Sec 4 suo-motu disclosure on CIC website

[karira 5,896]

To:

Mr Wajahat Habibullah

Chief Information Commissioner

Central Information Commission

New Delhi

cc: Mr Paul – NIC

Dear Sir,

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC 18 of the RTI Act 2005

Sec 4 Disclosure on the CIC website

I would like to draw your attention to the Sec 4 Disclosure on the CIC website:

I request you to “direct” the concerned officer to bring the Sec 4 Disclosure

up to date as mandated under the RTI Act 2005.

Some of the disclosures are in the “time wrap” mode !

1. http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Section4/Section-4-1-b-i.pdf

The above page shows only 5 IC’s (including the CIC) and includes the names

of two IC’s who retired a long time ago.

2. http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Section4/Section-4-1-b-ii.pdf

The above page also shows only 4 IC’s in Item Nr. 2

3. http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Section4/Section-4-1-b-iv.pdf'>http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Section4/Section-4-1-b-iv.pdf

(The Norms set by it for discharge of its functions)

For a very long time (nearly 3 years) this page displayed:

“No norms have been set”

Now, this page displays:

“The appeals/complaints are taken up for hearing on first come first serve

basis. Wherever the Respondents/Appellants have number of cases, efforts will

be made to club such cases so that they could be heard on a single day.

Preference may also be given to Senior Citizens and physically challenged persons

for an out of turn hearing.”

The above statement definitely does not constitute “Norms set by CIC for discharge of

its functions”

4. http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Section4/Section-4-1-b-iv.pdf

(A statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control)

This page displays something called :

Norms set for discharge of functions in CIC

5. Directory of Commissioners & Officers

(A directory of its officers and its employees)

Several of the numbers given on this page are incorrect.

The telephone list is not complete.

It does not include the telephone numbers of ALL its officers and employees

For example, the telephone number of Ms. Poonam Verma, Inward Department of CIC,

(located at old JNU Campus) is not mentioned in the list.

Citizens have to call your office (The CIC’s office himself !) to get telephone

numbers. Even those telephone numbers which are informed by your office

are incorrect !

As per the following order of the CIC:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-19052009-03.pdf

Residential addresses of officers and employees have to be suo-motu disclosed

under Sec 4(1) (b)(ix).

The above page does not disclose any residential addresses.

6. Sec 4(1)©

In the section on Monthly Disposal available at:

http://www.cic.gov.in/Reports/MPR-Sep09.htm

as on date (11 January 2010 at 1400 Hrs.), the last statistics displayed are

of September 2009, while we are presently in January 2010.

I would also like to COMPLAIN that the statistics for Oct/Nov 2009

are being liberally circulated on the Internet while ordinary citizens like me

are deprived of knowing what is the latest pendency and disposal rates

of the CIC.

I also COMPLAIN that the monthly disposal statistics for each individual

Information Commissioner are not being suo-motu disclosed for each

individual Information Commissioner along with details like:

- The procedure followed by the individual Commissioners’ registry in deciding

the listing of the appeals/complaints received

- Pendency for each individual Commissioner on a time scale/ age scale

(How many pending for more than 6 months, how many for more than a year, etc.)

- The longest pending cases and the dates since when they are pending

I also COMPLAIN to you that in the absence of transparent reporting of the

above information, citizens are led to believe that some NGO’s and privileged

individuals, who have direct access to the registry staff in the CIC, are able

to get their matters listed on a priority basis. This is specially so for appellants/

complainants based in Delhi who are at a comparative geographical advantage

vis-à-vis appellants/complainants not physically based in Delhi.

I therefore urge you that vide powers vested under Sec 18 of the RTI Act, to

“inquire” the above matter and issue proper directions after conducting a

hearing.

It is painful and distressing to note that if the “Guardian Angel”

of the RTI Act in India, is itself blatantly violating Sec 4 of the RTI Act,

how can it have the moral authority to direct other Public Authorities

to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act.

Thanking You,

Your Sincerely,

C J Karira

[taurus 285]

You have hit the nail on the head. But unfortunately that head is made of steel armour!

[pooorabyoura 42]

Thanks, Karira,

 

Have you lodged it under 18.1(f)?

 

f. in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.

 

This clause cunningly mentions records rather than information!

[karira 5,896]

Thanks, Karira,

 

Have you lodged it under 18.1(f)?

 

This clause cunningly mentions records rather than information!

 

Although Officers and Staff of CIC visit this forum, I will also explain my unique interpretation and how I will argue this out:

 

Sec 2(i) defines "record":

 

i)"record" includes— a)any document, manuscript and file;

b)any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;

c)any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and

d)any other material produced by a computer or any other device;

 

Firstly, what is available on the CIC website was "produced by a computer" (a website cannot be designed, produced and maintained in any other way !).

 

Secondly, by publishing such "information" on its website which are misleading and incorrect, my complaint is not only maintainable under Sec 18(1)(f), but also under Sec 18(1)(e):

 

e. who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and

 

Because definition of "information" under Sec 2(f) includes "records".

 

QED !!!

 

PS: CIC Wajahat Habibullah will ask, "But Mr Karira, you never asked for information in the first place, so how can you claim that incorrect and misleading information was "given" to you ?

 

To that also I have a answer, which Mr Habibullah (since he hears all Complaints against the CIC) will have the pleasure to hear in person !

 

(Let the CIC guys also have something to think about for the next 18 months - the time which this Complaint will take to come up for hearing).

[mahekovoor 46]

You have hit the nail on the head. But unfortunately that head is made of steel armour!

 

even the "steel armour" can't withstand the hit after a period. Irrespective of the timelag it may take,let us make some effort. It is defenitely better than doing nothing "blaming that the system will never improve"

[sidmis 246]

To that also I have a answer, which Mr Habibullah (since he hears all Complaints against the CIC) will have the pleasure to hear in person !

 

(Let the CIC guys also have something to think about for the next 18 months - the time which this Complaint will take to come up for hearing).

 

Dear Karira ji,

 

Sh. Wajahat would have to fast track it or else by the time this complaint of yours come up for hearing, he must have gone into oblivion, at that point of time it could be Mr(s). Consul / Tiwari / Ansari or some other DoPT mandarin.

[karira 5,896]

Dear Karira ji,

 

Sh. Wajahat would have to fast track it or else by the time this complaint of yours come up for hearing, he must have gone into oblivion, at that point of time it could be Mr(s). Consul / Tiwari / Ansari or some other DoPT mandarin.

 

In 18 months, it will also be Bye Bye IC Ansari and IC Tiwari !

 

However, just to drive the point home, I did some searches on this forum itself and found:

 

As quoted in Business Standard on 15 September 2006:

 

He said that all government departments have been directed to make a comprehensive compliance report of Section 4 of the Act dealing with maintaining data and information catalogue of information related to the department and submit it to CIC. The report will be submitted to the Parliament in the forthcoming winter session.

 

In an interview to Indian Express on 15 October 2006:

 

I am also a believer in the philosophy of ahimsa. I think it is the means of bringing over all sections of the society to one cause and the cause in front of me is the right to information . The bureaucracy is threatened by this Act. They think this a disciplinary Act. Even though they are the largest users of this Act! My objective is to ensure that this Act is not taken as a threat. Under section 4 , the law mandates that all my records are accessible on the website.

 

In an interview to Gulf News on 20 September 2008:

Wajahat Habibullah I am not yet fully satisfied because there is a key element that is lagging. And unless we look into that, the Act itself may not be successful. That element is the suo motto disclosure. Under a section of the Act, records of all departments are to be computerised and connected through a network. And the information should be available on the Internet, so that one can access information from not just within the country but in any part of the world. If that is done it will mean the Act has been fully implemented. Otherwise a lot of information will not be available due to the old record keeping system.

 

In an interview to The Telegraph on 1 October 2008:

 

Many requests appear vexatious, says Habibullah, because public authorities are largely ignoring two provisions in Section 4 . The first requires records to be catalogued, indexed and computerised in a manner that makes them easy to access. Currently, government records are maintained according to an antiquated filing system that makes it extremely difficult to trace information . The second says that the authorities must put as much information as possible in the public domain, which people can access without resorting to the RTI Act. If both these are done, the authorities won’t be inundated with RTI requests, says Habibullah.

 

As quoted in The Hindu on 24 October 2009:

 

Mr. Habibullah said that government departments had the responsibility to put up information related to them outside their offices under section 4 of the Act. In addition, they also ought to computerise records and make them freely available on websites. As this had not been done yet, a majority of the queries received under the RTI so far related to trivial information . This built undue pressure on the RTI machinery.

 

 

There are many more but will not bore you with them.

[Bimal Kumar Khemani 32]

I will only say

 

GOD SAVE US,

GOD SAVE OUR COUNTRY

 

which is run by TRIO of corrupt NETA, BUREAUCRATS and BABUS

in our country that is called BHARAT, which I say BHARAT-MATA

if theses TRIOS get hefty salary for not working than why to work.

[pooorabyoura 42]

I will only say

 

GOD SAVE US,

GOD SAVE OUR COUNTRY

 

which is run by TRIO of corrupt NETA, BUREAUCRATS and BABUS

in our country that is called BHARAT, which I say BHARAT-MATA

if theses TRIOS get hefty salary for not working than why to work.

 

Dear and respected Khemani sahab,

Karmaveers like Karira, you, Natrajan and other RTI stalwarts should not say so, because you all have shown the way to tackle these problems through positive action.

 

Please leave the crying and lamenting to us inactive imbeciles. If anything, you should blame us.

[pooorabyoura 42]

Dr. Kushal,

Karira says

Firstly, what is available on the CIC website was "produced by a computer" (a website cannot be designed, produced and maintained in any other way !).

 

Your comments?

[Bimal Kumar Khemani 32]

Dear and respected Khemani sahab,

Karmaveers like Karira, you, Natrajan and other RTI stalwarts should not say so, because you all have shown the way to tackle these problems through positive action.

 

Please leave the crying and lamenting to us inactive imbeciles. If anything, you should blame us.

This our anger against them

 

malum nahi JANATA kab tak soti rahegi

[Atul Patankar 536]

As reported at ptinews.com on 13 January, 2010

 

New Delhi, Jan 13 (PTI) The Central Information Commission had the taste of its own medicine after an activist complained to it that the transparency watchdog was itself not following the mandatory norms of the RTI Act of putting information about its functioning on the website.

 

The complainant found that Commission's website has posted very old information related to its functioning and constitution which has not been updated properly as mandated under the section 4 of the transparency law.

 

Section 4 of the RTI Act mandates every authority to make suo-moto disclosures about its functioning on the internet so that people do not need to file unnecessary applications for getting information. The section had to be enforced within 120 days of RTI Act enactment but implementation has been poor.

 

Source: fullstory

[karira 5,896]

As reported in telegraphindia.com on 14 January 2010:

The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Nation | Nation Briefs

 

RTI panel charge

 

New Delhi, Jan. 13 (PTI): An activist has complained to the Central Information Commission that it has not followed the mandatory norm under the RTI act of putting information about its functioning on its website.

 

C.J. Karira said the transparency watchdog had posted old information that had not been updated as mandated under Section 4 of the RTI law. “At present, there are nine commissioners on the panel but names of six are missing from the list,” Karira said. The website shows names of five commissioners, including two who have already retired. Chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said it was good that the matter was brought to his notice and promised to get the information updated.

[karira 5,896]

As reported in udayavani.com on 06 February 2010:

Udayavani - First look on Karnataka

CIC website posts outdated information, activists complain

 

New Delhi, February 6: The Central Information Commission had the taste of its own medicine after an activist complained to it that the transparency watchdog was itself not following the mandatory norms of the RTI Act of putting information about its functioning on the website.

 

The complainant found that Commission's website has posted very old information related to its functioning and constitution which has not been updated properly as mandated under the section 4 of the transparency law.

 

Section 4 of the RTI Act mandates every authority to make suo-moto disclosures about its functioning on the internet so that people do not need to file unnecessary applications for getting information. The section had to be enforced within 120 days of RTI Act enactment but implementation has been poor.

 

The Commission's website under "RTI Disclosure" section, lists "particulars of organisation functions and duties" which show names of just five Commissioners, including two who have already retired -- Padma Balasubramanium and O P Kejariwal.

 

"At present there are nine Commissioners in the panel but names of six are missing from the list. I have filed a complaint under section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission," activist C J Karira said.

 

When contacted Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah assured to get the information updated soon and said it was good that the matter was brought to his notice.

 

Habibullah in May last year had ordered the Delhi Police to post the directory of its officials on website along with their residential addresses saying, "This information merits uploading as part of a directory of officials on the website of every public authority as mandated under sub-Section (ix) of Section 4 (1) (b)."

 

But Commission's website does not follow the same, it lacks the residential addresses of Information Commissioners and other officials, he said.

 

"If the 'Guardian Angel' of the RTI Act in India, is itself blatantly violating Section 4 of the RTI Act, how can it have the moral authority to direct others to ensure compliance with the same provisions of the Act," Karira said.

 

In his complaint, he said another important section on "The norms set for discharge of its functions", the website states that it gives "preference to senior citizens, the physically challenged for out of turn hearings and club cases of applicants so that they are heard on the same day."

 

"This can hardly be described as "norms" set by CIC for its functioning. The condition of the website is when Commissioners, including Habibullah are strongly advocating strict implementation of the section 4 of the RTI Act at various forums and interviews," he said.

[Bimal Kumar Khemani 32]

Dear Friends,

In Aligarh U.P., we are going to start a campaign by issuing a letter to all the Public Authority, demanding suo moto inspection of their Index and catalouge. The letter written in Hindi is appended below

 

जन सूचना अधिकारी _______________________विभाग

अलीगढ

 

विषय :- सूचना का अधिकार कानून २००५ की धारा ४(१)(अ) के

अनुसार अभिलेखों की सूचि पंजिका एवं अनुक्रमणिका

 

महोदय,

 

सूचना का अधिकार कानून २००५ की धारा ४(१)(अ) के अनुसार सभी लोक अधिकारी से अपेक्षा की गई थी की अपने अपने कार्यालयों में सभी अभिलेखों, पत्रावलियो और दस्तावेजो की सूचि पंजिका एवं अनुक्रमणिका इस प्रकार तैयार करे जिससे इस कानून के तहत आम नागरिको की पहुँच सभी दस्तावेजो तक सुलभता पूर्वक हो सके

 

The Official Records Act,1993 में भी इस प्रकार सूचि पंजिका एवं अनुक्रमणिका का प्रावधान किया गया है

 

इस मुद्दे पर केंद्रीय कार्मिक विभाग ने भी एक प्रपत्र दिनांक २० जनवरी २०१० को जारी किया है जिसकी प्रतिलिपि इस पत्र के साथ संलग्न है

 

यह संगठन सूचना का अधिकार कानून २००५ की धारा ४(२) के अनुसार आपके यहाँ प्रचलित सभी अभिलेखों, पत्रावलियो और दस्तावेजो की सूचि पंजिका एवं अनुक्रमणिका का अवलोकन अप्रैल २०१० के प्रथम सप्ताह में करना चाहता है , तदनुसार कृपया तारीख एवं समय की सूचना प्रदानकरे

 

धन्यवाद सहित

 

भवदीय

 

ई. विक्रम सिंह

अध्यक्ष, ट्रेप ग्रुप

 

विनोद वार्ष्णेय

संयोजक, ट्रेप ग्रुप

TRANSPARENT RELIABLE ACCOUNTABLE PEOPLE’S MOVEMENT,

a GROUP of RTI activists

[karira 5,896]

Bimal,

 

Also check if your State has some equivalent of "Manual of Office Procedure".

It is already there for the Central Government.

Each State Government must be having something similar.

 

The Manual of Office procedure describes in minute detail regarding indexing of records, responsibilities, periodicity, etc.

 

If your State has something similar, then incorporate that also in your RTI Application.

[sidmis 246]

 

The Official Records Act,1993

 

Bimal ji, plz make a minor correction to the above. It is PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, 1993.

 

can u plz put up a english translation of the above ?

 

Sidharth

[Bimal Kumar Khemani 32]

Thanks Sidhartha for the corrections.

I will try for the English version

[Bimal Kumar Khemani 32]

Dear friends

As per request of Sidhartha, I am appending below the ENGLISH version of the letter addressed to PA

 

To, The Public Information Officer,

__________________________

 

Sub: INDEX and CATALOGUE of all the records and documents

as per Sec. 4(1)(a) of The Right to Information Act,2005

 

Gentleman,

 

The Right to Information Act,2005 section 4(1)(a) states

 

Every public authority shall—maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;

 

The Public records Act,1993 has also the provisions for Indexing and cataloguing of all the documents held by any Public Authority. The DOPT has also issued a circular on 20-01-2010 to this effect.

 

Under section 4(2) of The Right to Information Act,2005 , I would like to inspect the INDEX and CATALOGUE of all the documents and files with the copy of MANUAL OF OFFICE PROCEDURES, in the first week of April,2010. Kindly inform me the date and time as convenient to you.

 

With thanks,

 

Yours,

 

Er. VIKRAM SINGH

Chairman,

 

VINOD VARSHNEY

Convener

TRANSPARENT RELIABLE ACCOUNTABLE PEOPLE’S MOVEMENT,

a GROUP of RTI activists

[taurus 285]

This is a good initiative. Record keeping is the least respected activity in the Govt. Only after the RTI Act, govt servants are waking up to the need for this activity. Movements like this will definitely act as a catalyst to further expedite the process.

[karira 5,896]

Finally CIC seems to be moving on the Sec 4 suo-motu disclosure front.

 

A new Circular has been issued designating officers for preparing information on each sub-section of Sec 4(1)(b) disclosure.

 

Please see: http://www.cic.gov.in/CIC_Circulars/Circular-23022010.pdf

[Pulivarthi Narasimhulu 28]

Finally CIC seems to be moving on the Sec 4 suo-motu disclosure front.

 

A new Circular has been issued designating officers for preparing information on each sub-section of Sec 4(1)(b) disclosure.

 

Please see: http://www.cic.gov.in/CIC_Circulars/Circular-23022010.pdf

 

Thanks to Sri Karira for moving the CIC even without conducting hearing your complaint. The State IC s also to be hauled by us duly complaining as many of the SICs are not updating their websites. I will make same type of application to APSIC after verifying the website.

[changethechangers 36]

Karira Sir, the Circular dated 23.2.2010 of CIC has not been acted upon by the officers of the CIC till now. Although the then Chief Information Commission had given statement to the press that the complaint has come to his knowledge and the website would be updated soon, what happened to your complaint? Has it come up for hearing yet?

[karira 5,896]

Karira Sir, the Circular dated 23.2.2010 of CIC has not been acted upon by the officers of the CIC till now. Although the then Chief Information Commission had given statement to the press that the complaint has come to his knowledge and the website would be updated soon, what happened to your complaint? Has it come up for hearing yet?

 

It will NEVER EVER come up for hearing.

The CIC says that they do not accept Complaints by email.....the Complaint has to be filed formally.

 

So I am also keeping quiet till I get a opportunity to haul them up in Public.

[karira 5,896]

To:

Smt. Anita Gupta

Addl Secretary

Transparency Officer

Central Information Commission

New Delhi

 

 

From:

C J Karira

Plot No. 26, Road No. 1

Balamrai Society

Mahendra Hills

Secunderabad – 500026

Tel:

email:

 

Dear Madam,

 

RE: Incorrect Telephone numbers and missing information

on CIC website

 

As the “Transparency Officer” of the CIC, I wish to bring to your notice

the following:

 

1. The telephone number and designation of Mr Vijay Bhalla, Dy. Registrar,

CIC is incorrectly displayed on your website http://www.cic.gov.in :

 

(Screenshot of the CIC page)

 

The telephone number displayed is 26160943

The correct telephone number is 26183996

 

 

2. The designation of Mr Vijay Bhalla is displayed as Asst. Registrar

The correct designation is Deputy Registrar.

 

Screenshot of the CIC page

 

3. The suo-motu disclosure under Sec 4(1)(b)(ix) as available

on your website does not indicate the residential addresses

of the officers and staff of the Commission and moreover it is

not complete

 

 

 

As per Sec 4(1)(b)(ix), the public authority has to disclose

 

ix A directory of its officers and its employees

 

The information available on your website (please refer to above screenshot)

displays information only for 17 officers and employees (besides the

information commissioners). It is therefore incomplete.

 

Moreover, Residential Addresses of the Information Commissioners,

Officers and Employees have not been disclosed. Your attention is invited

to the following decision of your own Commission:

 

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/WB-19052009-03.pdf

(Quote)

Each Government official up to the level of President has an official

residence which is official because it is occupied by him in the

capacity of the official position which he/she holds. It is quite

possible that an official does not actually occupy his or her

official residence, but retains the same only for official purposes.

The official residence will be that which has been notified

by the official to his or her department which is in any case

required to be done and necessary for a Dep’t in providing a

directory of its officials on its website. A public authority is,

therefore, required not only to publish the address and contact

information including telephone numbers of an official serving

in that public authority but also the residential address of his/her

official residence together with telephone numbers, all of which

are paid for through the public exchequer. In this matter it is clear

that even if an official opts to retain his private residence as his

official residence he is entitled to a house rent allowance to

cover the cost of the rent of that accommodation.

We cannot, therefore, hold that disclosure of the residential

address of an official holding public office is private information

exempt from disclosure under sub-Section (j) of Section 8 (1)

of the RTI Act 2005. This information merits uploading as

 

part of a directory of officials on the website of every public

authority as mandated under sub-Section (ix) of Section 4 (1) (b).

(Unquote)

 

 

4. I also request you to get all the information suo-motu disclosed under

Sec 4, on your website to be rechecked, so that it is complete and accurate.

In this connection, I draw your attention to the following contents in the

DoPT memorandum dated 23.3.07:

 

19. An another important point to note is that it is not

sufficient to publish the above information once. The public

authority is obliged to update such information every year.

It is advisable that, as far as possible, the information should

be updated as and when any development takes place.

Particularly, in case of publication on the internet, the

information should be kept updated all the time.

 

I therefore request you to issue written instructions to all those Officers

of your public authority who are responsible for the information displayed

on your website to continuously keep it updated all the time.

 

 

I hope that you carry out the above changes immediately and also

confirm to me once the changes are carried out.

 

Looking forward to your early action in this matter.

 

Thanking You,

C J Karira

xxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

CC: Mr S. Mishra, Chief Information Commissioner

Mr Paul, NIC

Mr Vijay Bhalla, Dy. Registrar