Jump to content

Social Audit of Decisions of CIC


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • jps50

    28

  • smbhappy

    11

  • Prasad GLN

    10

  • sarbajit

    9

Top Posters In This Topic

I will be mailing attached review petition on above decision for website.

 

Dear JP

 

Please do not embark on such a course of action which completely ignores the letter and spirit of section 4.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sharmajee

Voltaire Quotes:

 

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

 

 

 

Dear JP

 

Please do not embark on such a course of action which completely ignores the letter and spirit of section 4.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

Unfortunately the petition draft requested is regarding PIO and CIC referring applicant to website than providing certified reply. How do you propose to link with social audit Rajan ji

Link to post
Share on other sites
I will be mailing attached review petition on above decision for website.

 

 

One more thing you can add is that #the information on the website is not certified/attested."

Link to post
Share on other sites
In this post, I attach the judgement of the apex court containing an observation related to the parliamentary social audit for governments to account for unwarranted litigation.

 

THOUGH THE SITUATION MENTIONED IN THE JUDGEMENT AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE APEX COURT IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE SOCIAL AUDIT OF CIC DECISIONS, STILL THE JUDGEMENT ATTACHED IN THIS POST FORMS A MOTIVATION FOR THE SAME, AS THE TREND IS SET BY THE OBSERVATION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE ATTACHED JUDGEMENT WAY BACK IN 1977.

 

The relevant observation is reproduced here - " Government must be made accountable by Parliamentary social audit for wasteful litigative expenditure inflicted on the community by inaction. A litigative policy of the State involves settlement of Governmental dispute with citizens in a sense of conciliation rather than a fighting mood. Indeed, it should be a directive on the part of the State to empower its law officer to take steps to compose disputes rather than continue them in court. Litigation in which Governments are involved adds to the case load accumulation in courts for which there is public criticism."

 

The corresponding judgement is attached to this post.

 

As you have observed, it is merely an observation, and hence not being enforceable is a blind alley to enter into.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Voltaire Quotes:

 

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

 

4(2) It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

Leave apart such endeavour, the issues raised by JP shah are relevant with all the reasons mentioned in review petition as it primarily pertains to documents to be produced in the court and other places.

 

Otherwise too getting a copy is not a replacement of section 4.

 

Coming back to point of review petition, I want to add one more issue:

 

Why don't you add the relevancy of non availability of digital signature also

Link to post
Share on other sites
Leave apart such endeavour, the issues raised by JP shah are relevant with all the reasons mentioned in review petition as it primarily pertains to documents to be produced in the court and other places.

 

Otherwise too getting a copy is not a replacement of section 4.

 

Coming back to point of review petition, I want to add one more issue:

 

Why don't you add the relevancy of non availability of digital signature also

 

If the information is already published by the PA on the website, it is in public domain and cannot be disclosed/furnished under RTI process of section 6.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A certified copy is still not in public domain.

 

The PIO (or the concerned officer) can only give a certified if he is "holding" the information. Once any information is placed in public domain it is not held by the person/authority and the certified copy CANNOT be given.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The information on the net is mostly stale and useless in term of

01. The links are dead

02. List of Officer/PIO is stale.

03. Telephone Emails links are dead / stale or non-existing.

04. information of schemes & subsidies are obselete.

05. Budget and accounts are outdated.

06. No specific information is available on net.

07. Information on a particular date time is not on the net.

08. Information on the net is not accessible by 95% citizens as most are not having resources and not IT literate.

09. Information on the net is unauthentic and some times in the formats which cannot be copied (Flash Java-scripts)

10. One cannot use that information as an authentic proof elsewhere.

11. The information on the net is mostly for reference sake and is not about the actions done and methodology adopted.

12. In India no public authority has no SSL certification and the information on their website is not digitally signed for each file/document.

 

In view of above the he current, factual, latest, authentic and specified information is still held by the PA/PIO.

 

Delhi High Court in Registrar of Companies case has erred in arriving at wise decision

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
The PIO (or the concerned officer) can only give a certified if he is "holding" the information. Once any information is placed in public domain it is not held by the person/authority and the certified copy CANNOT be given.

 

The very purpose of this thread is to bring out the manner of what you say 'holding' by PIO in question.

 

@ Rajan ji,

 

Much appreciated. Strictly speaking if we go into details of the draft, it would require efforts in drafting to bring out the problems if not so good document and procedure is put on website by organisations.

 

The information on the net is mostly stale and useless in term of

01. The links are dead

 

8,9, 10 I also subscribe

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, when the information is available (if not aoutdated as said by bhanot-ji) at the website, whether it can be provided or not.

 

Sarabjit-ji's argument in the line of sec 4(2) can not be set aside. At the same time, section 7(1) must be read with section 4(2) to get the picture.

 

4(2):It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in

accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much

information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of

communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use

of this Act to obtain information.

7(1):Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection

(3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public

Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall,

as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the

request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or

reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9.

 

Now, PA has done it's bit- so that public have minimum resort to use RTI to obtain information. The PA can not be blamed.

 

The Question is whether PIO has gone as per the provision of the ACT? The answer is NO.

 

S/He must provide or reject as per provision of the Act. If the information is in material form and is with the PA, there is NO provision to redirect or ask applicant go elsewhere. Shah-ji has every right to get the information from the CPIO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The very purpose of this thread is to bring out the manner of what you say 'holding' by PIO in question.

 

By "holding" I mean in the sense of "having the custody of" as say in section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. Which section however is only applicable to "courts" and judicial proceedings and does not extend to RTI.

 

Section 76 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Link to post
Share on other sites
By "holding" I mean in the sense of "having the custody of" as say in section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. Which section however is only applicable to "courts" and judicial proceedings and does not extend to RTI.

 

Section 76 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

 

 

By putting the information on the net, PA does not loose the actual information/records, which is still held by a PA.

 

Secondly information on the net is a replica, at one point of time. Information is ever evolving and keeps on increasing/decreasing/changing all the times. so the information of net will always be the stale, outdated and sometimes obsolete.

 

Also refer to post #17

Link to post
Share on other sites
By putting the information on the net, PA does not loose the actual information/records, which is still held by a PA.

 

Secondly information on the net is a replica, at one point of time. Information is ever evolving and keeps on increasing/decreasing/changing all the times. so the information of net will always be the stale, outdated and sometimes obsolete.

 

Also refer to post #17

 

4 (1) Every public authority shall—

(a) 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;

(b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,—

:

(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;

 

(2) It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.

 

Unfortunately the moderators here have disallowed me from emphasising (such as by capitalisation) which the critical words in these clauses are.

 

Once the document is digitised and disseminated, there is no need to preserve the original.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

The question in this review thread is 'form' of information than mere availability.

 

Once the document is digitised and disseminated, there is no need to preserve the original.

This is tangential interpretation of the clause for not preserving the original. In my view, the digitised form becomes the original, if the document/note in the same form that is used within Government is made available outside and is acceptable as authentic.

 

Fact of the matter is that this review petition emanates basis that, information is not digitized in the 'form' that it can be useable in many of the occasions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The question in this review thread is 'form' of information than mere availability.

 

This is tangential interpretation of the clause for not preserving the original. In my view, the digitised form becomes the original, if the document/note in the same form that is used within Government is made available outside and is acceptable as authentic.

 

Fact of the matter is that this review petition emanates basis that, information is not digitized in the 'form' that it can be useable in many of the occasions.

 

We are discussing RTI Act and not IT Act. The definition of "information" in the 2 Acts is dissimilar. Attempting to impose constructs from IT Act into RTI Act will unnecessarily confuse you.

 

RTI Act although touching upon providing "dynamic" information u/s 4(1)(b) mainly focuses on access to "static" information u/s 6 process, unlike IT Act which is almost exclusively concerned with dynamic information processes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We are discussing RTI Act and not IT Act. The definition of "information" in the 2 Acts is dissimilar. Attempting to impose constructs from IT Act into RTI Act will unnecessarily confuse you.

 

RTI Act although touching upon providing "dynamic" information u/s 4(1)(b) mainly focuses on access to "static" information u/s 6 process, unlike IT Act which is almost exclusively concerned with dynamic information processes.

 

 

There is no separate method prescribed for digitization of record under the Right to Information Act 2005. The digitization has to be done in such a manner so that it fulfill the requirement of law as per IT Act 2002.

 

Moreover, which Public Authority has done away with the physical records where any digitization has been done? The bureaucratic attitude is to produce documentary evidence and when a file is placed before an authority, s/he does not rely on the digitized record. S/he wants the original in physical form be produced before him.

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
      119,533
    • Total Posts
      427,383
  • 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