Reddy and A Subba Rao had said that they will conduct review meetings in selected revenue divisions in the next three to four months about the implementation of Right to Information act.

Addressing a press conference here on Wednesday, the Information Commissioner s have said that they had already reviewed the implementation of Right to Information act in all the 23 districts and observed that there was awareness among the urban public about the act. Stressing on the need to spread the message of the act to grassroot level, they said that they will play a proactive role for the implementation of the Right to Information act.

The commission was taking all necessary steps to compile petitions received from the people and submit an annual report to the state assembly by November this year. The commission was constituted in the month of November, 2005 but the Right to Information act has been implemented in the state from October 12 onwards.

The Commissioner s urged the people to pressurize officials to extract the necessary Information required under the act. If the officials failed to provide information, the people could approach the commission for redressal of grievance. Earlier, at a review meeting with the district officials they had instructed the authorities to prepare manuals, in telugu also, under the Right to Information act by august 15. .

According to chief Information Commissioner Cd Arha, “the implementation of RTI in some offices is extremely satisfactory,” but not so in others. The RTI act is now being implemented across the state and all administrative offices have designated public Information officers, as mandated in the act. While the act came into force in September 2005, the government was able to provide the required machinery, including the appellate state commission, only by November 2005. The government has also enacted legislation making it mandatory for the administration to provide Information online.

The real transformation has to come from officialdom, by accepting the need for a paradigm shift in their working. Interestingly, a large chunk of the applications (about 80%) received are from within the establishment, seeking to know about promotion files, allotment of office quarters and sundry other personal issues among officials. “this is my greatest concern,” says Arha. Though the applications are legitimate and they have a right to this information, the RTI act has to be extensively used by the general public, he felt.

On the other hand, Jayaprakash Narayan, national coordinator, Lok Satta, which initiated an extensive campaign—including TV capsules, radio spots and other communication channels — to bring awareness and educate the public about the RTI before it become an act, says he is distressed at the lack of proper implementation. According to him, while the act clearly says that almost 95% of the Information should be in the public domain and some others on demand, it is not happening in the state. “pro-active Information disclosure is not happening.”

According to an official, another type of Information being sought by some members of the public is on land records, especially in the wake of a sudden jump in land prices all over. But the departments concerned are in a fix, being unable to furnish Information within the stipulated 30 days, as records are scattered in different locations and are also in bad physical condition.

Narayan says it should now be the efforts of the government and not that of civil society groups, to implement the RTI act in spirit. He rues that at the moment it is legal-centric rather than citizen-centric. Also, people do not know where many of the departments are. So, there is an urgent need for a ‘single window’ where citizens can approach for processing the requests. The government also needs to make a uniform format and also communicate it to the public extensively through the media, which should do it as a

Narasaraopet: state Information Commissioner dilip reddy has expressed dissatisfaction over the implementation of the Right to Information act in government offices at chilakaluripet and narasaraopet towns. However, he made an exception to the municipal offices. Dilip reddy, who was on a visit to the town on Saturday, went round different government offices in narasaraopet and chilakaluripet and reviewed implementation of the act. While he was making surprise checks in the town, the Commissioner had irksome experience at DSP office. Met by DSP B H Pridhvinarayana, dilip reddy posed some questions about the manual, which denotes officers’ duties and responsibilities, and also provisions of section 4/b of the act, the former cut a sorry face. However, DSP conveyed his regrets and assured to study the act thoroughly. Dilip reddy instructed all officials to display basic provisions of the act in Telugu in their respective offices.



Chapter 7
International background and basis
For Right to Information

1. Introduction : Abraham Lincoln on government by consent, 1854
‘no man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.’
2. International scenario : 240 years ago, Sweden passed the first freedom of Information law in the law world, principally sponsored by a Finnish clergyman Ander Chydenius, who had been inspired by the humanist Confucian philosophy wherein the Chinese emperors were expected to admit their own imperfection as a proof for their love of the truth and in fear of ignorance and darkness.”

3. Chronology of freedom of Information laws:
 Sweden 1766
 Colombia 1888
 Finland 1951
 U.s.a. 1966
 Denmark, Norway 1970
 France 1978
 Australia, new Zealand 1982
 Canada 1983

So far, 68 countries have passed FOI laws including India which did so in 2005. It was preceded by similar act for Delhi in 2001 and the one for Maharashtra. There was a huge mass movement for the same in Rajasthan and in Maharashtra.

international right – to know day is celebrated on September 28th of each year

8. The following international conventions contain the universal basis for freedom of Information being treated as a fundamental right of the free men in any democracy:

united nations general assembly, in its session in 1946, adopted resolution 59(i), which states: “freedom of Information is a fundamental human right and … the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the un is consecrated”.

9. Article 19 of the ‘universal declaration of human right’, a united nations general assembly resolution 217 (iii)a of 1948 which recognises freedom of expression including freedom of Information and free press – a fundamental human right. Freedom of expression includes the right to seek, receive and impart Information and right to access Information held by public authorities.
10. Article 19(2) of the ‘international covenant on civil and political rights’ (ICCPR), a united nations general assembly resolution 2200a (xxi) of 1966 states: “every shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart Information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any media of his choice.”
11. Article 10 of the U.N. convention against corruption 2005 states: “…to combat corruption, each (member state) shall, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its domestic law, take such measures as may be necessary to enhance transparency in its public administration
12. The world conference on human rights, held in Vienna in 1993 has declared that the right to development adopted by United Nations general assembly 1986 is a universal and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights. Right to freedom of expression is regarded as closely linked to the right to development.
13. The following are the benefits of the act
 There are long-term benefits:
 In the political sphere,
 In the economic sphere,
 In the sphere of public administration,

14. Individual requests as “vexatious”
 The applicant makes clear his or her intention
 The authority has independent knowledge of the intention of the applicant
 The request clearly does not have any serious purpose or value
 The effect of redaction would be a render Information worthless
 The request is for Information which is clearly exempt
 The request can fairly be characterized as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable

11. Controversy about notings:
sec. 2(i) “record” includes “file”
file consists of a “note” portion and a “correspondence” portion.

 “Note portion consists of chain of ‘notes and orders’ relating to papers under consideration.
 “Correspondence” portion consists of papers under consideration serially filed.
 In all government offices, any issue which comes up for a decision starts with a file on the subject. This file has two parts: on the left, you have the note-sheets on which officers dealing with the issue at various levels record their opinions. On the right, you have correspondence and other papers relating to the subject. Very often, the notings on the left refer to papers on the right, which would be termed as P.U.C. (paper under consideration) . Let us suppose a flyover was to be built in a certain area. A file would be created on the subject. The officer concerned would put up the proposal which would pass through different levels till it received the final approval, say, the minister of the department concerned. Finally, the tender would be floated, the quotations received, evaluated and the proposal put up for awarding the contract. The amount of the contract together with the party (in this case, the contractor) would have to be finalised. This would be the stage when pressures would be exercised, kickbacks determined, bribes taken. Notings on the file would reflect all these. If those at the helm of affairs want to award the contract to a certain party, either for monetary considerations or on account of family connections or friendly relationships, they would exercise their influence and ask their subordinates to put up the cost, among other things. The proposal then would again pass through three, four or even more levels of officials. Then, although a number of officials would put down notings influenced by their superiors, there would be one or two officers in the set-up who are upright and would record their opinions on the file to the effect that the decision being taken was wrong and not in the public interest. This officer would then be overruled by his senior (in most cases he would also be reprimanded verbally) and the contract awarded to the party being favoured by the powers that be. Take another example: a poor person applies for a ration card. His application would result in opening of a file. The officials concerned would sit on the file till the poor person greased their palms. With the introduction of the RTI act, one could demand scrutiny of the file which would reveal names of officers delaying the case. With the opening up of the files for public scrutiny, people are getting their ration cards, passports, and electricity connections quickly, without paying bribes. Anything to do with the government process begins and ends with file notings. File notings reveal nuances of an issue: the element of corruption involved, who has exercised what kind of pressure and on whom, which officials have caved in, and who are the honest and upright officials (few indeed nowadays) who have opposed pressure. If the proposed amendments were to go through, we would be thrown back to an age of darkness after experiencing a very short phase of hope. By taking out file notings from public scrutiny, the government obviously wants to put a lid on corruption. The government will be in no position to take credit for introducing openness, transparency and accountability in public life, if it pursues these amendments. In a list of most corrupt countries of the world, our position is quite high. RTI gives us a chance to bring down our ranking in this respect. Let us not throw it away. [the writer is Commissioner , Central Information commission .]

 Uncalled for fear that exposing note portion would inhibit executive-both permanent and political from discharging their functions objectively. Uncalled for because honest persons not being parties to wrong decisions will also come out. If not remains secret, honest officers also will take blame. Requirement of disclosure would infuse objectively in discharge of functions. Note provides an Information trail that connects the decision to its cause its disclosure is a must to fix accountability.
 In satyapal v. Tcil (icob/a1/2006), the Central Information commission has held that “no file would be complete without note sheets having file notings. …. A citizen has the right of access to a file of which the file notings are an integral part.”
 The Right to Information law will be under some new clauses soon. The cabinet committee has given approval to an amendment in the existing law in 2006. It will restrict the process of file notings under the existing law. Some ‘Right to Information ’ activists express fear that this new nod will cripple the RTI.
 According to O P Kejriwal, member of Central Information commission (CIC), it’ll take the entire life out of the law, that is unfortunate. to know about the file notings is the simple way to detect corruption as it reveals the records of the government’s executive procedure it was said that the bureaucracy always wanted to cover the executive process that has been made uncovered by the Right to Information act since October 2005. The bureaucracy got success when the cabinet chaired by the prime minister permitting access to file notings only on policies, proposals, agenda and projects related to development and social issues.
 As on date the decision on notings is not yet law but only a cabinet decision. Information has been defined in sec 2 (f) of the Right to Information act 2005 and it includes “records” besides other Information listed therein. Sec 2 (i) defines “record” to include any document, manuscript or “file”. When considered to gather, above provisions clearly include file in the definition of “information”. Notings being integral part of “file”, notings can not be excluded. When we talk of a “file” we mean complete file with notings made in the file, which can not be separated. There is a clear provision in the present law that the notings in the file are available to the people. The department of personnel still seems to be flouting the act. On its website it still carries the words “Information does not include file notings”. Legal experts say this line is illegal and that file notings must be made public according to the Right to Information act.

12. Areas of concern
 Appointed of Information Commissioner s-persons with impeccable integrity should be appointed. It is difficult for a bureaucrat who has guarded Information till now to cope up with the new requirement overnight.
 Attitudinal change on the part of all the authorities and personnel in public life convince that it is a freedom for the honest and upright officer to speak.
 Right to inspect work and document coupled with non requirement of disclosure of purpose for seeking Information – may lead to harassment. Effective mechanism to keep out busybodies be worked out.
 Common man will face the problem of sifting the Information voluntarily disclosed. Better if some assistance is provided to him in locating the Information he wants.

CHAPTER 5, RTI FOR FSL

Chapter 5
Work and time schedule of functions for all agencies

Action plan for implementation of RTI

S. No Activity Department Section Time frame
1 Appointment of central/ state Information officer All public authorities 5(1) 100 days
22nd sept., 2005
2 Appointment of central/state assistant Information officer in each office

Sub-division
Sub district All public authorities 5(2) 100 days
22nd sept., 2005
3 Preparation of 17 types of manuals for suo motu information All public authorities 4(b) 120 days
12th oct., 2005
4 Publication of suo moto information All public authorities 4(2) 120 days
12th oct., 2005
5 Indexing and cataloging of records All public authorities 4(1)(a) Reasonable time
6 Designation of first appellate authority All public authorities 19(1) Urgently
7 Setting up central/ state Information commission Central/state governments 13 & 15 Urgently
8 Appointment of central/state chief Information Commissioner and central/ state Information Commissioner Administrative department concerned with implementation of act 12 & 15 Urgently
9 Provide officers and staff to Central and state commission Do 16 (6) Urgently
10 Procedure to be adopted by central/ state commissions in deciding appeals Do 27(1)(e) Urgently
11 Notify bodies owned, controlled and substantially financed as public authority All administrative departments 2(h)(d) Urgently
12 Updating of suo moto Information periodically All public authorities 4(2) Regular intervals
13 Publication of relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing decisions All public authorities 4(1)(c) As and when required
14 Training and educational programmes All public authorities 26(1) Urgently
15 Compilation of a guide All public authorities 26(2) 18 months
16 Update and publish guidelines All public authorities 26(3) Regular intervals
17 Laying copies of rules/notifications etc in houses/assemblies Central/state government 29(1) As and when required



Activity chart for state assistant public Information officer

Sl no. Activity Section Time frame
1. To receive applications on behalf of various public authorities
• Acknowledge it
• Put a date stamp 5(2)
2. To scrutinize and find out concerned public authority and his address
3. To forward application to the concerned public authority 5(2) Within 5 days
4. To scrutinize and find out the concerned appellate authority and his address
5. To receive appeals on behalf of appellate authorities 5(2)
6. To forward appeal to the concerned appellate authority i.e. Senior officer to central/state Information officer or centre/state Information commission. 5(2) Within 5 days

Activity chart for state public Information officer


S. No Activity Section Time frame
1 Receive application

Acknowledge it
Put a date stamp 6(1)
2 Assign a number
3 Scrutinize the application
4 Transfer the application or part there of to other public authority. If it does not pertain to him 6 (3) proviso 5 days
5 Examine whether any exemption is applicable under section 8 or 9 or 24 8, 9, 24
6 If covered under any exemption issue rejection order with cogent reason 7 (8)
7 Examine if it pertains to life or liberty 7 (1) proviso
8 If yes collect Information and dispose of 7 (1) proviso 48 hours
9 Examine if any further fee is required 7 (3) (a)
10 Issue intimation for deposit of further fee with justification and his right to review of decision 7 (3) (a) (b)
11 Seek services of other officers who will be deemed central/state public Information officer 5 (4)
12 If not covered under exemptions proceed further to collect Information to adjudicate and dispose of application 7 (1) 30 days
13 Find out if third party is involved if so issue notice to third party 11 (1) Within 5 days
14 Give opportunity to make representation orally or in writing t third party 11 (2) Within 10 days
15 Dispose of request 11 40 days
16 Intimate him about his entitlement to appeal 11(4)


Activity chart for applicants for filing application under the act


S.no. Activity Section Time frame
1 Identify the nature of Information required
2 Identify the period for which the Information is required
3 Identify the public authority from which the Information is required
4 Get an application form from any public authority
5 Fill up the application form in English or Hindi or official local language 6(1)
6 Make the application to :
Central/state public Information officer or

Central/state assistant public Information officer or

Send it by e-mail 6(1)(a)


6(1)(b)
7 Pay the prescribed fee 6(1)
8 Pay further fee where required 7(3)
9. Await reply:

• If deposited with central/state public Information officer

• If deposited with central/state assistant public Information officer

• If pertains to third party

• If pertains to allegations of corruption/human right violation against exempted organizations

7(1)


5(2) proviso


11

24(1) proviso

30 days


35 days


40 days

45 days
10. File first appeal if no reply received as per prescribed period or
Is not satisfied with the reply received. 19 30 days
11. File a second appeal to central/state Information commission 19(3) 90 days

CHAPTER 3,4 RTI FOR FORENSIC SCIENTIST

Chapter 3
Exemptions under the act section 8 [ ten as below] and
Section 9 [ private copyright]
Exemptions for FSL section 8[2][5][7]&[8]

The following is exempt from disclosure [s.8)]
• I. Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state, relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence
• Ii. Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
• Iii. Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of parliament or the state legislature;
• Iv. Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
• V. Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
• Vi. Information received in confidence from foreign government;
• Vii. Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of Information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
• Viii. Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
• Ix. Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the council of ministers, secretaries and other officers;
• X. Information which relates to personal Information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual;

Notwithstanding any of the exemptions listed above
• A public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

Section 9: copyright of private individuals and not held by state.

Twenty years ago…..
However, any Information about events which happened 20 years ago is to be provided, unless the sovereignty of India or contempt of court is at stake.

Severability [s.10]
– If the record contains exempted Information in parts, PIO can give that part of the record which can be reasonably severed.
– Notice has to be given to applicant stating that info is only part, reasons for the decision, details of fees, details of right to review

Third party
If info to be disclosed was supplied in confidence by a third party, then:
• In 5 days, invite submission from 3rd party
• Submission to be in 10 days
• Keep submission in mind
• Allow disclosure only if public interest outweighs harm to 3rd party
• Give notice of decision to 3rd party, stating his entitlement to appeal



Chapter 4
A critique of proposed amendments : Anna Hazare

In fact the RTI 2005 act provides that any Information that is bound to be supplied to the Lok Sabha and Raj Sabha, cannot be denied to the people. That is why the proposed amendments are unjust and incorrect. If these amendments are passed, the council of ministers may take decisions at will and not be answerable to the people. E.g. If a particular agricultural land is sought for industrial use and the council of ministers decide to acquire the land for conversion in spite of resistance by the concerned farmers and adverse file notings by the district authorities, the fact of case will never be known since file notings will not be disclosed.

(2) the government also intends to conceal details of opinion, legal advice and recommendations of experts or group of people who have examined a project/program related to social or development work, outside the preview of section 8.

Such amendment is unfair and unjust since there should be no harm in providing information, if an individual or a group of people who have worked sincerely and have given their professional / legal opinion keeping in mind public interest. If proposed amendment is allowed to be passed, people will have to accept public losses based on dishonest recommendations.

(3), u/s 8 (1) the government also plans to exclude Information about examinations conducted by the public authorities for appointment / promotion of candidates to various posts in the government. Similarly Information will also be denied about admission criteria to be applied for various educational courses.

This amendment too is unjust. It may not be objectionable to deny Information about deciding eligibility of the candidate in various competitive tests conducted by various bodies, but once results are declared there should not be any objection for a candidate to see answer books of candidate, who have scored higher marks.
This will help bring uniformity in marking system in the written examinations and prevent malpractice in allotment of marks to improve the standard of examining answer books. It is also necessary to know the basis of granting promotions because there usually are many complaints of corruption and dishonest means used in this process. It is essential to maintain transparency in such matters.
It is astonishing that the government wishes to keep the admission process to various education institutes out side the purview of Information act. It is known fact that millions of rupees are collected by the educational institutions for granting admission to management, medical and technical faculties. In such situation, keeping the Information outside preview of RTI will encourage corruption. It is therefore necessary to oppose this amendment with full force. If this amendment is permitted, auction system will prevail in the education system in the private educational institutions that will make education a profitable business.

(4) exception in section 8 (1) is also planned to prohibit supply of Information regarding notings, extracts, hand written notes, files and legal opinion until final decision is taken in the matter and the issue is complete and over.

If these amendments are passed, the RTI will loose its soul. Deliberate attempt will then be made to take away all the rights given to people by the original act. It has been experienced that decisions in government offices are invariably delayed and their implementations are also deliberately delayed. Once this amendment is passed, the ministers and bureaucrats will further delay their decision – some times indefinitely
And take shelter under “the matter is under consideration”, for not supplying information. Possibility decision taking process will continue indefinitely. Therefore it is necessary to resist these amendments, in order to protect the act and effectively check corruption.

(5) in order make impression that additional powers are to be granted to the Information commissions, government propose to add two sub-sections in section 18. According to proposed sub section 18 (5), the commissions will be given more powers and responsibilities to make the act more effective. However, actually the proposed sub section 18 (6) takes away most rights of the commission. The original act provides authority to receive application if PIO or AA refuses to accept the same. The ICS
In such cases can take cognizance of the complaints and impose fine where necessary, after enquiring in to the complaint. But due to the proposed amendment the rights of the commissions to take decisions on appeals and complaints will be taken away and mere recommendatory powers will be vested in the ICS. Final decision shall rest with the government making the act tooth less.

(6). Some PIOS have started misusing provision of sec 8 (1)j, to deny Information on pretext that giving Information concerning you also is not in public interest.

Right to Information act is vital for healthy democracy. Similarly the acts like additional powers to gram sabha, delays in official matters and government officer’s transfer laws are also important. If members of public are educated and awareness created about this act, 75 to 80% corruption will go away and people will enjoy true democracy. Youth is
Real power for nation and if every youth participates in national cause, the whole picture of nation will change within no time.
A quiet second attempt to maul Right to Information has been put down. The Central Information commission (CIC) has tossed out the government view that individual Commissioner s had no powers to decide appeals and issue directions to government bodies, saying this interpretation would make the law “meaningless”.
“no such interpretation can ever be accepted which will make the act, which confers the right on a citizen to access information, totally unworkable,” a full bench of the commission headed by wajahat habibullah held, staving off the second attempt by the department of personnel and training (DOPT) to take the sting out of the Right to Information (RTI) act.
The CIC also upheld public access to file notings under the law and rejected the contention that the commission had no powers to tell the department of personnel and training to remove a misleading portion of its website. “no public authority, government or statutory organisation can ever claim that it is above the law,” the commission held in its 25-page decision that asserted the autonomous character of the CIC.

The case had its origins in the railway ministry last year explaining its refusal to allow an applicant access to file notings on the plea that the website of DOPT– the nodal department for RTI – had excluded file notings out of the purview of the law. The commission consequently told DOPT to correct the misleading portion of its website.

The protagonists of more assertive CIC in RTI have the following agenda which was listed in convention on 14th October during the CIC convention presided over by president APJ ABDULKALAM

• The CIC and the SICS should impose penalties as a matter of law and rule rather than as exceptions in order to effectively implement the act and reduce the number of second appeals reaching the commissions.
• The Central and state Information commissions should ensure that by January 2007, not more than 5% of the second appeals and complaints will be pending for disposal for over 60 days.
• An opportunity for hearing must be given to all appellants and complainants.
• Central and state Information commissions should go by the letter of the law and ensure that denial of Information is only as per the exemptions listed in the law.
• The governments must provide the requisite staff and facilities to the commissions.
• The governments must appoint all ten Commissioner s.
• All public authorities, ministries and departments must provide a monthly report to the commission in accordance with section 25 (2) of the act, and action should be taken against officials who do not provide these.
• The commissions must submit their reports latest by November end to the governments so that they can be placed before the legislatures/ parliament.
• All public authorities must fulfill the requirements under section 4 and a compliance report submitted by them to the commissions by November 2006.
• The government must give an assurance of making no changes to the RTI act for the next two years. [resolution prepared by Mr. Shailesh Gandhi And Rakesh Agarwal, Nyaya Bhoomi]
• There should be dedicated ” RTI audit teams (RTIAT)” under Central government and each state government to periodically review the implementation of RTI act by the public authorities in various departments, PSUS, autonomous bodies, etc. RTIAT should report to cabinet secretary in respect of public authorities of the Central government and to the chief secretary of states in respect of public authorities in his jurisdiction. RTIAT should report non-implementation of RTI act to the head of department to enable him / her to work out a practical time bound action plan. The reports of RTIAT should also be sent to CIC /SICS. Annual report of CIC /SICS under section 25 of the RTI act should be based on reports from each ministry / department under section 25(2), as well as the findings of the RTIAT.
• Information commissions should have the support of an RTIAT as an effective review/audit mechanism, to render reports under section 25 of the RTI act. NGOS and citizen groups may be encouraged to conduct independent audit of the implementation of RTI act by the public authorities. Wherever non-implementation is reported to CIC/SICS, he may ask the government to take corrective action and report action thereon in their report under section 25.
• Annual confidential report of all officers of officers at all level may specifically mention his / her contribution in implementing RTI act. [Dhirendra Krishna Ia&As (Retired)]