- 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 'information commissioners'.
Found 4 results
TOI published the news today: Gujarat high court on Thursday held appointment of two Information Commissioners- B.G.Panchasara and Shridevi Shukla as illegal. The HC said that the appointment of both the persons were not legally valid. The HC reached to this conclusion after Praful Desai of NGO Jagate Raho questioned the consultation process adopted by the authorities in appointing Panchasara and Shukla on the post of IC. Desai raised the issue by citing the documents of their appointment that these persons were not in public life, or that they have got knowledge in a particular field or an experien
As reported in expressbuzz.com on 06 Dec 2011: HC: Appoint information commissioners soon | AP high court | | The New Indian Express HC: Appoint information commissioners soon HYDERABAD: In a landmark judgement by the AP High Court over a petition filed by RTI activist G Bhargavi, the state government has been ordered to appoint commissioners to the State Information Commission within four weeks. Talking on behalf of the petitioner, her counsel advocate DB Rao said the petition was filed on December 1 and the court understood the urgency to fill the posts which have been lying vacant since November 17, 2010. “The office of the Chief Information Commission is a multi-member body but for the past one year it has been operating with just one chief information commissioner. This has lead to an increased number of pending cases,” said Rao. Interestingly, the High Courts of Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal and Uttaranchal had already passed judgements in the past one year seeking immediate appointment of information commissioners in the respective states. But while this helped create a ripple effect with even Rajasthan filling the vacant posts, the AP government decided to sleep on the issue. “Bhargavi had earlier requested the chief minister, special chief secretary as well as the governor for the same but everyone had some excuse or other to avoid the appointment procedure,” added Rao. He also mentioned in wake of the noconfidence motion being passed in the Parliament, there was a provision for the existing governor to appoint the required information commissioners with recommendation from the chief secretary.
Atul Patankar posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported by Neha Shukla of TNN in Times of India, Lucknow on january 8, 2009 LUCKNOW: The growing dissatisfaction over the implementation of the Right To Information (RTI) Act has now extended to the information commissioners (ICs) responsible for attending to the complaints. The two and a half year long ineffective existence of the Act in the state has now led to fingers being pointed at the functioning of ICs. The office of the governor has received 67 complaints till September 2008 against the ICs. This has been revealed by the public information officer (PIO) of the governor office in response to a RTI query by Ram Sharan Sharma in October 2008. Surprisingly, the PIO has also added that not even a single complaint deserved action. Though the official information said that the governor rejected all the complaints after serious consideration, Sharma is not ready to buy the argument. "It is ridiculous that not even a single complaint was found worthy of action,'' said Sharma, a retired engineer and a member of right to information awareness forum. If this is the case why the PIO did not reveal the details about the nature of complaints which I had asked for, he said. Sharma had submitted a 9-point application which asked for a set of information regarding the academic and professional background of the commissioners, their appointment, salary, age etc. But, he was denied this information on the ground that it is `personal' and hence, can not be disclosed. In fact, such an information about ICs is a part of pro-active disclosure under the RTI Act and should have been displayed on the website of the commission much on the lines of Central Information Commission in New Delhi. In particular, his query related to all the ICs, who have served or are still serving at the commission, including the chief information commissioners (CICs). Currently, Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC) has nine ICs including the officiating CIC. He had also asked for the list of complainants, nature of complaints and action taken on them. "But the PIO has provided me with incomplete information,'' he added. "I only wanted to know if the CIC and the ICs confirm to the criteria specified in section 15(5) of RTI Act which says that they should be persons of eminence in public life,'' said Sharma. He has written again to the PIO of the governor's office and is hopeful he will get the right information this time. "If not I will meet the governor and bring the issue to his notice,'' he said. In case of complaints received against ICs, the governor under section 17(1) of the RTI Act can make a reference to the supreme court for an inquiry into the complaint. Once the SC allows the inquiry, governor can prohibit the IC from attending the office under section 17(2) of the Act. Source : Now a question mark on the integrity of RTI officials-Lucknow-Cities-The Times of India
karira posted a topic in RTI in MediaAn article by Padmaparna Ghosh in downtoearth.org.in on 14 June 2008: Employment exchange | News | Down To Earth magazine Employment exchange Bureaucrats who hid information head RTI commissions today On October 12, 2005, the Right to Information (rti) Act came into force. rti activists seemed to have won their battle to provide citizens with rights to information about the government’s working. But little had they reckoned for what was in store. Barely two months after the rti act came in to force, the legislation has become a convenient tool for retired bureaucrats to garner cosy and secure sinecures as state information commissioners (sics). Once appointed, these officials cannot be removed for five years, other than through an order of the Supreme Court. The act actually states that “each state will have an information commission headed by a sic, who will be a person of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law… social service…and governance”. ================================================= "We Prefer Bureaucrats" Will making bureaucrats state information commissioners affect the act’s implementation I don’t think it will affect the act. We prefer bureaucrats because we need officials well-versed with the administration’s functioning. Your views on the prime minister’s office’s order to exempt certain kinds of file notings from RTI? I have not seen the order, so can’t comment on it. How many information commissioners are being appointed for the Central Commission? We can have 10, but we are appointing four, now. A N Tiwari, special secretary, department of personel and training will be the fourth commissioner. It’ll be good as he will continue with the ministry. In case the life and liberty of a person is endangered, the decision on disclosing information has to be taken in 48 hours but an appeal against not disclosing information takes 30 days to be addressed. If a preson doesn’t receive information in 48 hours, life or liberty could be lost. The information officer can be held responsible later. ================================================== And some of the officials who have benefited from the act fit this requirement, quite splendidly. Sample this: K K Misra, who was appointed as sic of Karnataka within 24 hours of retiring as the state’s chief secretary on July 31, 2005 actually derives eminence from a Karnataka High Court (hc) dated May 3, 2005. On that date, the HC had ordered the state government to prosecute Misra for “perjury and withholding” documents from the court in connection with the Bangalore-Mysore Expressway project. The ex-Karnataka chief secretary has appealed against the prosecution in the Supreme Court. The case awaits the apex court’s decision. Misra is in illustrious company. His counterpart in Orissa, Dhirendra Nath Padhi was suspended as the state’s Special Relief Commissioner on November 27, 1999, for alleged irregularities in procurement of polythene sheets for families hit by the super cyclone of 1999. A Central Bureau of Investigation probe absolved him. Padhi was 18 months short of retirement as special secretary in the Union power ministry when he retired voluntarily and assumed charge as Orissa’s sic. O ther bureaucrats nearing retirement have also found easy pickings in an sic. A mong the other beneficiaries are B K Chakraborty in Tripura, Suresh Joshi in Mumbai and A K Vijayvargiya in Chhatisgarh (see table: Rest in peace). Alarming “This is a very alarming trend. The government should at least ensure that the sic of one state should not have served in the bureaucracy of the same state,” says Shekhar Singh of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (ncpri) and one of those involved in drafting the act. “After all as the sic, the ex-bureaucrat is quite likely to be asked for information on happenings during his tenure,” Singh explains. The rti also provides that a state can appoint up to 10 information commissioners (ics ) besides the sic — the latter holds a rank equivalent to an election commissioner, while the former has a position equivalent to that of a state chief secretary. A maximum of 385 plum posts are up for grabs. Are they necessary? “I don’t think we need so many officials. Ten ics for a state is one too many,” says Wajahat Habibullah, chief information commissioner of India (But also see interview: We prefer bureaucrats). In fact, the draft rti act, submitted by members of ncpri to the Union government in December 21, 2004 had provisions for only one central information commissioner and a few regional commissioners. However, this was not palatable to the bureaucracy, which pressed for sics and ics, and finally in April 2004 succeeded in having their say. This was not the first time they had matters their way. Back in 2002, the National Democratic Alliance had passed the Freedom of Information (foi) Act. This act did not set any time frame for the drafting of procedures necessary for the implementation of the act. There was also no time frame for issuing a notification, bringing the act into force. This loophole was sufficient enough for the bureaucracy to ensure that foi was never implemented. The legislation was shuttled between the department of personnel and training, and the Union ministry of law and justice. Consequently, the rules for foi were never implemented. This time The new rti act has plugged the loophole. Passed by the Parliament on June 15, it states that the act has to be implemented within 120 days. Drafting of rules to implement procedural matters, such as fees for application forms, has however, been left to the discretion of state governments. This has given sufficient scope to state governments to exercise their artifice. Sample what clause six of Form d — one of the forms to be filled up by a person who requires some government related information — states: “The information whichever is given to you as a member of a below poverty line family shall not be used for any other purpose.” “This is completely against the spirit of the act,” says Sailesh Gandhi a Mumbai-based rti activist. At a price Information also comes at a cost. Mandarins in Orissa — among the poorest states in the country — charge an information seeker Rs 20 for an application form and Rs 5 per page of a photocopy — this when the act lays down that the form should be priced at Rs 10 and Rs 2 per page should be photocopy charge. There are other violations. The act does not stipulate any fee when a person appeals against an official who does not disclose information. But Orissa charges Rs 40 for the first appeal against such an errant official and Rs 50 for the second appeal. “If we have to file a case for each such illegality, it will take us years,” says Gandhi. Singh rues that in retrospect, a single set of central rules should have been framed. What’s now? A recent order from the prime minister’s office has antagonised activists such as Singh. The order allows access to only those remarks in government files that relate to development and social issues. “This definition of information is stipulated by the act. It cannot be amended by just changing one rule, for that the parliament’s sanction is required,” asserts Singh. However, some activists remain optimistic. “These are initial problems but the act is a strong weapon if used judiciously,” says Arvind Kejriwal of Parivartan, a non-governmental organisation working against corruption. Hopefully, public departments will learn that information is to be shared and not kept under a lock and key.