Saturday, December 21, 2013

SOCIAL AUDIT - CIC Decision No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001891/4020 dated 27-11-2013

Date: 20-12-2013                                                                By email

To,
Chief Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission,
New Delhi. Email: sushmas@nic.in

Hon’ble Madam,

Subject: Decision No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001891/4020 dated 27 November 2013

I extend to you my congratulations on being appointed as second women CIC of India.

As part of social audit I happened to peruse captioned decision. With a view to improve quality of decisions and RTI, I respectfully draw your kind attention to my letters dated 01-12-2013 and 23-11-2013, which are self explanatory. These have been emailed to your predecessor. I attach copies thereof for ready reference. Perusal of these letters and attachments will reveal infirmities in the captioned decision. You may also refer decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000096/05433 dated 11-11-2013.

          In case Ld IC did not concur with earlier decisions, he should have explained reasons therefore in the captioned decision. Consistency is a must in RTI decisions as averred in judgement dated 01-06-2012 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.[C]/11271/2009 –Registrar of Companies v/s D. K. Garg, specially para 57. I suggest that this judgement should be circulated among Ld ICs.
.
          Kindly do the needful.


Wednesday, December 04, 2013

NON-Attending of Emails Received by Commission

Date: 04-12-2013                                                                    By email and post

To,
Mrs. Deepak Sandhu,
Chief Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikhaji Cama Place
New Delhi – 110066  Email: d.sandhu@nic.in

Hon’ble Madam,

Subject: NON-Attending of Emails Received by Commission

I append below query and reply vide enclosed letter No. CIC/CPIO/2013/1446/BS/000117 dated 28-11-2013 to my RTI application dated          19-10-2013, received from CPIO of CIC:

Query No. 3.6 Details of action taken on my emails dated 26-07-2013 and       13-10-13 and name and designation of officer who was mandated to attend such emails as per allocation of work chart.

Reply of CPIO: As dak received in the Central Registry only are acted upon, no action was taken as per record, on the emails. There is no copy of emails on record. [Emphasis added].

This means that communications received by emails by Commission are not attended nor they are taken on record. If the system permits, perhaps emails would be getting deleted from computers even against Public Records Act. I am not sure if emails are even opened by Commission. This fact is serious as far as working of the Commission is concerned when Govt of India is giving top priority for use of technology in governance. I may add that use of emails saves environment also as every 3000 sheets of paper cost a tree.

I earnestly request you to kindly intervene in the matter.

Yours faithfully,

J P Shah
Encl: 1


Copies to: Director, Dept of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi Email: osdrti-dopt@nic.in -with a request to intervene to correct such a situation.

Tuesday, December 03, 2013

Updated Guidelines on RTI Act

Date: 03-12-2013                                                      by email

To,
Shri Sandeep Jain. Director,
Dept of Personnel and Training,
North Block, New Delhi
Email: osdrti-dopt@nic.in

Dear Sir,

Subject: Updated Guidelines on RTI Act

          I thank you for having issued updated guidelines on RTI Act vide OM No. 1/32/2013-IR dated 28-11-2013. Information Commissioners at CIC/SICs are the sole interpreters of provisions of RTI Act, other than Higher Judiciary. I therefore feel that there are following discrepancies / omissions which may be corrected if deemed necessary to avoid complications to information seekers:

1. Para 16 of Part I of OM – Associations etc:

What is stated in OM is not in tune with CIC decision No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00104 & 105 dated 17-05-2007 of Chief Information Commissioner, CIC.

2. Para 16 to 18 of part II of OM – Transfer of application:

I think guidelines are not in consonance with CIC decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG/12906 dated 16-06-2011.

3. It should have been expressly emphasized that PIO should give cogent justification for reasons to reject request, u/s 8.1 [ a to j] or 9. Majority of PIOs  and First Appellate Authorities do not mention justification. I quote as under:


A] “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.”CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 7 July, 2006.


B] “The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case.”CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 dated 7 July, 2006.

C] Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its judgement dated 15-12-2010 in  W.P.(C) 12428/2009 & CM APPL 12874/2009 has pronounced as:

“6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant ………….”

I hope guidelines will be reviewed in view of foregoing by yourgoodselves.

Yours faithfully,

J P Shah

Sunday, December 01, 2013

SOCIAL AUDIT - Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001804/05309 dated 18-11-2013

Date: 01-12-2013                                                                                By email

To,
Chief Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission,
New Delhi. Email: d.sandhu@nic.in

Hon’ble Madam,

Subject: Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001804/05309 dated 18-11-2013-Social Audit

As part of social audit I happened to peruse captioned decision. With a view to improve quality of decisions and RTI, I respectfully draw your kind attention to following infirmities in the said order:

01. The decision has contravened following decisions of CIC itself against principle of precedence, without justification for deviation. [Ref: judgement dated 01-06-2012 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.[C]/11271/2009 –Registrar of Companies v/s D. K. Garg]:

CIC/SM/A/2010/000989 dated 11-04-2011

 CIC/SM/A/2009/000402 dated 09-03-2010

 CIC/SM/A/2008/00136 dated 09-10-2009

02. Hon’ble IC has selectively quoted from judgement dated 22-11-2011 in W.P. (C.) No. 5677/2011-- Jamia Millia Islamia v/s Shri Ikramuddin of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, He has omitted substantive part and soul of this judgment. As per this judgement, information relating to lease/tenancy agreement should have been ordered to be disclosed. This may amount to transgression of judgement of Hon’ble High Court. I presume it was unintentional.

03. Section 8.1.d pertains to third party’s competitive position and not that of a govt department. Unless the lessor/owner is in commercial activity of renting premises, it is difficult to justify how his commercial confidence or trade secret or intellectual property is adversely affected by disclosure of tenancy agreement.

04. It is an open secret that there is underhand dealing [corruption] in taking premises on lease by govt organizations/departments [and govt banks may not be exception]. Hence it is in larger public interest to subject such tenancy agreements to public scrutiny.

05. At the most, the lessor may have been given notice u/s 11 for being heard on disclosure. Information cannot be denied, just because it pertains to third party.

06. In CIC decision dated 09-03-2010 quoted above, such agreements are ordered to be put in public domain.

07. This information cannot be denied to Parliament.

08. Worst come worst, section 10 could have been ordered to be invoked,

09. Such agreements of public authorities are in larger public interest as stated in judgment of Hon’ble Court.

10. Tenancy agreement must have been registered by land lord and Bank, and hence such document is already in public domain.

11. Decision punctures preamble of RTI Act. Please also refer court judgement.

12. While accepting that a public authority is a juristic person, it cannot have personal information which cannot be accessed under RTI Act, otherwise entire RTI Act will be rendered ineffective.

13. Confidentiality mentioned by Hon’ble IC has no place post-RTI enactment. Any information which is not barred by section 8.1 and 9 has to be disclosed.

14. Section 8.1.j cannot be invoked for information held by public authority relating to its own working. It can be made applicable to information supplied by individual [including juristic one] to public authority.

15. CPIO of respondent bank was absent in hearing. This is serious matter and his explanation for absence should have been sought. However, interest of Bank has been taken care by Hon’ble IC even without presence of its CPIO.

            Since prima-facie the said decision of CIC is in gross contravention and defiance of judgement of Hon’ble High Court and letter and spirit of RTI Act, it needs to be reviewed suo moto by larger bench; otherwise ICs would be daring to defy higher Courts also. I therefore humbly request you to take necessary action to ensure that correct and reasoned decisions are passed. If such decisions are not checked, other Information Commissioners at CIC and SICs would be tempted to replicate it.

I am attaching said judgement and decision of CIC for ready reference.

I hope Hon’ble ICs do not intend to take disadvantage of inability of common information seeker to challenge their decisions in High Courts due to lack of financial capacity, time and expertise. Each decision of CIC may be costing nearly Rs.8-10,000/- to public exchequer.

Note: CIC decision and Judgement of High Court are at
https://app.box.com/s/9w3g3xoy7sm29mk7qss2