IMPROVING RTI IMPLEMENTATION BY CIC

Date: 21-04-2014                                                                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

Kindly refer to my letter dated 03-02-2014 addressed to you on the captioned subject. This letter was marked to CIC and US [IR], DoPT on     14-02-2014. CPIO & Secretary, CIC has thankfully replied to my said letter vide his letter No. CIC/CPIO/13/2007 dated 18-03-2014 [copy of which is attached herewith].  Being interested in making RTI effective, I submit rejoinder as under to CIC averment:

1. Non-compliance of CIC orders: I thank CIC for having taken note and hope that matter would be placed before appropriate forum of CIC for operationalising suggestion on the ground without much delay. You will kindly concur with me that lack of effective implementation and good intention are two vital fields due to which pro-citizen policies of Govt. and political parties remain in books only. I hope DoPT will contribute in proper implementation at CIC level by persuasion and follow up.

2. Penalty for non-compliance of CIC order: I thank CIC for having taken note of this suggestion and I hope that matter will be taken up with ICs in their meetings to arrive at a uniform decision to at least seek explanation of defaulting CPIOs for non-compliance without exception and then penalizing on case to case basis. I hope Learned ICs would uphold sanctity of their own orders along with fundamental right of common citizens and not allow CPIOs to throw CIC orders in dust bin. Each decision of CIC costs nearly Rs.15-20000/- to the public money.

3. E-filing of Appeals and Complaints to CIC: It appears that rule 8 has been interpreted in a manner which cause harassment to common appellant/complainant. There is no reason why signed scanned copy of appeal or complaint in pdf format cannot be treated as duly verified and authenticated as required in rule 8. Even otherwise also CIC does not check veracity of signatures on complaints or appeals or establishes identity of appellant/complainant before processing appeals/complaints sent in hard copies.  In addition to this, as stated in my earlier letter dated 03-02-2014, even when signed copies are repeatedly sent by speed or registered post to CIC after e-filing, it takes months for CIC to register appeals/complaints. I request you to kindly persuade CIC in this matter from your end to ease e-filing of appeals/complaints. CIC does not appear to be interested in avoiding delay, irritation and expense to common citizens by justifying  “signed copy awaited” reason to not regiser.

4. Recovery of Penalties by CIC: On this point I humbly state that CIC is trying to find alibi for not recovering penalties effectively. My suggestion to mail copy of penalty order to salary disbursing officer or head of public authority of CPIO will have very positive effect and it does not require any amendment to law or rule. A simple cost effective procedure will ensure that penalty is recovered promptly, unless CPIO is well connected administratively or politically. I know mental position of law/rule breaking officer, the moment he knows that matter is being brought to the knowledge of highest officer of the public authority. In case there is pending litigation, at least CIC will be informed by public authority about stay order etc. I humbly solicit effective intervention of DoPT in this issue also. In fact CIC is encouraging non-payment of penalties by having soft corner towards defaulting CPIOs by resorting to untenable technicalities.

5. Audio Hearing: Though connected extensively with RTI since 2005 on all India level, I have not heard of use of mobile or landline for audio hearing by CIC. An RTI to CIC may reveal number of such audio hearings undertaken by CIC since 2006, but I apprehend that record may not be separately available with CIC. If audio hearing is preferred [ with choice left to appellants/complainants], appellants/complainants living in villages or taluka places may not be required to visit district head quarters incurring time and cost for 4-5 minutes of say at video conferencing.

6. Attending e-mails by CIC: The contention of CIC that it is autonomous under section 12.4 of RTI Act and hence rules/guidelines made by Govt. of  India in the matter of emails are not applicable to CIC. This then means that CIC can function in any manner it chooses, even by violating laws, rules, regulations, policies or guidelines of Govt. of India. I think CPIO & Secretary CIC is over-stretching section 12.4 to have absolute unbridled freedom. You will kindly agree that in a democratic set-up and rule of law, no authority can claim to be above law or function in arbitrary manner without accountability to none, more so CIC which is guardian of RTI of aam admi of India and his fundamental right under article 19.1.a. If CIC has administrative difficulties [ like shortage of staff etc] in attending large number of emails of citizens, then the solution would be to ensure that mechanism is put in place to ensure that emails are attended, rather than not attending emails at all. It shows negative approach of CIC to common citizens who use emails for saving on time and cost on postages. I will try to dig out by RTI record of CIC which lead to such anti-citizen bizarre decision. This issue also requires serious persuasive intervention of DoPT.

Yours faithfully,

J P Shah

Encl: as above

Copies to:

Mrs. Sushma Singh

Chief Information Commissioner,

Central Information Commission,

August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi - 110 066

Email: sushmas@nic.in

2. Shri Rahul Gandhi,

Vice President, Indian National Congress, New Delhi

Email: rahulgandhi@hotmail.com

--this is ground reality of your flag-ship enactment.

SUCCESS STORY

Correct Commutation Amount Paid due to use of RTI, which was pending for seven years         

In Sept 2013 two retired professors of Junagadh Agricultural University approached me for solution to their problem, as they were paid commutation of pension by applying wrong formula. Matter was lingering from 2007, despite various representations to University. I prepared RTI for University, which passed on the bucks to Directorate of Pension and Provident Fund, Gandhinagar, Gujarat for not providing guidance in the matter. I prepared another RTI to the said directorate, which then provided University with detailed guidelines and correct formula. By Feb 2014, University paid arrears not only to these two professors, but nearly 400 other staff ranging from Rs.25000/- to Rs.135000/-, based on correct formula.

IMPROVING WORKING OF CIC - SUGGESTIONS

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 is giving top priority for use of technology for good governance and emails are the most convenient and easy way to communicate. System mentioned in above reply is relating to e-filing of appeal or complaints and it is discussed in para 3 supra. This may be against DARPG guidelines on email management. I may add that use of emails saves environment also as every 3000 sheets of paper cost a tree.

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,

New Delhi - 110 066

Email: sushmas@nic.in

2. Shri Rahul Gandhi

Vice President, Indian National Congress,

New Delhi

Email: rahulgandhi@hotmail.com

--this is ground reality of your flag-ship enactment.

APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS TO CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION- USEFUL REPLY BY CIC

REPLIES OF CIC IN THE MATTER OF APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS

I append below verbatim queries per my RTI application dated 30-11-2013 and replies of Central Information Commission vide letter No. CIC/CPIO/2013/1953 dated 10-01-2014:

Query No. 3.1: Certified photocopy of decision making record or rule or regulation in force based on which it is mandated that signed copy of appeal or complaint should be sent to CIC in case of online filing on CIC website. Refer FAQ on CIC website.

Reply of CPIO: You are requested to refer to rule 8 of RTI Rules 2012 [copy enclosed]. The relevant portion is underlined. Authentication of appeal is a basic legal requirement.

[Underlined words are:” duly authenticated and verified by appellant ……”]

My comments: What is the use of e-filing appeal or complaint, if hard copy signed by appellant/complainant is mandatory? Why not signed scanned copy is accepted in e-filing? Since said rules are applicable to appeals only, complaints should not require such hard copy authentication if e-filed.  Experience of “signed copy awaited” reason for withholding appeals for registration by CIC staff is horrible. Even by sending signed copies of appeals for authentication of e-filed appeals for 2-3 times by registered/speed post, appeals show the status as signed copy awaited. Thus e-filing system of CIC is just useless, expensive and irritating. Please also refer my blog at

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/2555-what-do-you-do-after-e-filing-second-appeal-complaint-cic.html

________________________________________________________________

Query No. 3.2: Certified photocopy of decision making record or rule or regulation in force based on which it is mandated that copies of complaint should be forwarded to CPIO and FAA and that documentary evidence or declaration of such mailing by post or submission be filed with complaint u/s 18 to CIC. Ref: FAQ on website of CIC.

Reply of CPIO: There is no record except RTI Rules 2012. However, without being prejudice to the provisions of the RTI Act, it may be appreciated that while dealing with quasi judicial matters, petitions have to be duly verified by the petitioner, whether it is a complaint or an appeal [emphasis added].

My comments: Thus it is not mandatory for complainant to mail copy of complaint to CPIO and FAA or submit declaration/proof in complaint to CIC of having so mailed, whether filed in hard copy or e-filed. None-the-less sending advance copy of complaint to CPIO & FAA at times makes complainant lucky to get information, before hearing by CIC with a delay of a nearly one year or so. It can be done by ordinary post or email too.

________________________________________________________________

3.3 Certified copy of decision making record or rule or regulation in force based on which it is  mandated that copies of second appeal should be forwarded to CPIO and FAA and that documentary evidence or declaration of such mailing by post or submission be filed with second appeal. Ref: FAQ on CIC website.

Reply of CPIO: There is no record except RTI Rules 2012. However, without being prejudice to the provisions of the RTI Act, it may be appreciated that while dealing with quasi judicial matters, petitions have to be duly verified by the petitioner, whether it is an complaint or an appeal [emphasis added].

My comments: RTI Rules 2012 no where mandates that copy of second appeal be mailed to CPIO & FAA and proof or declaration of mailing be attached with appeal to CIC. None-the-less sending advance copy of appeal to CPIO & FAA at times makes appellant lucky to get information, before hearing by CIC with a delay of a nearly one year or so. It can be done by ordinary post or email too.

________________________________________________________________

Note: FAQ link has been deleted, mostly after my said RTI from website of CIC.

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.