Jump to content

Sec 4 suo-motu disclosure on CIC website


Recommended Posts

pooorabyoura

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
mahekovoor
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"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bimal Kumar Khemani

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pooorabyoura
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pooorabyoura

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bimal Kumar Khemani
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Atul Patankar

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Super Moderator

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Pulivarthi Narasimhulu
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...
changethechangers

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
  • Super Moderator
karira

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love RTI INDIA- Online RTI? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      119,472
    • Total Posts
      427,159
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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