Jump to content

Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India

According to a “Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India” prepared by Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) and Centre for Equity Studies (CES), transparency is a key to promoting peoples’ trust in public institutions. The assessment found that several ICs were non-functional or were functioning at reduced capacity, despite large backlogs, as the posts of commissioners, including that of the chief information commissioner (CIC), were vacant during the period under review. In many cases, the appointments of information commissioners were found to be set aside by courts due to lack of transparency in the process of appointment and for being in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and directions of the Supreme Court.
In addition, the Report, says, “By failing to disclose information on their functioning, ICs continue to evade real accountability to the people of the country whom they are supposed to serve. The legal requirement for the central and state information commissions to submit annual reports every year to Parliament and state legislatures respectively, is to make, among other things, their activities transparent and available for public scrutiny. However, very few ICs fulfil this obligation, and even fewer do it in time”. 
As part of the assessment, and in order to access information about the functioning of information commissions, both SNS and CES filed RTI applications with the 28 state information commissions (SIC) and the Central Information Commission (CIC). A total of 169 RTI applications were filed seeking identical information from all the 29 information commissions. The RTI applications were tracked to assess how each information commission performed as a public authority, in terms of maintaining and disclosing information. Three information commissions from Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu did not respond to, or even acknowledge, the RTI applications filed within stipulated time.
"Several ICs, like from Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh rejected requests for information invoking provisions seemingly in violation of the RTI Act. In all these cases, an appeal was filed against the denial of information. However, till the time of publication of this report, the requisite information had not been disclosed," the report says.
Apart from Tamil Nadu, three State Information Commissions (SICs), Odisha, Sikkim and Kerala returned the RTI applications citing procedural deficiencies.
Only 13 out of 29 ICs provided full information in response to the RTI applications filed as part of this assessment. Of the 107 chief information commissioners for whom data was obtained, the overwhelming majority (84%) were retired government servants including 67% retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers and another 17% from other services. Of the remainder, 10% had a background in law (5% former judges and 5% lawyers or judicial officers).

Resistance from banks in revealing Loan details to corporate entities

The RTI query, sent to the Ministry of Finance, sought details on individual exposure of various PSBs to corporate borrowers. The questions that were asked in the RTI query sought information on the loans given to the Reliance Industries, Adani Group, GVK Group, GMR and Jaypee Group. The RTI was first directed to the Finance Ministry, which then forwarded the RTI request to various banks asking them to provide the information. The RTI had questions on the money loaned to big industrial houses by government-run banks. However, all public sector banks except Andhra Bank and Allahabad Bank have refused to divulge information citing either the 'personal nature' of questions or how they don't fit under the provisions of the RTI Act. 
In their reply to the RTI query, the banks have said that the information available with banks under "fiduciary relationship" is exempted from disclosure.
Read about: Fiduciary Relationship under RTI
While Andhra Bank and Allahabad Bank have disclosed the loans given to big corporates, all other lenders refused to do so. Banks which did not disclose any detail in their reply to the RTI query include State Bank of India (SBI), Bank of Maharashtra, Corporation Bank, Indian Bank, Canara Bank, UCO Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Bank of India, Bank of India and Syndicate Bank. Earlier this month, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley informed the Rajya Sabha that loans worth Rs 81,683 crore were written-off by public sector banks (PSBs) in 2016-17.
Country's largest public sector lender, the SBI, said, "The information sought by you under point number three to eight is the third party personal information held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity, the disclosure of which is not warranted for any larger public interest and as such is exempted from disclosure."

Upper limit of Rs 50 imposed on RTI Fee by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court fixed on Tuesday an upper limit of Rs 50 as application fee that government authorities can charge those seeking information under the right to information (RTI) act, the country’s transparency law.
Also, a bench of justices AK Goel and UU Lalit said public authorities cannot ask for more than Rs 5 for each page as photocopying charge, and an applicant need not mention the “motive” while filling out the application form.
The order came on petitions challenging high fees set by different public bodies, including high courts and state assemblies.
The decision can be downloaded from here:

43 years for RTI case finalisation in West Bengal- study

A biennial study conducted by Satark Nagrik Sangathan and Centre for Equity Studies has revealed a grim picture of RTI Act implementation with waiting time at information commissions running in years and commissions in several states becoming non-functional owing to unfilled vacancies. The study has found that if an RTI appeal were to be filed in West Bengal state information commission on November 1, 2017, it would be disposed of in 2060 – after 43 years. In Kerala, it would take six years six months and Odisha 5 years 3 months. The main reason for such a long waiting time is the reduced number of information commissioners that commissions are working with. 
The report has brought out, what it calls a “concerning trend”. The information commissions, which are the last resort for the common man to complain against wrongful denial of information, are increasingly returning cases. The highest number of cases have been returned by CIC, followed by Gujarat, Assam and Uttarakhand.

Land rights din surrounds airport

Recommended Posts


Land rights din surrounds airport

AS REPORTED by SANTOSH K. KIRO , The Telegraph, June 22 , 2008


- Villagers invoke RTI to claim revenue dept records, seek compensation


Ranchi, June 21: At a time when the aviation industry is going through a rough patch, the capital’s airport is being drawn into a controversy over land ownership: around 150 villagers now claim their families weren’t adequately compensated for the land on which the Birsa Munda Airport was built way back in 1963.


Their claims are based on a set of documents they received from the state revenue department after applying for certain details under the Right to Information Act.


The documents — over 1,035 pages — provide acquisition details of 982.44 acres of the 1,568 acres on which the airport is situated. The bone of contention is over the remaining land for which the revenue department could not produce acquisition details, since it pertained to “pre-Independence days”.


The villagers, represented by the Visthapit Sangharsh Samiti, are now thinking of moving the High Court against the state government for not parting with all the information.


“The state government has failed to provide satisfactory and complete information about land acquisition for setting up the airport,” said Krishna Sahu, the samiti’s general secretary.


“It has also failed to give us details of compensation paid to land owners on whose land the airport came up,” said the leader of the samiti formed in 2006 to champion the “cause of the aggrieved families.”


The samiti invoked RTI in April 2007 seeking various details about the land — namely, when and from whom it was acquired by the government, how much compensation was paid and to whom. But the information, that too incomplete, reached it only recently.

According to the documents, the then Bihar government had “acquired” 982.44 acres for the airport in the four villages of Hundru, Hethu, Hinoo and Kalyanpur during 1962-63.


Ranchi district land acquisition officer Kamal Shankar Srivastava, who provided the information to the villagers, agreed the information was incomplete.


“We have been able to provide detailed papers for a part of the land acquired. Rest of the documents aren’t available as it relates to the British period,” he said.


The British, he said, was understood to have “requisitioned” the remaining 585.56 acres between 1941-43 and paid farmers “yearly compensation” for the crops, houses, wells and trees that stood on their land.


Apparently, during WW II, the British were keen on setting up a military camp/command in the area. And as per its understanding with the villagers, the land would be returned to them after the war.

However, after Independence, the Indian Army continued to occupy the land.


None of this is included in the set of documents handed over to the samiti, which was set up by villagers belonging to Hundru, Hinoo, Hethu, Garhatoli, Chotaghaghra, Pakatoli, and Kalyanpur villages.


“My land happens to be right in the middle of the airport and I continue to pay revenue. There are many in the village like me. We should be compensated adequately,” said Vijay Wargiya, son of Om Prakash Vijay Wargia, the original owner.


State land revenue minister Dulal Bhuiyan, who is aware of the brewing controversy, said he would consult Union ministers.


“I have gone through the papers related to the airport land. The land whose acquisition papers aren’t available, may have been requisitioned by the British,” he said, adding he would constitute a representative committee and consult defence minister A.K. Antony and civil aviation minister Praful Patel to find a way to compensate villagers.


The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Frontpage | Land rights din surrounds airport

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • karira
      By karira
      Recently I booked tickets on Air Deccan and Indigo for my mother.
      The tickets were booked on yatra.com and paid for by Credit Card.
      The cost of the ticket was shown as "Passenger Fare" and "Taxes". The taxes are approximately Rs. 1725.00 for each ticket.
      From experience, I know that these "Taxes" include Passenger Service Fee, Airport Tax, User Charges, Fuel Surcharge, Additional Fuel Surcharge, Security Charges, etc...."
      Due to health reasons, my mother could not make the trip.
      While cancelling the tickets, BOTH the airlines deducted the "passenger fare" part of the cost (which is correct, since the tickets were clearly non-refundable). However, BOTH the airlines told me that for the "taxes" part, they will only issue a voucher that can be used by the same passenger within 180 days and on the same airline.
      My thinking is that all these so called "taxes" become payable when a passenger actually travels. These "taxes" are collected by the airline, on behalf of the Government and to be paid to the Government when the passenger actually flies. They cannot collect taxes, not pay to the Government and moreover not refund to the passenger, but ask him to utilize this amount through a voucher which is non-transferable.
      Some research showed me that both Air Deccan and Indigo owe the Government huge amounts in taxes which they have not paid and also owe large amounts to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) for parking fees, navigation fees etc, which also they have not paid and are long overdue.
      I would like to know the following information through a RTI :
      1. When do these "taxes" actually become due ?
      That means , when are the airlines actually supposed to pay to the Government or the appropriate authority ? Are they supposed to pay the Government within a stipulated time period of collecting the amount OR only after a passenger flies ?
      2. Can someone collect taxes on behalf of the Government , not pay the Government and then also not pay back the passenger ?
      3. What are the relevant rules under which, someone who collects money on behalf of the Government and misuses the funds, can be penalised ?
      4. How much do these airlines (and others too) owe the Govt. on "taxes" and AAI on other charges ?
      Since how long are these payments overdue ?
      What action has the Govt. or AAI taken against these airlines ?
      If no action, why not ?
      When will action be taken ?
      Whom should I address my RTI application to ?
      Ministry Of Finance, Ministry of Civil Aviation, DGCA or AAI ?
      Can members please guide me.
      I was told that these procedures are in place by most airlines since mid October. Members and guests should bear this aspect in mind before booking tickets and check with the airline before paying for a ticket.
    • vasu_m_r
      By vasu_m_r
      How does one go about finding the breakup of the taxes on our tickets ? I read somewhere that airlines charge it as tax and pocket the money. I would like to know how to find out more about it !


Important Information

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