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.

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.

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