Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

About This Club

This group is meant for those you want to critically review and suggest measures to imporve the Right to Information Act.

  1. What's new in this club
  2. ranjitchona1

    RTI Act Critics

    More to above listed suggestion, I strongly believed that in our country a right atmosphere need to created that too socially and morally. What is happening presently:- The PIO & FAA always tends to over-reacts by not co-operating with applicant & RTI application. where as the Information should be randomly be available on the record office/library/website of concerned department. Whether believed it or not I strongly thing that till today the process of RTI is not whole heartily accepted and acknowledge by Government. More ever Information once disclose should be put up in public domain. This will stop duplication and use as a deterrent to those PIO who refuse to act. More to this we need to have rules to make public all the government record after specific time.
  3. sreenivasbidari

    RTI Act Critics

    the RTI act is silent about what to do in follwing situation; when the CPIO or the first appellate authority decides to discolse the information relating to third party, should the disclosure be kept in abeyance till the third party exhausts his right to appeal and the appeals filed by him to CIC is disposed off? the time limit for appeal to CIc is 90 days and there is time limit for the CIC to decide the appeal. If disclosure of information is kept in abeyance then, a minimum of 9 months period will elapse from the date of filing of RTI application and the disclosure of the information sought for! This may defeat the very purpose of the request for information. this delay may also render the very purpose of the RI act redundant. hence I feel the RTI act should provide for such situation and clearly specify whether the information should be disclosed or not? if the disclosure shoukld be kept in abeyanmce till disposal of appeal by the third party then the act should specify upto which level of appeal it should be kept in abeyance and also may fix a time limit for the same.
  4. Kishenji

    RTI Act Critics

    Can you clarify whether a Public Limited Company can seek information under RTI Act from the Public Sector Banks?
  5. SANJOG MAHESHWARI

    RTI Act Critics

    Hi Everybody! Joined the group just now. I have attempted critical analysis of the working of the Act w.r.t. the ground realities as obtained by lot of research in several R.T.I. cases posted on my blog SANJOG MAHESHWARI. I have also researched in the genesis of the Act itself,ibid. There are loopholes galore in the Act which renders it totally ineffective and i have highlighted them also in my blog posts. For example, even the 1st Appellate Authority has no powers to initiate disciplinary action against the CPIO under the CCS (Conduct) Rules read with CCS CCA Rules of the GoI. and that makes him helpless against the errant CPIO and/or custodian of the records. The Departmental records are in huge shambles even when there are very clear rules on the upkeep, classification and preservation of the Govt. records; quite a few of which are "permanent records" to be preserved for the life. We who seek info.etc. in fact conduct a sort of social audit for which instead of being paid by the govt. have to pay from our own slender resources and mostly there is no light at the end of the tunnel- SANJOG MAHESHWARI
  6. opecsuri1

    RTI Act Critics

    There is no specific punishment provided in the Act except monetary punishment for delay in providing the information. There should be effective punishment to be imposed upon the wrong doers (PIOs) which should be imposed by the CIC/SIC. The punishment should be in the form of discharge from duties, transfer, downgraded etc. Otherwise the very purpose of the Act will be defeated. Secondly the provisions of the Act should be widely publicized before the public through various media as like Publication of Consumer Protection Act. Only then the intention of the Parliament for enacting the Act will be fulfilled.
  7. RAVEENA_O

    RTI Act Critics

    OBTAIN PROOF OF DOCUMENTS DISTROYED Many members complain that PIOs are denying information under the plea that documents are destroyed. This would defeat the very purpose and legislative intent of RTI Act. There is prescribed life span (i.e. preservation period) for records of Public Authorities. No record can be destroyed before expiry of preservation period. There is also defined procedure for destroying Records. There are Permanent Records like Service Register of employees, Personnel Files of employees, which cannot be destroyed during life-time of employees. The proviso under Section 20 (1) provides that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the CPIO or SPIO as the case may be. Thus, onus lies on CPIO to prove that records in question are destroyed. Whenever CPIO or FAA denies information stating that records are destroyed, supporting document i.e. [1] copy of preservation period of stated document and [2] order of competent authority to destroy stated document be demanded and obtained from CPIO or FAA. Once it is established that records are destroyed, applicant can make his plea before Court or such other authority, to his advantage. Eg – a Seniority list was published in Sept. 1997. An amendment to this seniority list was issued making certain corrections in Nov.1997. If Corrected Seniority List is stated to be destroyed, then applicant can claim before court that applicant’s position was not disturbed by subsequent correction made by Seniority List Published in 1997. The PA cannot produce Seniority List of Nov.1997, having taken a stand that it is destroyed. This would force PA to produce correct picture before Court or acquiesce by contentions of applicant. Advantage of non-availability of documents with PA must be used to draw adverse inference against PA. Use of such a tool is essential to overcome menace of denial of information stating that records in question are destroyed.
  8. RAVEENA_O

    RTI Act Critics

    CAN WE SEEK OPINION FROM PIO? There is lot of interpretations about word OPINION as contained under Section 2(f). Word OPINION mentioned in section 2(f) is an elaboration of MATERIAL as a definition of information. It shall not at all be the OPINION of PIO. A citizen is entitled only for ANY MATERIAL information. Here, OPINION means an opinion available with a public authority – either received by public authority or tendered by a public authority in discharge of its official function. It does not mean to frame an OPINION by public authority on any issue raised before the PIO under RTI Act. Section 8(3) of RTI Act provides that any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section-6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section. Definition of INFORMATION as in Section 2(f) means ANY MATERIAL in ANY FORM. A conjunctive reading of these two sections would reveal that a Citizen can ask for an OPINION which is already on record in material form as on the date of application.
  9. RAVEENA_O

    RTI Act Critics

    Let me with u for mutual help
  10. Mihar

    RTI Act Critics

    URGENT NEED FOR JUDICIALLY TRAINED INFO COMMISSIONERS Some basic training in judicial procedure ought to be imparted even to PIO and First Appellate level officers, who very often deny information through basic non application of mind vis a vis the provisions of the Act. Whether this is intentional or not is another issue! A bare perusal of earlier orders of even Central IC's such as Mr MMA reveals that he dismissed the Appeals without any appreciation of judicial procedure such as the basic tenet of principles of natural justice, if nothing else. A judicially trained officer at the helm would at least ensure, hopefully, that basic norms are followed in the disposal of proceedings. If the Consumer forum and its Appellate fora can have judicial officers heading their bodies, there is no reason that the same standards cannot apply to the Information Commissions which are also quasi judicial bodies. Perhaps we could launch a petition to demand that a percentage of appointments be from retired or sitting judicial officers rather than bureaucrats.
  11. vijendra singh

    RTI Act Critics

    Today thousands of aggrieved RTI applicants have already decided to be away from RTI use. It definitely shows the very much Bad/ Merciful condition of the holy Act.All of You tried & could get very few of the demanded info ; But u got one Big success i.e. Appointment of a Honest Info Commissioner ,Mr Shailesh Gandhi . But 1 honest IC is not sufficient in our big India. We need at least 300 honest ICs through out country . Pl find some method. Today this is the only & Biggest Hurdle in fair implementation of RTI. All todays ICs (exept Gandhiji ) are found Mentally Corrupt.
  12. vijendra singh

    RTI Act Critics

    I m retired banker. I have experience of PIOs refusing info intentionally & then the powerful CIC expressing helplessnes. I know that PIO & CIC are working antiRTI Act.Even 0.01% erring PIOs could not be punished by CIC/ SICs. Public must THINK deeply on such issues.
  13. R K Garg

    RTI Act Critics

    I am a consultant and very busy in dealing with RTI Matters in Chandigarh & around.I want to join the critic group.I am qualified consulatnt and knows official working R K Garg
  14. mordps

    RTI Act Critics

    Hi friends. I am a social work teacher in Punjabi University and look forward to learn a lot from you all. My details can be accessed on social work department at our university website
  15. Rajesh.singhg

    RTI Act Critics

    Hello members . I will be active member . Recently the CJI of india has commented that they are above all and cant be sup under the preview of RTI . But i have a say that being the custodians of Constitution they should be more transparent in their working and being the citizens we must know about the working of all constitutional posts.
  16. colnrkurup

    RTI Act Critics

    "The Kerala State Chief Information Commissioner in his recent order of 29-1-2008 has observed that the matter had indeed been a civil matter and, an ultimate solution would be possible only if the issue was resolved in a civil court. (kindly note that the appellant never wanted a redresal of grievence or ultimate solution. All he ssought for was information readily available which if provided can expose the unlawful activities strictly in accordance with the explicit provisions of the RTI Act).The RTI Act 2005 do provide a forum for the cityzens to receive information , as held by the public authority , but at the same time, it does not envisage entertaining requests for information made in the form of information / interpretations / comments/interrogatoriues etc. The commission was constrained to observe that many of the comments of the complainant fell in the categories, as mentioned above which under no circumstances, any public authority would have been able to entertain and provide information (It is natural that the public authority will desist from expossing heir own guilt). Comments/observations/interpretations etc do notfall in the category of information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act I would like to give the dictionery meaning of above words below: INTERPRETATION Opinions regarding a set of facts, Comment, Intended meaning of a written document COMMENTS A statement of facts or Opinion, ThePartof a sentence that provide new information about the topic, Opinion or explanation or interpretation, Statement of Opinion INTERROGATORIES A request for data. Information is defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, OPINIONS, advices, orderd etc etc. Please see that the Opinion fall under interpretation/comments etc whereas this is not Information as per SIC. Coupled with Section 4(1)(d), the SIC has absolutely no authority either to refuce the information sought or to direct the appellant to approach Judiciary just because the information sough for if provided will expose far too many skelettons in the cupboard.
  17. latelearner

    RTI Act Critics

    All State information commissions can follow the example of Maharashtra by clearing the backlog of appeals by conducting hearings in districts headquarters. Latelearner
  18. taurus

    RTI Act Critics

    The growing number of appeals pending with the CIC and possible measures that can be taken to reduce it may be discussed in this group.
  19.  

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy