Date:
03-02-2014 By
email & post
To,
Director – RTI
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions,
Govt of India New Delhi
Email: dirrti-dopt@nic.in
Dear Sir,
Subject: Improving
RTI implementation by Central Information Commission [CIC]
I find that now thankfully Govt
of India is becoming more and more citizen centric especially after Shri Rahul
Gandhi quoting RTI as an important and game-changing gift to Indian citizens, for
which UPA really deserves credit. I humbly make few suggestions so that you
can empathize with ground realities and problems of common citizens connected
to CIC:
1. Non-compliance of CIC orders: I have
been informed vide CIC letter No. CIC/CPIO/2013/JS[PP]/24 dated 13-01-2014 that no priority is given by CIC to complaints of non-compliance of its
own orders. Thus such complaints are lined up as normal complaints to be heard
with a time frame of 12 to 36 months. Initially appeals or complaints are heard
with a delay of 12 to 36 months and in case of first non-compliance or
defective compliance by CPIO/FAA, additional 12 to 36 months are wasted.
In case of non-compliance despite second time approaching CIC, then again it
may take 12 to 36 months time. Thus there could be minimum 24 to 72 months
delay which can extend to 36 to 108 months. This totally punctures soul of RTI.
I had approached previous Chief Information Commissioner per my letter dated 09-08-2013 but naturally with no action.
I humbly suggest that complaints of non-compliance
or defective compliance of IC orders should be given priority by CIC and queued
up separately over normal complaints or appeals in each registry.
Gujarat Information Commission has recently started taking up such complaints
within 3-4 months of receipt of complaint of non-compliance.
2. Penalty for non-compliance of CIC orders:
ICs normally do not impose penalty and recommend disciplinary action even in
cases of non-compliance of its orders. This has evaporated credibility of CIC
orders. In some cases I have found that ICs nearly beg for compliance despite
repeated flouting of its orders, rather than pulling up CPIO/FAA for harassing
common information seeker. Such non-compliance
is also not reported to head of public authority of CPIO/FAA by CIC. CIC has no
data base of non-compliance complaints.
My humble suggestion would be that ICs should take
such non-compliance seriously and at least penalty be imposed without
exception, if RTI is not to fade away like all other pro-citizen enactments.
3. E-filing of appeal and complaint to CIC:
After e-filing appeal or complaint to CIC on http://rti.india.gov.in/, CIC
insists that signed print out of appeal or complaint should also be mailed to
CIC. My experience with CIC on the issue of “signed copy awaited” reason for
withholding registration of appeal/complaint is horrible. I have totally stopped e-filing nor do I
advise others as RTI activist. Even after sending signed copy of appeal or
complaint 3-4 times by registered and courier post, appeals / complaints are
not registered. CIC may study few cases as a test check to know harassment,
irritation and expenses being incurred by appellant or complainant for just
getting appeal or complaint registered after e-filing on http://rti.india.gov.in/.
A simple question is “why one should e-file if he has to repeatedly mail signed
print out to CIC by registered post?” Thus e-filing has been rendered
useless, as happens with all pro-citizen systems mandated by political
masters. CIC has no data of e-filed appeals/complaints pending registration for
want of signed hard copy.
I humbly suggest that CIC should mandate submitting
signed and scanned copies of all papers in pdf format while e-filing at http://rti.india.gov.in/
as attachments for authentication. This will totally cure “signed copy awaited”
disease of CIC.
4. Recovery of Penalties: As per letter
No. CIC/CPIO/2013/JS[PP]/24 dated
13-01-2014 in reply to my RTI dated
30-11-2013, I find that out of Rs.1.79 crores of penalties imposed till
16-12-2013 only Rs.1.09 crores are recovered. Thus penalty amounting to
Rs.70.00 lakhs [39.10%] is un-recovered. My RTI has also revealed that
CIC has no prescribed procedure or strategy or responsible officer for recovery
of penalties or meaningful data, except sending routine polite reminder to head
of public authority, once in a while.
I suggest that copy of IC order for penalty should
also be mailed to salary disbursing officer of CPIO or head of public authority
for recovery from salary of CPIO, or else this officer should be held
accountable, if he fails to recover.
5. Audio Hearing: I suggest that CIC
should hear appellant/complainant on mobile [if he so chooses] when he is not
in a position to attend video-hearing which are mostly scheduled at district
head quarters. Haryana SIC does reach-out by mobile to appellant/complainant
during hearing. Please refer decision dated 06-01-2014 in appeal No. 4553 of 2013
of said SIC.
6. Attending emails by CIC: Vide CIC
letter No. CIC/CPIO/2013/2007 dated 23-01-2014 in reply to my RTI application dated 13-12-2013 , I have been informed as
under:
“……It is further clarified that the Commission
receives about 1 lakh daks during a year. That being the case, it has been
unanimously decided that not to take cognizance of emails. Although, we do have
online filing system which you can see after going to our website at
cic.gov.in”
I have my own reservations if communications sent by
ordinary post would also be not being attended by CIC. CIC may only be
attending letters sent by registered or speed post. This fact is serious as far as working of CIC is
concerned when Govt of India
I am sure you will take necessary action to solve
above problems being faced by aam aadmi while dealing with CIC.
Yours faithfully,
J P Shah
Encl: 1
Copies
to:
Mrs.
Sushma Singh
Chief Information Commissioner,
Central Information Commission,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place
Email: sushmas@nic.in
2. Shri Rahul Gandhi
Vice President, Indian National Congress,
Email: rahulgandhi@hotmail.com
--this is
ground reality of your flag-ship enactment.
Hats-off to you for fighting for the transparency in the governance. Sir, I've gone through your letter sent to the CIC regarding "improving working of CIC - suggestions". The Rule-8 of the RTI Rules-2012 stipulates that "Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the First Appellate Authority or by non-disposal of his appeal by the First AppellateAuthority, may file an appeal to the Commission in the format given in the Appendix and shall be accompanied by the following documents, duly authenticated and verified by the appellant, namely....".
ReplyDeleteThe CIC has made it mandatory to send the hard copy of an appeal/complaint even after filing of the same through its own website. Further, I've also gone through the IT Act-2000 and I understood that :
(1) E-records to be admissible as DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE under the Sections 3, 65(A), 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As per amended provision Sec 3(2) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, electronic evidence is documentary evidence:"(2) All documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence.
(2) Another provision in Section 2(t) of Information Technology Act 2000 electronic record means;(t) 'electronic record' means, data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated microfiche;".
But, I am unable to understand that whether the provisions of RTI Rules-2012 may NEGATE/override the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or Information Technology Act-2000 ?
Atleast, the CIC should allow the DIGITALLY CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS (signed/certified through Digital Certificates). I, therefore, request you kindly to offer your comments in this regard, and oblige.