Thursday, December 27, 2012



SOCIAL AUDIT OF CIC DECISIONS


Date: 27-12-2012                                                                                By email

To,
Shri Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission,
New Delhi-110067

Hon’ble Sir,

Subject: Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000981 & 982 of 21-12-2012- SOCIAL AUDIT

This bears reference to paragraph 6 of your captioned decision copy of which is attached herewith for ready reference.

You have decided not to impose penalty, despite having come to the conclusion that provisions of RTI Act have been breached, keeping in view administrative difficulties of CPIO. In this connection I humbly invite your kind attention to paragraph 13 of judgement dated 07-01-2010 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.NO.20372 of 2009 and M.P.NO.1 OF 2009, which reads as under:

“13. The other objections that they are maintaining a large number of documents in respect of 45 departments and they are short of human resources cannot be raised to whittle down the citizens' right to seek information. It is for them to write to the Government to provide for additional staff depending upon the volume of requests that may be forthcoming pursuant to the RTI Act. It is purely an internal matter between the petitioner archives and the State Government. The right to information having been guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the administrative difficulties in providing information cannot be raised. Such pleas will defeat the very right of citizens to have access to information. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court. The writ petition lacks in merit.” [Emphasis added]

I also seek your kind reference to decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000005/6929 Penalty dated 19-03-2010 of CIC itself.

While your decisions are well reasoned, positive and innovative in approach, at least in this case, the decision challenges high court judgement quoted above.

Please do the needful lest other CPIOs will also hide under administrative difficulties quoting this decision in future puncturing RTI of common citizens.

Yours faithfully,
J. P. Shah
Encl: 1

Wednesday, December 26, 2012


SOCIAL AUDIT OF DECISION OF CIC

Date: 26-12-2012                                                                                By email

To,
Shri Vijai Sharma,
Central Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission,
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067
Email: vijai.sharma@nic.in

Hon’ble Sir,

Subject: Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/002485/VS/01549 of 17-12-2012- SOCIAL AUDIT

I invite your kind attention to paragraph 7 [b] of your captioned decision where in you have ordered CPIO to invite the consent of the third party under section 11(1) of the RTI Act 2005 to disclose the information sought by the appellant under points 2 to 7 of the RTI application.

This gives impression that CPIO needs consent [or say permission] of third party for releasing information. Under section 11, CPIO does not require consent or permission or NOC from third party. He has to give third party opportunity to be heard orally or in writing. CPIO should then finally decide whether information should be revealed or not, irrespective of third party agreeing or not.

Already CPIOs are under erroneous perception that they need permission or consent for releasing third party information and are refusing supply of such information stating that third party has not given consent to disclose. I hope my above feedback will be cogitated upon by yourgoodselves for future decisions. This will avoid wrong precedence by other CPIOs to block information.

Yours faithfully,

J. P. Shah

Copy to:
Chief Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission,
New Delhi - 110 066 Email: s.mishra@nic.in
 --If such decisions are not checked, other Information Commissioners at CIC and SICs would be tempted to replicate it. You may order review to correct defect.

Sunday, December 09, 2012

SOCIAL AUDIT OF DECISION OF CIC



08-12-2012 

Central Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission,
Club Building, Old JNU Campus, 
New Delhi-110067


Hon’ble Sir,


Subject: Decision No. CIC/DS/A/2011/002483/RM dated 03-12-2012 – SOCIAL AUDIT

This bears reference to your captioned decision copy of which is enclosed. It does not contain reasons for your decision. In this connection I humbly enclose extract of a judgement dated 08-09-2010 of Hon’ble Supreme Court, emphasizing importance of reasons in decisions by Courts, quasi-judicial authorities, and administrative authorities.

I hope you will take note of above judgement and ensure that orders with proper reasons are passed by you at least in future to ensure compliance of this judgement. I am sure you do not intend to take disadvantage of weakness of common citizens to move higher judiciary against defective CIC decisions or to defy Hon’ble Supreme Court.

This is part of social audit to get quality decisions from Information Commissions, since each CIC decision costed nearly Rs.6754/- in the year 2007-08 to public exchequer and now it would be costing nearly Rs.10000/- per decision. Citizens expect not only duly reasoned and speaking decisions but also matured and path breaking ones from Commissioner of your stature and back ground.

It would be interesting for you to read my enclosed write-up which was circulated in a CIC meeting in Nov 2007 by first Chief Information Commissioner of India.

Yours faithfully,

J. P. Shah
Encl: a/a

Copy to:
Chief Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Email: s.mishra@nic.in --If such decisions are not checked, other Information Commissioners at CIC and SICs would be tempted to replicate it. You may order review to correct deficiency which transgresses decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT - INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT


 

Document

 

“Document" means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. Illustrations A writing is a document: Words printed lithographed or photographed are documents: A map or plan is a document: An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document: A caricature is a document." 

 

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872


74. Public documents -


The following documents are public documents:—

(1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts—

(i) of the sovereign authority,

(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and

(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country;

(2) Public records kept in any State of private documents.

75. Private documents.

All other documents are private.


76. Certified copies of Public Documents


Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees there for together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officers with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.

Explanation

Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.