- NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
- shows RTI
- RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
- 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
- The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
- Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
- Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'honble'.
Found 5 results
To Dated 26th June 2015 The Hon'ble Mr. M A Khan Yusufi, Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi Sub: File Nos. CIC/KY/A/2015/000310 & CIC/KY/A/2015/000311: Factual inaccuracies in the above mentioned orders of Hon'ble Commission; Prayer for issuance of correct order consisting of facts Sir, Kindly refer to the decision of Hon'ble Commission in file numbers CIC/KY/A/2015/000310 & CIC/KY/A/2015/000311 dated 17th June 2015. The Hon'ble Commission observed that in the said order, QUOTE "................. 2. It is seen as that as per contents of respondent's letter dated 08.06.2015, the FA filed by Sh.Harinder Dhingra, was already disposed of by learned FAA vide its order dated 21.07.2014 & 06.08.2014 and copy thereof was provided to the appellant vide respondent's forwarding letter dated 04.08.2014 & 27.08.2014. However, this fact was not disclosed by the appellant in his second appeal dated 06.07.2014 (both) dealt by Commission earlier in files number CIC/KY/ A/2015/000745 & CIC/KY/A/2015/000747 on 23.01.2015. Thus Sh. Dhingra, has suppressed these materials facts deliberately before the Commission while dealing with earlier second appeals dealt in files no.CIC/KY/A/2015/000745 & CIC/KY/A/2015/000747. For this Commission now took a serious view in the matter. " UNQUOTE As per the above orders of Hon'ble Commission, a) the second appeals in question were filed on 06.07.2014. b) the FA order was passed on 04.08.2014 & 27.08.2014 And in second appeal hearing held on 23rd January 2015, neither the respondent nor the undersigned was present in hearing. Sir, where are suppression of material deliberately on 6th July 2014 of orders passed (much later than at the time of filing of second appeals) by FAA after 30-45 days namely 04th August 2014 & 27th August 2014. Sir, instead of penalizing the learned CPIO & Learned FAA for delaying and not providing the information as stipulated under section 2(f) read with section 2(i)(j) of RTI Act 2005 which is violation of section 7(1) read with section 7(2) of RTI Act 2005 inviting action under section 20(1)(2) of RTI Act 2005, the appellant who is trying to bring transparency is defamed for no fault. Sir, I pray before you to kindly pass the amended order keeping the facts as stated above. For this I shall be grateful to you, Yours Sincerely Harinder Dhingra RTI & Human Rights Activist, CIC_decision_Custom_Chennai0001.pdf
नई दिल्ली। प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी दुनिया के प्रधानमंत्री, राष्ट्रपति, राष्ट्राध्यक्षों को मिलने वाले वेतन के मामले में 11वें नंबर पर हैं। ये खुलासा एक अमेरिकी चैनल ने एक आरटीआई के आधार पर किया है। Read more >> ???? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ???? 11??? ???? ??! - IBN Khabar
MANOJ B. PATEL posted a topic in Off TopicState has a responsibility towards the citizen, who should not treated as opposite party or rival. It is not proper to take every case in appeal up to apex court mechanically, simply because there is a provision in Civil Procedure Code. It has to introspect and answer whether it was behaving like a ‘responsible litigant’ with the citizen? As pointed out by Hon’ble Justice TS Thakur, Judge of Supreme Court, there is no mechanism to scrutinize the cases which need to be contested and which not to be. It is rightly said that that large number of cases against state “cannot be a good sign of good governance” (Feb 14 arraignment date for Justin Bieber arrest | The Indian Express 12, 2015). Commission would like to quote Justice Thakur who said: “Every case filed irrespective of merits is burdening the judiciary, costing the exchequer and increasing the pendency of case. This is deficit in governance. Governance is not just army, police, road, building etc but governance also is adjudicating rights of a citizen which is legitimately due to him.” The respondent authority has a duty to tell the people whether they have any mechanism to examine each case before contesting a citizen or appealing the judgment given in favour of citizen. Do they have such mechanism? CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION ROOM NO 315, BWING, AUGUST KRANTI BHAWAN BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110066 File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000386 SHRI SURESH KUMAR RANGI Vs. DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI Date of hearing : 23.12.2014 Date of decision: 17.02.2015 Information Commissioner: Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) Referred Sections : Sections 19(3) of the RTI Act Result : Appeal allowed/disposed of The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. K. G. Thang, CPIO. FACTS 2. The Appellant through his RTI application dated 04.09.2013 had sought for inspection relating to i) letter no. 24 dt 12.04.2013 ii) letter dated 14.11.2012 iii) implementation of National Litigation Policy – 2010 and certified copy of the same. Having received no reply within the prescribed period, the appellant preferred First Appeal on 14.10.2013. FAA by his Order dated 25.10.2013 directed the PIO to furnish the complete information. Appellant vide his letter dated 25.11.2013 informed the PIO that he had been allowed inspection of one file only and with respect to other files, no inspection was offered to him. Being unsatisfied with the information furnished, the appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal. DECISION 3. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant submitted that he belonged to a NGO by name Sajat Bharat. They are interested in the progress of implementation of National Litigation Policy 2010, according to which the Government is required to take step to appoint Nodal Officers in different Departments of the Government including the State Governments, and to scrutinise/review those litigations pending in various courts and filter them as per the public interest to avoid wastage of public money & time. 4. The respondent authority submitted that necessary steps are being taken to implement the National Litigation Policy-2010 and the Government already constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Attorney General of India, which would review the pending cases and submit a report to the Government. 5. On 25th November 2013, appellant was provided inspection of one file while another file was not available. Appellant complained that he was not given copies which he sought after inspection, that there was no response to his request dated 3rd December 2013, and 6.1.2014. Therefore he approached the Commission with complaint and in second appeal. Main complaint is that CPIO and FAA failed to supply certified copy of the documents which were already available in the file as shown during inspection, and other file was not shown even after they held it. 6. It is surprising as to why the respondent authorities are not ready to show the concerned files about implementation status of the National Litigation Policy? If they could not provide inspection initially because the policy is under consideration, why did not they show after deciding to implement the policy? As per media reports, there are 2,73,60,814 cases pending in District & Subordinate Courts, while 44,79,023 cases in High Courts and 65,970 are pending in Supreme Court. 7. While the Chief Justice of India advised judicial officers to contribute their part in resolving pendency, the Law Ministry also came forward to withdraw frivolous cases the government both at centre and states filed in courts of law. Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Sri H L Dattu expressed concern over the huge pendency of cases in the courts and said the delivery of justice must be handled by the judiciary through reform and adoption of modern tools along with emphasis on social values. He urged the members of the judiciary to apply their minds and talents to tackle the problem. Though there was no dearth of legal minds in the country, there was still criticism that the delivery of justice was slow and ineffective, he said. (404 - Page Not Found article6689072.ece) 8. It is reported that the Ministry of Law and Justice asked various departments to set up empowered committees to review and suggest withdrawals. The Law Ministry also stated to have written to chief justices of high courts to advise judges to invoke Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) which relates to the ‘power to stop proceedings and remove deadwood from judicial system’ where it is necessary. 9. The Commission finds that it is not easy task to resolve pending litigation overnight or in near future, but the laudable policy initiated should be continuously implemented, so that citizens could find justice within their lifetime. Otherwise, justice seekers would lose hopes, while frivolous litigants dominate the field. 10. The Commission is of view that the Union Government has rightly addressed a vital aspect of the issue, i.e., that the state itself became a biggest litigant, either fighting a citizen or its own department or taking every case into appeal instead of performing the duty of addressing development and welfare of the people, who challenged its actions. While it is ideal that every litigant should be responsible, state is also expected to be a ‘Responsible litigant’, which means, “that litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating, that false pleas and technical points will not be taken and shall be discouraged, ensuring that the correct facts and all relevant documents will be placed before the court, and that nothing will be suppressed from the court and there will be no attempt to mislead any court or Tribunal”. The Policy says: Litigation between Public Sector Undertakings inter se between Government Public Sector Undertakings is causing great concern. Every effort must be made to prevent such litigation. Before initiating such litigation, the matter must be placed before the highest authority in the public sector such as the CMD or MD. It will be his responsibility to endeavour to see whether the litigation can be avoided. If litigation cannot be avoided, then alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation must be considered. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be resorted to extensively. All pending cases involving Government will be reviewed. This Due Diligence process shall involve drawing upon statistics of all pending matters which shall be provided for by all Government departments (including PSUs). The Office of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General shall also be responsible for reviewing all pending cases and filtering frivolous and vexatious matters from the meritorious ones. The National mission for judicial reforms includes removing unnecessary Government cases, (Press Information Bureau English Releases). 11. More precisely the policy outlines that the government must discard the easy approach ‘let the court decide’ and cease to be a compulsive litigant. The Commission is of the view that leaving matters to the courts for ultimate decision will amount to abdication of responsibility. The proclaimed purpose underlying this policy is also to reduce Government litigation in courts so that valuable court time would be spent in resolving other pending cases so as to achieve the Goal in the National Legal Mission to reduce average pendency time from 15 years to 3 years. 12 . The Commission observes that the state has a responsibility towards the citizen, who should not treated as opposite party or rival. It is not proper to take every case in appeal up to apex court mechanically, simply because there is a provision in Civil Procedure Code. It has to introspect and answer whether it was behaving like a ‘responsible litigant’ with the citizen? As pointed out by Hon’ble Justice TS Thakur, Judge of Supreme Court, there is no mechanism to scrutinize the cases which need to be contested and which not to be. It is rightly said that that large number of cases against state “cannot be a good sign of good governance” (Feb 14 arraignment date for Justin Bieber arrest | The Indian Express 12, 2015). Commission would like to quote Justice Thakur who said: “Every case filed irrespective of merits is burdening the judiciary, costing the exchequer and increasing the pendency of case. This is deficit in governance. Governance is not just army, police, road, building etc but governance also is adjudicating rights of a citizen which is legitimately due to him.” The respondent authority has a duty to tell the people whether they have any mechanism to examine each case before contesting a citizen or appealing the judgment given in favour of citizen. Do they have such mechanism? 13. The Commission finds a huge public interest in this RTI application, which should have been properly responded. In fact the appellant gave an opportunity to the public authority to explain the people about their efforts to reduce litigation and report the progress, for instance, how many cases or appeals are filed by state, how many of them are frivolous, how many were withdrawn, why state is routinely filing appeals against citizen increasing the burden of appellate courts, why vacancies are left out without appointing the judges in those posts, when the department knows the dates of retirement of judges and other employees in advance, why not they schedule a program of recruiting them by that date, etc. 14. The Commission finds a dire need to answer these questions which constitute the essence of the RTI request. It is in the interest of justice, nation and the public authority to prepare a comprehensive note on status of implementation of National Litigation Policy 2010 as on the date of this order and provide the same to the appellant, this Commission, and place it on the official website of the public authority, besides giving appellant the certified copies of the relevant papers regarding progress of implementation of the policy, within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also recommends periodical updating of this note after collecting necessary inputs from the states. 15. The Commission rejects the complaint because, the PIO cannot decide this major issue at his level, PIO was responding, offering inspection etc. However, the Commission directs the PIO to avoid delays as far as possible, or communicate the reason for delay, if it was beyond his control. 16. The appeal is disposed of. (M Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner
A person can use the RTI Act to access an information even if it is available through any other route, Delhi High Court has ruled. ************************************************************************************************************* The court, in a landmark order which will impact number of RTI cases of similar nature, allowed a petition seeking disclosure of communication between Urban Development Ministry officials with those of CBI--an exempted organisation--in a corruption case. In a recent order, Justice Vibhu Bakhru also said that section 8(1)(h) of the Act--which allows an organisation to withhold such information that impedes the process of investigation, apprehension and prosecution--cannot be imposed without giving proper reasons to justify the denial. Allowing the petition seeking disclosure of communication between the Ministry and CBI, he dismissed the order given by Information Commissioner MA Khan Yusufi who had agreed with the Ministry to deny information on the grounds that its disclosure would impede the process of prosecution. Justice Bakhru said neither the first appellate authority nor the Central Information Commission considered how the information sought for would impede the process of probe, apprehension or prosecution of the petitioner, an accused. He rejected the Ministry's argument that during trial, the material relied upon by the prosecution would be provided to the applicant, thereby no prejudice would be caused to him. "In my view this cannot be a ground to deny information to the petitioner. First of all, the question whether the information sought by the petitioner is relevant or necessary, is not relevant or germane in the context of the Act; a citizen has a right to information by virtue of Section 3 of the Act and the same is not condition on the information being relevant," he said. He said the fact that the petitioner has access to the material relied upon by the prosecution does not prevent him from seeking information, which he considers necessary for his defence.
harinder dhingra posted a topic in RTI in MediaDear All, It is to bring to your kind notice that undersigned made 45 minutes representation to Hon'ble Chief Minister of Haryana on implementation of Section 4 of RTI Act 2005. The Hon'ble C M was very keen to know about voluntary disclosure as mandated under Section 4 of RTI act 2005. The Hon'ble CM has impressed upon the same in DC/SP/s of Haryana conference to make suo moto disclosures. The Hon'ble CM appreciated the efforts made by us and promised to keep in touch. harinder dhingra