Blog Archives

Like a delayed letter, postman got his delayed justice

Delayed justiceApathy at its worst! Like a delayed letter, postman got his delayed justice after being wrongly accused of pocketing Rs 57.60, Umakant Mishra remained suspended from his government job for nearly 30 years.

In a story covered by TOI, writes that it took nearly 350 hearings and 29 years for Umakant to prove himself innocent, but the loss he suffered in this period was enormous.

Read more ›

Allegation of corruption ought to be supported by cogent and sound evidence under RTI

Allegation of corruption ought to be supported by cogent and sound evidence under RTI. Also allegation of corruption’ does not mean mere conjectures and surmises. For the Information commission to frame a prima facie view about corrupt or malpractices being involved in any given case reasonably or to frame a view on the violation of human rights under Proviso (I) to Section 24 of the RTI Act, it should be supported by cogent and sound evidence.

As per the provisions of Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act 2005

“Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.” Read more ›

The dilemma of the CPIO!

The dilemma of the CPIO

The dilemma of the CPIO

Imagine the dilemma of the CPIO! In one of very peculiar case, Director who was once a CPIO became an RTI applicant and demanded records of the document which he himself as Director did not hand over to next incumbent. The CPIO therefore replied the RTI query that “the records were not handed over by the then Director, who is the applicant in the present case, therefore, the information cannot be provided.” 🙂

The appellant was earlier Director in the Animal Husbandry Department. He was responsible for recruitment of a number of attendants in 2009-2010. He has since retired from service. The Department is contemplating registration of a criminal case against him for irregularities committed by him in the recruitment. Besides, he also submits that it is suspected that the appellant took away certain documents relating to the recruitment in question and, therefore, on the basis of incomplete records, it is not possible for PIO to provide information, as requested in the RTI application dated 12.4.2012. The Commission appreciate the dilemma of the CPIO. Read more ›