Indian National RTI Forum: November 2010

Monday, November 29, 2010

GOVERNANCE now : UP SIC: Minor cannot file RTI application , RTI activists term the order ‘illegal’

http://www.governancenow.com/gov-next/rti/sic-minor-cannot-file-rti-application

UP SIC: Minor cannot file RTI application

RTI activists term the order 'illegal'

GN Bureau | November 29 2010

In a decision which has not gone down well with RTI activists, the
uttar Pradesh state information commission (SIC) has said that minors
cannot use the right to information (RTI) act .

"The girl would have to get her appeals and complaints filed through a
custodian or present a proof of her being a major so that she be heard
directly, says the order by Ranjit Singh Pankaj, chief information
commissioner, UP.

"Since the girl is a minor, she does not come under the definition of
a major as defined under the Indian majority act. The proceedings
under RTI are quasi-judicial in nature. In such a situation, no minor
can directly get involved in the RTI proceedings, be it filing of
appeals or complaints. Besides, as per civil procedure code, a minor
can file a complaint or appeal only through a custodian," it says
further.

The case relates to nine year old Aishwayra Sharma, class 4 student of
the Montessari school in Lucknow's Rajajipuram area.

In October 2009, Aishwarya wrote a letter to the chief minister's
office (CMO) informing her about the garbage heaps lying just opposite
the school.

Though the garbage was removed later, she was informed that the letter
was not traceable in the CMO.

The girl wanted to know who was responsible for misplacing the letter.

On not getting any satisfactory response from the CMO, Aishwarya moved SIC.

"This order is illegal. I can share several instances where minors,
even a third-standard student, have sought information under RTI in
Delhi," he said. There is no mention in the Act that minors have to
get their case represented through a custodian. The section 3 of the
RTI Act clearly mentions, `subject to provisions of this Act, all
citizens shall have the right to information," The Times of India
quoted RTI activist Arvind Kejrival as saying.

http://www.governancenow.com/gov-next/rti/sic-minor-cannot-file-rti-application

--
Urvashi Sharma

RTI Helpmail( Web Based )
aishwaryaj2010@gmail.com

Mobile Rti Helpline
8081898081 ( 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. )

Uttar Pradesh: Overcrowded Jails , Prisons in U.P. burst at the seams , Those having completed their term still languishing in jails

http://www.thesundayindian.com/article.php?article_id=10461

Uttar Pradesh: Overcrowded Jails

Prisons in U.P. burst at the seams

Those having completed their term still languishing in jails

PUJA AWASTHI | December 5, 2010 14:04

Prisoners who have long completed their terms but have not been released as yet form a considerable chunk of the total prisoners in Uttar Pradesh's jails. This is one of the reasons behind overcrowding of the state's jails, reveals an RTI query filed by Lucknow based activist Urvashi Sharma.
Sharma, on October 4, 2009, had asked for the following information: A list of all the jails in UP with their designated capacity and the actual number of prisoners housed in each jail; jail-wise lists of the names of all convicts who are serving time in spite of having completed their terms; and details of the steps taken by the state government in the last five years to scrutinise the status of all the prisoners in UP jails, apart from certain other details.
The reply from the Jail Administration and Reforms Services was enough to give Sharma a shock as she came to know that against the designated capacity of 42,176 inmates, UP's 62 jails actually had 83,805 prisoners. According to a National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB) report on prisons, 2008, the state's jails have 191.6 per cent occupancy, second only to Chattisgarh where the jail occupancy is 215.2 per cent. According to the report, only 32 per cent of all the inmates in India's jails are convicts while a whopping 67 per cent of them are undertrials. There is just one jail official per eight inmates.
Two appeals and a rejoinder later, Sharma received information from only two jails— Meerut and Ghaziabad— that two prisoners, one male and one female, were languishing in Ghaziabad jail even after completion of their terms. As for the query about the scrutiny of the prisoners the response was "Nil". "It is indeed ironical that the department meant to bring reforms in jails has not even scrutinised the status of the prisoners during the last five years. I am writing to the CM and the Governor to take action and ensure that either the department should prove worthy of its name or it should drop the words 'administration and reforms' from its name," says Sharma.
Earlier this year, Law Minister Veerappa Moily launched a drive for the speedy conclusion of the cases of undertrials and to ensure their release. Till July this year, UP had topped the list in that mission by releasing 52,843 undertrials and settling the cases of 4,203 more. But certainly more steps are needed in this direction.

--
Urvashi Sharma

RTI Helpmail( Web Based )
aishwaryaj2010@gmail.com

Mobile Rti Helpline
8081898081 ( 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. )

Open letter to governor of UP to sack UP CIC Ranjit Singh Pankaj

http://www.mynews.in/News/open_letter_to_governor_of_up_to_sack_up_cic_ranjit_singh_pankaj_N114296.html

Open letter to governor of UP to sack UP CIC Ranjit Singh Pankaj
Sharma Urvashi, 29-Nov-2010 11:54:42 AM

Keywords: Minors | rti | up | cic | pankaj | yaishwaryaj |

To: Sri Banwari Lal Joshi
The Governor of Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh Government , Lucknow, IUndia , Pin Code – 226001

From: Social Group " YAISHWARYAJ "
Date: 28th November , 2010

Re. :Concerns for citizens about fair play at State Information
Commission of Uttar Pradesh under the headship of an incompetent ,
act-ignorant , an infirm minded and corrupt State Chief Information
Commissioner Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj AND demand to stop him from
attending the office of the State Chief Information Commissioner at
once & subsequently remove him from the chair to meet the ends of the
justice in compliance to the section 17 of the Right to Information
Act 2005

Our group is alarmed and distressed to see that the present Uttar
Pradesh chief information commissioner, Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj has
denied information to Nine Year old Lucknow based girl child Miss
Aishwarya Sharma on the pretext that she is a minor .

A perusal of order of UP CIC shows it grossly violates the RTI act
2005. For reference –

1) section 3 of RTI act which says "Subject to the provisions of this
Act, all citizens shall have the right to information."

Miss Aishwarya is very much a citizen of INDIA.

2) section 6(1) of RTI act which says "A person, who desires to obtain
any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or
through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official
language of the area in which the application is being made,
accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to— ( a) the Central
Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, of the concerned public authority;(b) the Central
Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public
Information Officer, as the case may be,specifying the particulars of
the information sought by him or her:Provided that where such request
cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all
reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to
reduce the same in writing."

Miss Aishwarya is a person who sought info under RTI act 2005.

3) section 6 ( 2 ) of RTI act which reads "An applicant making request
for information shall not be required to give any reason for
requesting the information or any other personal details except those
that may be necessary for contacting him."

It's a folly that UP CIC is asking about age of Miss Aishwarya .

4) section 22 which reads "The provisions of this Act shall have
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in
the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being
in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other
than this Act. " means the RTI act 2005 shall have overriding effect
over any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument
having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The UP CIC had
denied info to minor Aishwarya on the pretext of " INDIAN MAJORITY ACT
" & " CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE – procedure order 32 " . As is clear from
section 22 of RTI act , RTI act shall have overriding effect over "
INDIAN MAJORITY ACT " & " CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE – procedure order 32 "
hence these pleadings of UP CIC are not tenable in the eye of law.

On one hand , UN Convention on the Rights of the children advocates
of giving ample of rights to the children including forming
associations to fight for their rights , on the other hand Such
unreasonable order which is contradictory to UNCRC is being passed by
UP CIC. This is ridiculous as India is a signatory at UN Convention on
the Rights of the children .

The RTI Act, emanates from Art. 19 (1 ) (a) of The Constitution & it
is firmly rooted under Fundamental Right enshrined and
guaranteed to every Citizen of India read with Art. 5 , thus
regardless of age any citizen can use RTI act on his/her own .

Our group is deeply worried and anguished for the info-seekers as to
how they can expect fair play at the State Information Commission of
Uttar Pradesh under the headship of an act-ignorant , infirm-minded ,
incompetent and corrupt State Chief Information Commissioner Sri
Ranjit Singh Pankaj . In these circumstances Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj
shall not be able to safeguard the citizens' right to information in
the State.

( 2 ) The Governor may suspend from office, and if deem necessary
prohibit also from attending the office during inquiry, the State
Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in
respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under
sub-section (1) until the Governor has passed orders on receipt of
thereport of the Supreme Court on such reference.

(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or

(b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the
Governor, involves moral turpitude; or
(c) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside
the duties of his office; or
(d) is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in office by
reason of infirmity of mind or body; or
(e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to
affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information
Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner.

(4) If the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State
Information Commissioner in any way, concerned or interested in any
contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of the
State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any
benefit or emoluments arising there from otherwise than as a member
and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he
shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be guilty of
misbehavior. "

Keeping abovementioned facts under consideration the Governor / the
State should have taken suo-motto cognizance of the illegalities and
should have stopped Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj from attending the office
of the State Chief Information Commissioner at once to meet the ends
of the justice in compliance to the section 17( 3 ) of the Right to
Information Act 2005 .

Since the Governor / the State has failed to take the necessary
punitive action against the State Chief Information Commissioner as
per section 17 of the Right to Information Act 2005 , Our group is
compelled to endorse the concerns as stated above , recommend and
demand immediate removal of the State Chief Information Commissioner
from office as Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj has shown his infirmity of mind
by denying the information to Miss Aishwarya Sharma and has been
convicted of offences which, in the eye of Law involve moral turpitude
and also that immediate non-removal of Sri Pankaj is a constitutional
lapse being violative of the RTI Act 2005 .

Encl. : Order of UPSIC ( 2 Pages )

Yours truly ,
Urvashi Sharma

Founder & Convener

Group " YAISHWARYAJ "

F-2376 , Rajajipuram , Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh , India , Pin Code – 226017

e-mail yaishwaryaj@gmail.com

http://www.mynews.in/News/open_letter_to_governor_of_up_to_sack_up_cic_ranjit_singh_pankaj_N114296.html

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Minors out of RTI ambit : Social Group “ YAISHWARYAJ ” sends memorandum to Governor , CM

memorandum to sack UP CIC to save RTI in Uttar Pradesh

e- MEMORANDUM

To : Sri Banwari Lal Joshi

The Governor of Uttar Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh Government , Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh , India , Pin Code – 226001
hgovup@up.nic.in; governup@up.nic.in;

From :
Social Group " YAISHWARYAJ "
Date :
28th November , 2010

On behalf of Social Group " YAISHWARYAJ " , the undersigned has
drafted this memorandum to communicate the collective concerns of our
group to you . Sir you are responsible for compliance of the Right to
Information Act 2005 in letter & spirit and also to ensure the
realization of the civil rights of all the citizens of the Uttar
Pradesh.
Our group is alarmed and distressed to see that the present Uttar
Pradesh chief information commissioner, Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj has
denied information to Nine Year old Lucknow based girl child Miss
Aishwarya Sharma on the pretext that she is a minor .

Miss Aishwarya Sharma sent a letter on 26-10-09 to the UP CM by
speedpost .The PIO of CM office denied receipt of the said letter dtd.
26-10-09 .Miss Aishwarya used RTI act and sent letter of section 6 on
15-03-10 to the PIO of CM office to search her lost letter . The PIO
of CM office sent a letter on 08-04-10 .Aggrieved by the above order
of PIO dtd.08-04-10 , Miss Aishwarya sent First Appeal on 26-04-10
U/S 19(1) of RTI act to the Appellate Authority of CM office . The
same was returned in original to Miss Aishwarya , by Sri Navneet
Sehgal the Appellate Authority of CM office. Aggrieved by the order
of the Appellate Authority of CM office , Miss Aishwarya moved UPSIC
where case no. S1-1460/C-10 got registered and heard on 06-09-10 by UP
CIC Sri R. S. Pankaj. UPSIC dispatched order on 26-10-10 and asked
Miss Aishwarya to be present before UPSIC on 23-11-10 but the letter
has visible post office date stamp of 25-11-10 , making it crystal
clear that UPSIC had foul play in mind and wanted to ensure that Miss
Aishwarya should not be present in hearing to press her point.
A perusal of order of UP CIC shows it grossly violates the RTI act
2005. For reference –
1) section 3 of RTI act which says "Subject to the provisions of this
Act, all citizens shall have the right to information."
Miss Aishwarya is very much a citizen of INDIA.
2) section 6(1) of RTI act which says "A person, who desires to obtain
any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or
through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official
language of the area in which the application is being made,
accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to— ( a) the Central
Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, of the concerned public authority;(b) the Central
Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public
Information Officer, as the case may be,specifying the particulars of
the information sought by him or her:Provided that where such request
cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all
reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to
reduce the same in writing."

Miss Aishwarya is a person who sought info under RTI act 2005.

It's a folly that UP CIC is asking about age of Miss Aishwarya .

Even Earlier to his appointment as SCIC , the Charges of corruption
were leveled against the Chief Information Commissioner Sri Ranjit
Singh Pankaj while he was the district magistrate of Gorakhpur in
2008. The charges were corroborated by the divisional commissioner, P
K Mohanty, who conducted an inquiry into the selection process of
3,448 safai karamcharis. The probe report, acting on which the
government cancelled all the appointments, held Pankaj responsible for
violating norms and handpicking men of his choice who later committed
irregularities, including accepting bribes.
Our group is deeply worried and anguished for the info-seekers as to
how they can expect fair play at the State Information Commission of
Uttar Pradesh under the headship of an act-ignorant , infirm-minded ,
incompetent and corrupt State Chief Information Commissioner Sri
Ranjit Singh Pankaj . In these circumstances Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj
shall not be able to safeguard the citizens' right to information in
the State.

Section 17 of the Right To Information act 2005 reads as given
herein under - " (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3),
the State Chief information Commissioner or a State Information
Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the
Governor on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity after the
Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has on
inquiry, reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a
State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such
ground be removed.
( 2 ) The Governor may suspend from office, and if deem necessary
prohibit also from attending the office during inquiry, the State
Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in
respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under
sub-section (1) until the Governor has passed orders on receipt of
thereport of the Supreme Court on such reference.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the
Governor may by order remove from office the State Chief Information
Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner if a State Chief
Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the
case may be,—
(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or
(b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the
Governor, involves moral turpitude; or
(c) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside
the duties of his office; or
(d) is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in office by
reason of infirmity of mind or body; or
(e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to
affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information
Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner.
(4) If the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State
Information Commissioner in any way, concerned or interested in any
contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of the
State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any
benefit or emoluments arising there from otherwise than as a member
and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he
shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be guilty of
misbehavior. "

Encl. : Order of UPSIC ( 2 Pages )

Yours truly ,

(Urvashi Sharma)
Founder & Convener
Group " YAISHWARYAJ "
F-2376 , Rajajipuram , Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh , India , Pin Code – 226017
e-mail yaishwaryaj@gmail.com

Copy by e-mail to -
1- Km. Mayawati , The Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh
Government , Lucknow ,India , Pin Code - 226001 cmup@nic.in;
cmup@up.nic.in;

(Urvashi Sharma)
Founder & Convener
Group " YAISHWARYAJ "
F-2376 , Rajajipuram , Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh , India , Pin Code – 226017
e-mail yaishwaryaj@gmail.com

A 'minor' reason for rejecting RTI query - 9 year old Aishwarya Sharma of Lucknow denied info on her lost letter

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/A-minor-reason-for-rejecting-RTI-query-/articleshow/6997903.cms

A 'minor' reason for rejecting RTI query
Neha Shukla, TNN, Nov 27, 2010, 12.39am IST

LUCKNOW: A 9-year-old cannot claim her right to information. Says who?
None other than UP State Information Commission (UPSIC). The order by
the chief information commissioner of UPSIC which questions the right
of a "minor" to seek information under the RTI Act has raised a
debate. The RTI experts have termed it "illegal".

The commission has ordered so in the case concerning Aishwarya Sharma,
a 9-year-old girl. She had written to the CM's office in October, 2009
complaining about the garbage dumping ground in the vicinity of her
school. She had requested the CMO to stop garbage disposal at the
spot. After she got no response, the girl filed an RTI application. It
was then that she was informed by the office that her letter was lost.

The girl filed another RTI application after this. "I asked them who
misplaced my letter", said Aishwarya, a student of Class III in a
city-based school. But she got no answer and had to file a complaint
with the SIC. And in the same matter, the commission ordered that she
cannot directly participate in the proceedings of the RTI Act.

The girl would have to get her appeals and complaints filed through a
custodian or present a proof of her being a major so that she be heard
directly, said an order by Ranjit Singh Pankaj, chief information
commissioner, UP. The said order has already been termed "illegal" by
the RTI experts and activists.

"This order is illegal," said Arvind Kejrival, RTI campaigner. "I can
share several instances where minors, even a third-standard student,
have sought information under RTI in Delhi," he said. There is no
mention in the Act that minors have to get their case represented
through a custodian. The section 3 of the RTI Act clearly mentions,
`subject to provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right
to information.'

The CIC's order said that since the girl is a minor, she does not come
under the definition of a major as defined under the Indian Majority
Act. The proceedings under RTI are quasi-judicial in nature. In such a
situation, no minor can directly get involved in the RTI proceedings,
be it filing of appeals or complaints. Besides, as per Civil Procedure
Code, a minor can file a complaint or appeal only through a custodian.

When contacted, Shailesh Gandhi, information commissioner (IC), CIC,
said, "The Act has been made by the Parliament and the Parliament has
not barred minors from using RTI." The person seeking information
under RTI should be a citizen of India, that is the only condition set
by the Act. The Act does not say that RTI user has to be a major or a
minor. "Even a year-old child can use RTI," said Gandhi, IC in Central
Information Commission, Delhi.

With this, UPSIC may be headed towards setting its own RTI rules.

--
Urvashi Sharma

RTI Helpmail( Web Based )
aishwaryaj2010@gmail.com

Mobile Rti Helpline
8081898081 ( 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. )

Friday, November 26, 2010

TOI : A 'minor' reason for rejecting RTI query

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/A-minor-reason-for-rejecting-RTI-query-/articleshow/6997903.cms

A 'minor' reason for rejecting RTI query

Neha Shukla, TNN, Nov 27, 2010, 12.39am IST

With this, UPSIC may be headed towards setting its own RTI rules.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/A-minor-reason-for-rejecting-RTI-query-/articleshow/6997903.cms

--
Urvashi Sharma

RTI Helpmail( Web Based )
aishwaryaj2010@gmail.com

Mobile Rti Helpline
8081898081 ( 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. )

“ Minors have no Right to information ”says Uttar Pradesh Chief Information Commissioner Ranjit Singh Pankaj

" Minors don't have Right to Information " utters U.P. CIC Ranjit Singh Pankaj

" Minors have no Right to information "says Uttar Pradesh CIC

Uttar Pradesh CIC , Ranjit Singh Pankaj denied information to Nine
Year old Lucknow based Aishwarya Sharma on the pretext that she is a
minor .

Aishwarya sent a letter dtd. 26-10-09 to the UP CM by speedpost (
annex. 1 ), available at given link
http://file1.hpage.com/002161/04/bilder/aish_letter_to_cm.jpg

The PIO of CM office denied receipt of the said letter dtd. 26-10-09 (
annex. 2 ) available at given link
http://file1.hpage.com/002161/04/bilder/aish_rti_gh_cmo_reply.jpg

Aishwarya used RTI act and sent letter of section 6 dated 15-03-10 to
the PIO of CM office to search her lost letter .

The PIO of CM office sent letter dtd.08-04-10 ( annex. 3 ) available
at given link
http://file1.hpage.com/002161/04/bilder/aish_ml_pio_reply.jpg

Aggrieved by the above order of PIO dtd.08-04-10 , Aishwarya sent
First Appeal dtd. 26-04-10 U/S 19(1) of RTI act to the Appellate
Authority of CM office . The same was returned in original to
Aishwarya , by Navneet Sehgal the Appellate Authority of CM office (
annex. 4 ). available at given link
http://file1.hpage.com/002161/04/bilder/aish_ml_second_appeal_returned.jpg

The covering letter of returned first appeal ( annex. 5 ) available at
given link
http://file1.hpage.com/002161/04/bilder/aish_ml_second_appeal_returned_cover.jpg

Returning an appeal was gross violation of RTI act 2005 by navneet sehgal .

Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority of CM office ,
Aishwarya moved UPSIC where case no. S1-1460/C-10 got registered and
heard on 06-09-10 by UP CIC R. S. Pankaj. The order ( annex. 6 & 7 )
available at given link
http://file1.hpage.com/002161/04/bilder/s1-1460-c-10_order_dtd_06-09-10_page_1_of_2.jpg

http://file1.hpage.com/002161/04/bilder/s1-1460-c-10_order_dtd_06-09-10_page_2_of_2.jpg

UPSIC dispatched order on 26-10-10 and asked Aishwarya to present
before UPSIC on 23-11-10 but the letter has visible post office date
stamp of 25-11-10 emphasizes that UPSIC had foul play in mind and
wanted to ensure that Aishwarya should not be present in hearing to
press her point.

A perusal of order of UP CIC shows it grossly violates the RTI act 2005.

For reference one can see –

1) section 3 which says "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all
citizens shall have the right to information." Aishwarya is very
much a citizen of INDIA.

2) section 6(1) which says "A person, who desires to obtain any
information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through
electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of
the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee
as may be prescribed, to— ( a) the Central Public Information Officer
or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the
concerned public authority;(b) the Central Assistant Public
Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as
the case may be,specifying the particulars of the information sought
by him or her:Provided that where such request cannot be made in
writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable
assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same
in writing."
Aishwarya is a person who sought info under RTI act 2005.
3) section 6 ( 2 ) which reads "An applicant making request for
information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting
the information or any other personal details except those that may be
necessary for contacting him."
It's a folly that UP CIC is asking about age of Aishwarya .
4) section 22 which reads "The provisions of this Act shall have
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in
the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being
in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other
than this Act. "
means the RTI act 2005 shall have overriding effect over any other
law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by
virtue of any law other than this Act. The UP CIC had denied info to
minor Aishwarya on the pretext of " INDIAN MAJORITY ACT " & " CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE – procedure order 32 " . As is clear from section 22 of
RTI act , RTI act shall have overriding effect over " INDIAN MAJORITY
ACT " & " CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE – procedure order 32 " .

if Uttar Pradesh CIC is right or wrong in his decision ? pls. comment.

i strongly feel children do have right to information in india .

--
Urvashi Sharma

RTI Helpmail( Web Based )
aishwaryaj2010@gmail.com

Mobile Rti Helpline
8081898081 ( 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. )

“ Minors have no Right to information ”says Uttar Pradesh CIC

" Minors have no Right to information "says Uttar Pradesh CIC

Uttar Pradesh CIC , Ranjit Singh Pankaj denied information to Nine
Year old Lucknow based Aishwarya Sharma on the pretext that she is a
minor .

Aishwarya sent a letter dtd. 26-10-09 to the UP CM by speedpost ( annex. 1 )

The PIO of CM office denied receipt of the said letter dtd. 26-10-09 (
annex. 2 )

Aishwarya used RTI act and sent letter of section 6 dated 15-03-10 to
the PIO of CM office to search her lost letter .

The PIO of CM office sent letter dtd.08-04-10 ( annex. 3 )

The covering letter of returned first appeal ( annex. 5 )

Returning an appeal was gross violation of RTI act 2005 by navneet sehgal .

A perusal of order of UP CIC shows it grossly violates the RTI act 2005.

For reference one can see –

1) section 3 which says "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all
citizens shall have the right to information." Aishwarya is very
much a citizen of INDIA.

Aishwarya is a person who sought info under RTI act 2005.

3) section 6 ( 2 ) which reads "An applicant making request for
information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting
the information or any other personal details except those that may be
necessary for contacting him."

It's a folly that UP CIC is asking about age of Aishwarya .

means the RTI act 2005 shall have overriding effect over any other
law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by
virtue of any law other than this Act. The UP CIC had denied info to
minor Aishwarya on the pretext of " INDIAN MAJORITY ACT " & " CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE – procedure order 32 " . As is clear from section 22 of
RTI act , RTI act shall have overriding effect over " INDIAN MAJORITY
ACT " & " CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE – procedure order 32 "

hence another wrong decision of UP CIC Ranjit Singh Pankaj.
-
Urvashi Sharma

RTI Helpmail( Web Based )
aishwaryaj2010@gmail.com

Mobile Rti Helpline
8081898081 ( 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. )

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

[HumJanenge] Our apology to HumJanenge family members

Dear Friends

In a few days the beta phase (ie. trial period) of this new
development of the HumJanenge group will be complete. We are now
approaching the first milestone in this group where 2,500 active and
RTI aware citizens with properly functioning email Id's have achieved
membership of this group. In time this will definitely be among
India's largest and most powerful RTI email lists, founded and managed
by citizens with considerable experience in RTI Act, running RTI
e-groups and who are steeped deeply in HJ's former (but alas now
forgotten) civilised fighting culture.

There has been considerable speculation about the identities and
motives of the owners / moderators of this group. Specifically there
have been allegations made that "we" are
a) people out to destroy the RTI movement,
b) people out to disturb the established RTI groups,
c) people in collaboration with Information Commissioners,
d) people who create fake email Ids
e people who have stolen humjanenges's identity without any right to
it, etc etc..

I, on behalf of the HJ team, can firmly deny all these allegations.
They have been made by vested interests opposed to the RTI movement
and/or by persons not fully aware of the complete facts. All these
motivated allegations shall be answered in the right place and at the
right time, if so needed to be.

This mailing list / google group are in themselves not enough to
achieve the change that is needed to be achieved. Google does not have
many features which Yahoo had (and vice-versa). To supplement these,
we have opened (yesterday) our own HJ website. It will give us
additional features like polls, forum, chat, RTI decision database,
photo gallery, news post area, sms, tweets, etc.etc. which are not as
intrusive as emails are for those few members who are interested in
such features.

This is the link to it, but the website is not our primary focus, this
mailing list is.
http://humjanenge.org.in/

Best wishes, and once again our sincere apologies to everyone who was
offended / hurt during our beta phase.

Sarbajit
Chief patron and software architect HJ-GG

Re: [HumJanenge] CIC minutes of meeting

Asghar Wajahat saheb,

I am happy to see your contributions to this forum. RTI has proved a wonderful tool for making governance accountable, responsible and transparent.

Muhammad Mukhtar Alam,Ph.D
Papers and Presentations at http://slideshare.net/mukhtaralam

Managing online networks for Transition to Post Carbon Urban India http://transitionurbanindia.ning.com

and Carbon-Neutral Neighborhood Discussions and Leisure http://ecostrategiccommunicators.ning.com

Older content at http://muhammad_mukhtar_alam.tigblog.org

From: wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 20 November, 2010 2:19:24 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC minutes of meeting

How rude Er Roy. And a new charge of laziness long after the event!

Wajahat

----- Original Message -----
From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, November 20, 2010 9:50 am
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC minutes of meeting
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com

Well it certainly looks as though CIC(ANT) is making up for lost time and undoing all the damage a certain publicity crazy lazy bum did in his 5 years as CIC. The non-publication of the Annual Reports was entirely due to Pankaj Shreyaskar, and I hope that CIC(ANT) places some observations against him in his ACR.

Observe also how IC(SM) is now placed higher than IC(AD) in the pecking order.

Sarbajit

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 9:08 AM, PMK1504 <humjanenge.owner@gmail.com> wrote:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Minutes/Minutes09112010.pdf

Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 11 10

Present:
Sri A N Tiwari, Chief Information Commissioner
Sri Stayanand Mishra, Information Commissioner
Smt Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner
Sri M L Sharma, Information Commissioner
Smt Deepak Sandhu, Information Commissioner
Secretary and officers assisted the Commission.

Agenda 1: ATR on the MoM dated 02.11.2010
Noted.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] TOI: Gujarat: Info panel flayed over pending cases

Dear sirs

it is surprising how Chief information commissioner is allowing such things to happen.

in one of my recent cases ,( few days back, ) there was clear cut case of non supply of information and PIO didnt have valid grnds why information was delayed for more than 5 months.

Mr SG threaten to raise penality and issue show cause notice .. PIO became nervous/stressed.

i was ask to leave office and wait for final order copy. PIO kept sitting in room for few min.. just to come out smiling after few min.

I am sure he will not end up with penality in show cause notice.

In my earlier 2 cases; penalties have yet not been raised in spite of 2 show cause notice to PIO and when i ask Mr SG about why he is not raising penalty where it was clear cut case of info denied/delayed and i struggled for 5 months in those cases , i was told that benefit of doubt need to be given to PIO'!!!!.. what benefit of doubt has yet not been made clear to me !! and those PIO are enjoying their life till date and now openly delaying information on RTI's realizing they will get shield at CIC office :)

i leave interpretation of cases to grp members

cheers to RTI act

regards

Mohit

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 22 November, 2010 2:17:59 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] TOI: Gujarat: Info panel flayed over pending cases

Dear Vishal thanks for this news post.

"A further probe revealed that some of Gandhi's office staff were hand in glove with various departments,"

For once Arvind Kejriwal now has the guts to say openly what I have been saying all along. Namely that IC(Shailesh Gandhi)'s registry and especially all those private interns he hires and pays for are corrupt and hand in glove with various undesirable forces. Incidentally I had complained to the CIC about a nice little racket in IC(SG)'s registry whereby "FIRs for cash" was in progress, but as usual no action although it seems to have stopped for the moment.

Anyway who "probed" IC(SG) ??

Sarbajit

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:17 AM, vishalkudchadkar <v_kudz@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Info-panel-flayed-over-pending-cases/articleshow/6966074.cms#ixzz15yY2EOM2

A large gathering of RTI activists from across the state and many of its users assembled for a public hearing at the Mehndi Nawab Jung Hall in Paldi to protest against the rising pendency of cases in the information commission. The participants had expressed worries over the neglect of appeals made under RTI with various departments.

The RTI public hearing resounded with vitriol and sloganeering against the Gujarat state information commissioners, who, the activists alleged, had done little to solve the rising pendency of cases in the commission. Many went on to the stage and even obstructed the day's proceedings. The participants were angry because none of the commissioners bothered to attend the public hearing.

Setting the ball rolling was RTI activist and Magsaysay award winner Arvind Kejriwal, who claimed that the very fact that information commissioners have kept themselves away from the hearing was proof that they were guilty of the delay caused. "We had a similar public hearing in Delhi where we invited Shailesh Gandhi, one of the central information commissioner's. Gandhi admitted that he never knew people were so angry with him . Orders issued were not honored by departments, fines imposed were not collected, appeals made to the commission were stashed away. A further probe revealed that some of Gandhi's office staff were hand in glove with various departments," he said.

Likewise, Kejriwal insisted that such 'public hearings' be organized in the presence of information commissioners to iron out differences with the applicants in an amicable way. "We'll lodge a protest before the commission in the coming week," says RTI activist Bharat Jhala.

While giving a flip side view lawyer Mukul Sinha said, "RTI Act was never meant for activists. It's an administrative tool to help the common man access information which he could not have procured via a complex mesh of laws and rules. My biggest grouse with information commissioners is that they have done little in terms of penalizing officers. Instead of imposing hefty fines, the officers' service records should have an adverse remark, only then would they comply with the RTI laws."

The meet also presented Vinod Pandya's RTI application which showed that in the 2009-10, of the 1,631 cases analysed, nearly 697 orders were issued by the Gujarat information commission and that none was honored. "Some 663 RTI applications were rejected on technical or merit grounds, while 204 applications were returned. The pendency of cases was close to 7,100. Between January and August this year 2,380 orders were passed, of these only 27 penalties were imposed.

[HumJanenge] How to unsubscribe from Google Groups.

To all those individuals who want to unsubscribe from this group:

If you'd like to remove yourself from a Google Group, do any one of the following steps:

Reply to an email from the group with REMOVE ME as the subject of your message.

Send an email to groupname+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For example, if you want to leave the group humjanenge@googlegroups.com, you could remove yourself by sending a blank email to humjanenge+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

More info here:
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=46608&cbid=kj7l05m21uf2&src=cb&lev=%20index

I added you as a friend on Quepasa.com

Quepasa Alerts

Click here to unsubscribe.

URVASHI,

I'd like to be your friend on Quepasa.com.

Would you like to add me as a friend?

Yes No

Thanks!

jagnarain sharma

To prevent from getting anymore email notifications from your friends on Quepasa.com, click here.

Unsubscribe I Terms of Use I Privacy Policy I Support
Quepasa Corporation 324 Datura Street, Suite 114, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401
You are receiving this message because your friend is a registered member of Quepasa.
Add info@quepasa.com to your contact list so you always receive your Quepasa email.

Re: [HumJanenge] Fwd: [HumJanenge-YG] Alert: RTI Rules being drafted in secrecy in India- DoPT must coply with CIC decisions on public consultation on draft laws, policies and rules

Dear Kuldip

1) You can take up the issue of moderation with the actual moderators
of this group. I am emphatically NOT one of them.

2) Venkatesh did NOT post to this group - ie HJ-GG. Please read his
comment at the foot of his email.
">> [I have not posted this message on humjanenge@googlegroups.com.
However>> this
>> message may be automatically relayed through that group to unintended
>> recipients. My apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused to such
>> recipients.]"

3) Not receiving emails from even a single one of the groups Venkatesh
posted to and in view of his comment, I was strongly objecting to
receiving his email "relayed" through HJ-GG or otherwise -
Urvashi_Sharma / Amitabh&Nutan_Thakur spammer network etc.

4) Venkatesh's message is littered with legal flaws, NGOspeak and
fallacious logic. This is why he avoids posting to any forum where I
(or "other forces out to destroy RTI") can reply :-).

5) In addition the moderator of this group - HJ-GG has some Regulation
which says long boring scholarly articles are prohibited (incidentally
this originated from RTI_India where Venkatesh was involved).
Venkatesh doesn't want to lose his membership here by posting.

6) So my young friend, please go ahead and comment / appreciate /
enjoy / learn from Venkatesh's post. The RTI movement needs young
blood like you.

Sarbajit

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Kuldip Gyaneswar
<kuldipgyaneswar@gmail.com> wrote:
> The group is in total mess. Issues which are irrelevant are being brought up
> and seriously discussed and pursued. Mr. Sarbajit Roy you may challenge my
> knowledge on RTI, definitely not of your level, but even as someone young I
> can very strongly say the group is not being moderated properly and let me
> thank Mr. Venkatesh for at least posting something very relevant to be
> discussed. Let the discussion begin with the content rather than mailing
> list. Everyday I see more mails on the identity issues and mailing list
> issues rather than discussion on RTI.
> I am sure Mr. Sarbajit with all your intellectual understanding and
> experience would take cognizance of these issues and start a healthy
> discussion on RTI.
> Regards
> Kuldip
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Venkatesh
>>
>> I have not elected to receive emails for any of these groups listed
>> below and yet I am receiving unasked for posts. Please unsubscribe me
>> from HumJanenge Google Groups immediately.
>>
>> FYI, this is not the first time I have asked you people to do so.
>>
>> PS: Surely Shailesh Gandhi has circulated these draft Rules to you and
>> all his other NCPRI working committee colleagues like he did those
>> DoPT Minutes of 14.Oct.2009. So why don't YOU share these with
>> everyone - in the LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST ??
>>
>> PPS: When you give out your "alternate email" <alternate email:
>> <mailto:nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com> nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com > in your
>> posts why then complain when people /egroups send emails to it ?.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Venkatesh Nayak <venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org>
>> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:08:54 +0530
>> Subject: [HumJanenge-YG] Alert: RTI Rules being drafted in secrecy in
>> India- DoPT must coply with CIC decisions on public consultation on
>> draft laws, policies and rules
>> To: HumJanenge@yahoogroups.co.in, jharkhand@yahoogroups.co.in,
>> rti4ngo@yahoogroups.com, childrensrighttofood@googlegroups.com,
>> loksatta_initiative@yahoogroups.com,
>> ncpriworkingcommittee@yahoogroups.com,
>> urja-delhi-rwas@googlegroups.com, pwap@yahoogroups.com, Dalits Media
>> Watch <PMARC@dgroups.org>, ncprimailinglist@yahoogroups.com,
>> antibriberycampaign@yahoogroups.com,
>> development_communication_in_Orissa-owner@yahoogroups.com
>>
>> Dear all,
>> I am writing to alert you about Government of India's attempts to draft a
>> new set of Rules under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Some of you may
>> already be aware of this exercise. I am only adding to this debate a very
>> important element, namely, the current absence of and urgent need for
>> public
>> consultation.
>>
>> The minutes of the meeting held at the Central Information Commission
>> (CIC)
>> on 16th November 2010 indicate that it has been asked to comment on a set
>> of
>> draft RTI Rules prepared by the Government of India. The relevant extract
>> from the minutes is given below:
>>
>> "Agenda 1: Draft RTI rules- for discussions
>> Commission discussed the draft rules and suggested some modifications. The
>> changes as suggested by the Commission shall be incorporated and sent to
>> the
>> Government at the earliest. (Action: Secretary/JS (law)) "
>>
>> The complete text of the minutes of this meeting is attached and may also
>> be
>> accessed on the CIC website at:
>> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Minutes/Minutes16112010.pdf
>>
>> In 21st century where the RTI Act seeks to establish a regime of
>> transparency, rules governing the processes of seeking and obtaining
>> information are being discussed by only a handful of people behind closed
>> doors. There is no official word on what the draft RTI Rules contain. Till
>> date neither the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) the
>> administrative depatrment for the RTI Act, nor the CIC, has taken any step
>> to consult with the people of India on these draft Rules. The people of
>> India- the world's largest democracy are its the primary stakeholders and
>> have a deeply vested interest in ensuring that there is transparency in
>> the
>> administration, especially in policy making and implementation. The
>> secrecy
>> surrounding the draft RTI Rules is in clear violation of two decisions of
>> the CIC emphasising the duty of public consultation while drafting laws
>> and
>> policies. Whether the CIC has reminded the DoPT about the imperative of
>> public consultation on these Draft RTI Rules in not publicly known.
>>
>> Public Consultation is necessary while drafting legislation or policy: CIC
>> directs the Delhi Government in July 2010
>> In July 2010 a single member bench of the CIC directed the Government of
>> the
>> National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to fully comply with Section 4
>> of the RTI Act while formulating draft laws and policies. In this decision
>> the CIC observed as follows:
>>
>> " A plain reading of Section 4(1) (c) of the RTI Act suggests that every
>> public authority is required to publish or disclose all facts and
>> circumstances which are relevant and taken into account while formulating
>> policies and taking decisions that would affect the public. Section
>> 4(1)(c)
>> of the RTI Act requires proactive disclosure of proposed laws/ policies
>> and
>> amendments thereto or to existing laws/ policies to enable citizens to
>> debate in an informed manner and provide useful feedback to the
>> government,
>> which may be taken into account before finalizing such laws/ policies.
>> Given
>> that the DP Bill" (Delhi Police Amendment Bill) "is a significant
>> legislative change, the relevant public authorities involved in drafting
>> of
>> the said bill had a duty to proactively disclose its contents under
>> Section
>> 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act... The public authority should have disclosed the
>> contents of the DP Bill suo motu and by omitting to do so, the very
>> purpose
>> of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act stands defeated. The Commission has further
>> observed that at present, the GNCTD is not fully complying with Section 4
>> of
>> the RTI Act and therefore, is of the view that citizens must be provided
>> with means to debate legislative and policy changes which are likely to
>> affect public lives as contemplated by the GNCTD. The citizens
>> individually
>> are the sovereigns of the democracy and they delegate their powers in the
>> legislature. The RTI Act has recognized this and Section 4(1) (c) is meant
>> to ensure that the citizens would be kept informed about proposals for
>> significant legislative and policy changes...
>> In view of the aforesaid, the Commission, under the powers vested in it
>> vide
>> Sections 25(3) (g) and 25(5) of the RTI Act hereby directs the Chief
>> Secretary, GNCTD to develop a credible mechanism in all departments for
>> proactive and timely disclosure of draft legislations/ policies and
>> amendments thereto or to existing laws/ policies in the public domain, as
>> required under Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act, during the process of their
>> formulation and before finalization."
>>
>> The complete text of this decision is attached. It is also accessible at:
>>
>> http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_C_2010_000345_8440_M_37452.pdf
>>
>> Public Consultation is necessary while drafting legislation or policy: CIC
>> full bench directs the Central Government in Septmber 2010
>> In September 2010 a full bench of the CIC reiterated this stand and
>> directed
>> the Cabinet Secretariat under the Government of India and the DoPT to take
>> steps to create a mechanism for public consultation on draft laws before
>> they are tabled in Parliament. In this decision the CIC observed as
>> follows:
>>
>> "The Commission further recommends u/s 25 (5) that Cabinet Secretariat
>> considers amending Part V of Circular No. 1/16/1/2000-Cab of 15.4.2002 to
>> allow for public consultation in appropriate form."
>>
>> The complete text of this decision is attached. It is also accessible at:
>> http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_WB_C_2010_000120_T_41373.pdf
>>
>> What does Part V of Circular No. 1/16/1/2000-Cab of 15.4.2002 contain?
>> The Cabinet Secretariat issued a circular in April 2002 instructing all
>> departments and ministries under the Government of India on the
>> methodology
>> of preparation of Cabinet notes. Drafts of proposed laws or amendments to
>> existing laws are attached to draft Cabinet notes and circulated to the
>> relevant ministries and departments for consultation. Part V refers to the
>> procedure for conducting such inter-ministerial consultations. During such
>> consultations with various ministries the draft Cabinet note is circulated
>> with the classificatory label- "TOP SECRET" So save a handful of senior
>> officers, all other citizens of India are excluded from this consultation
>> process. The full bench of the CIC directed the Cabinet Secretariat to
>> amend
>> this portion of the circular and create appropriate spaces for public
>> consultation.
>>
>> The complete text of this circular is attached. It is also accessible at:
>> http://cabsec.nic.in/showpdf.php?type=circulars_april_2002
>> <http://cabsec.nic.in/showpdf.php?type=circulars_april_2002&special>
>> &special
>>
>> Despite the principle of mandatory public consultation having been laid
>> down
>> by the CIC, the DoPT has not yet begun consultation with the people of
>> India
>> on the draft RTI Rules. If the draft is ready for consultation with the
>> CIC
>> which is a body outside of Government, surely it can be opened up for a
>> more
>> widepsread consultation with the people of India who are using this law
>> every day. Surely no harm would be done if people's views are elicited on
>> so
>> important a subject. The Rules lay down the detailing of the framework for
>> accessing information under the RTI Act. The people of India have a right
>> to
>> be consulted on the draft Rules as they are the primary users of the RTI
>> Act. THE PEOPLE OF INDIA HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE CONSULTED NOW.
>>
>> The principle of public consultation on draft Rules is more than a century
>> old in India
>> The principle of consulting people on draft Rules under any law made by
>> Parliament or a State legislature is not a recent one. It is mentioned in
>> the General Clauses Act, enacted under the British Raj in 1897. The
>> complete
>> text of this Act is available at:
>> <http://trivandrum.gov.in/trivandrum/images/pdfs/generalclausesact.pdf>
>> http://trivandrum.gov.in/trivandrum/images/pdfs/generalclausesact.pdf This
>> law explains how common terms and phrases used in all laws enacted before
>> and after independence must be interpreted or understood. It is the basic
>> law for interpreting the meaning of terms used in the Constitution as well
>> (see Article 367, Constitution of India- accessible at:
>> http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/welcome.html). According to Section 23 of
>> the
>> General Clauses Act:
>>
>>
>> "Provisions applicable to making of rules or bye-laws after previous
>> publication.- Where, by any (Central Act) or Regulation, a power to make
>> rules or bye-laws is expressed to be given subject to the condition of the
>> rules or bye-laws being made after previous publication, then the
>> following
>> provisions shall apply, namely:- The authority having power to make the
>> rules or bye-laws shall, before making them, publish a draft of the
>> proposed
>> rules or bye-laws for the information of person likely to be affected
>> thereby.
>>
>> The publication shall be made in such manner as that authority deems to be
>> sufficient, or, if the condition with respect to previous publication so
>> requires, in such manner as the (Government concerned) prescribed.
>>
>> There shall be published with the draft a notice specifying a date on
>> after
>> which the draft will be taken into consideration.
>>
>> The authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws, and where the
>> rules or bye-laws are to be made with the sanction, approval or
>> concurrence
>> of another authority, that authority also, shall consider any objection or
>> suggestion which may me received by the authority having power to make the
>> rules or bye-laws from any person with respect to the draft before the
>> date
>> so specified.
>>
>> The publication in the (Official Gazette) of a rule or bye-law purporting
>> to
>> have been made in exercise of a power to make rules or bye-laws after
>> previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule or byelaw has
>> been duly made."
>>
>>
>>
>> In simple terms Section 23 explains that an administrative department may
>> make draft Rules public knolwedge through a gazette notification, give
>> people the time to file suggestions and objections on the draft Rules and
>> take such comments into consideration before finally notifying the Rules.
>> The administrative department is free to fix a time limit for this
>> consultation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is this principle not observed in practice?
>>
>> The principle of public consultation on draft Rules is sidestepped by
>> almost
>> all governments by using a simple device. They simply fail to mention the
>> phrase - "subject to previous publication" in the rule-making provision of
>> a
>> statute. When this phrase or its equivalent is not mentioned, the
>> Government
>> is not duty bound to consult with people on draft Rules. Section 23 of the
>> General Clauses Act becomes ineffective. It has remained a dead letter for
>> a
>> long time except in some instances in States like Karnataka. So the noble
>> principle of public consultation developed under foreign rule,100 years
>> ago,
>> is mostly ignored by democratically elected governments in independent
>> India. This is one of the ironies of governance in India today. More often
>> than not undue secrecy governs the exercise of drafting laws, rules and
>> regulations.
>>
>>
>>
>> What can you do to make the discussion on the draft RTI Rules more
>> transparent and participatory than it is today?
>> You may send an email or a post card or a letter to the Minister and the
>> Secretary in charge of DoPT urging them to publicise the draft RTI Rules
>> and
>> allow people adequate time to offer their comments and suggestions. The
>> DoPT
>> is under the charge of a new Minister of State: Shri V. Narayanasamy and a
>> new Secretary Ms. Alka Sirohi.
>>
>> You may use the following sample message or adapt it as you think fit:
>>
>> "Dear sir, (if addressing the Minister) or Dear Madam, (if addressing the
>> Secretary)
>>
>> I/We have learnt that your Ministry has drafted a new set of Rules under
>> the
>> Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and sought comments from the
>> Central Information Commission. These draft Rules have not been placed in
>> the public domain.
>> The RTI Act was drafted after widespread consultations with the people.
>> Civil society organisations actively participated in these consultations.
>> These consultations have helped in crafting a robust law that has become a
>> model for many countries.
>> There is no justification for drafting the Rules under the RTI Act in
>> secrecy. In September 2010 the Central Commission directed the Government
>> to
>> India to open up draft laws and policies for public consultation before
>> they
>> are finalised for introduction in Parliament. Your Ministry has not yet
>> honoured this directive in relation to the draft RTI Rules.
>> I/We urge you to direct your Ministry to immediately place the draft Rules
>> in the public domain and give us a month's time to send comments and
>> recommendations. The existing RTI Rules must not be changed without
>> undertaking public consultation in a credible manner.
>>
>> Thanking you,
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> (Name/postal address/signature of the sender)"
>>
>>
>> Please send your email/postcard/letters to:
>>
>> Shri V. Narayanasamy
>> Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
>> Government of India
>> North Block
>> New Delhi- 110 001
>> Email: mos-pp@nic.in, <mailto:samyselvi@sansad.nic.in>
>> samyselvi@sansad.nic.in
>>
>> and to
>>
>> Ms. Alka Sirohi, IAS
>> Secretary to the Government of India
>> Department of Personnel,
>> Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
>> North Block
>> New Delhi- 110 001
>> Email: secy_mop@nic.in
>>
>> In order to access the our previous email alerts on RTI and related issues
>> please click on:
>>
>> <blocked::http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&
>> view=article&id=65&Itemid=84>
>>
>> http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic
>> le&id=65&Itemid=84
>>
>> You will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
>> receive these email alerts please send an email to this address indicating
>> your refusal.
>>
>> [I have not posted this message on humjanenge@googlegroups.com. However
>> this
>> message may be automatically relayed through that group to unintended
>> recipients. My apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused to such
>> recipients.]
>>
>>
>>
>> Venkatesh Nayak
>> Programme Coordinator
>> Access to Information Programme
>> Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
>> B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
>> New Delhi- 110 017
>> tel: 91-11- 43180215/43180200/ 26864678
>> fax: 91-11- 26864688
>> website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org
>> <http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/>
>> alternate email: <mailto:nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com>
>> nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com
>
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Fwd: [HumJanenge-YG] Alert: RTI Rules being drafted in secrecy in India- DoPT must coply with CIC decisions on public consultation on draft laws, policies and rules

The group is in total mess. Issues which are irrelevant are being brought up and seriously discussed and pursued. Mr. Sarbajit Roy you may challenge my knowledge on RTI, definitely not of your level, but even as someone young I can very strongly say the group is not being moderated properly and let me thank Mr. Venkatesh for at least posting something very relevant to be discussed. Let the discussion begin with the content rather than mailing list. Everyday I see more mails on the identity issues and mailing list issues rather than discussion on RTI.

I am sure Mr. Sarbajit with all your intellectual understanding and experience would take cognizance of these issues and start a healthy discussion on RTI.

Regards

Kuldip

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Venkatesh

I have not elected to receive emails for any of these groups listed
below and yet I am receiving unasked for posts. Please unsubscribe me
from HumJanenge Google Groups immediately.

FYI, this is not the first time I have asked you people to do so.

PS: Surely Shailesh Gandhi has circulated these draft Rules to you and
all his other NCPRI working committee colleagues like he did those
DoPT Minutes of 14.Oct.2009. So why don't YOU share these with
everyone - in the LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST ??

PPS: When you give out your "alternate email" <alternate email:
<mailto:nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com> nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com > in your
posts why then complain when people /egroups send emails to it ?.

Sarbajit

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Venkatesh Nayak <venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:08:54 +0530
Subject: [HumJanenge-YG] Alert: RTI Rules being drafted in secrecy in
India- DoPT must coply with CIC decisions on public consultation on
draft laws, policies and rules
To: HumJanenge@yahoogroups.co.in, jharkhand@yahoogroups.co.in,
rti4ngo@yahoogroups.com, childrensrighttofood@googlegroups.com,
loksatta_initiative@yahoogroups.com,
ncpriworkingcommittee@yahoogroups.com,
urja-delhi-rwas@googlegroups.com, pwap@yahoogroups.com, Dalits Media
Watch <PMARC@dgroups.org>, ncprimailinglist@yahoogroups.com,
antibriberycampaign@yahoogroups.com,
development_communication_in_Orissa-owner@yahoogroups.com

Dear all,
I am writing to alert you about Government of India's attempts to draft a
new set of Rules under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Some of you may
already be aware of this exercise. I am only adding to this debate a very
important element, namely, the current absence of and urgent need for public
consultation.

The minutes of the meeting held at the Central Information Commission (CIC)
on 16th November 2010 indicate that it has been asked to comment on a set of
draft RTI Rules prepared by the Government of India. The relevant extract
from the minutes is given below:

"Agenda 1: Draft RTI rules- for discussions
Commission discussed the draft rules and suggested some modifications. The
changes as suggested by the Commission shall be incorporated and sent to the
Government at the earliest. (Action: Secretary/JS (law)) "

The complete text of the minutes of this meeting is attached and may also be
accessed on the CIC website at:
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Minutes/Minutes16112010.pdf

In 21st century where the RTI Act seeks to establish a regime of
transparency, rules governing the processes of seeking and obtaining
information are being discussed by only a handful of people behind closed
doors. There is no official word on what the draft RTI Rules contain. Till
date neither the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) the
administrative depatrment for the RTI Act, nor the CIC, has taken any step
to consult with the people of India on these draft Rules. The people of
India- the world's largest democracy are its the primary stakeholders and
have a deeply vested interest in ensuring that there is transparency in the
administration, especially in policy making and implementation. The secrecy
surrounding the draft RTI Rules is in clear violation of two decisions of
the CIC emphasising the duty of public consultation while drafting laws and
policies. Whether the CIC has reminded the DoPT about the imperative of
public consultation on these Draft RTI Rules in not publicly known.

Public Consultation is necessary while drafting legislation or policy: CIC
directs the Delhi Government in July 2010
In July 2010 a single member bench of the CIC directed the Government of the
National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to fully comply with Section 4
of the RTI Act while formulating draft laws and policies. In this decision
the CIC observed as follows:

" A plain reading of Section 4(1) (c) of the RTI Act suggests that every
public authority is required to publish or disclose all facts and
circumstances which are relevant and taken into account while formulating
policies and taking decisions that would affect the public. Section 4(1)(c)
of the RTI Act requires proactive disclosure of proposed laws/ policies and
amendments thereto or to existing laws/ policies to enable citizens to
debate in an informed manner and provide useful feedback to the government,
which may be taken into account before finalizing such laws/ policies. Given
that the DP Bill" (Delhi Police Amendment Bill) "is a significant
legislative change, the relevant public authorities involved in drafting of
the said bill had a duty to proactively disclose its contents under Section
4(1)(c) of the RTI Act... The public authority should have disclosed the
contents of the DP Bill suo motu and by omitting to do so, the very purpose
of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act stands defeated. The Commission has further
observed that at present, the GNCTD is not fully complying with Section 4 of
the RTI Act and therefore, is of the view that citizens must be provided
with means to debate legislative and policy changes which are likely to
affect public lives as contemplated by the GNCTD. The citizens individually
are the sovereigns of the democracy and they delegate their powers in the
legislature. The RTI Act has recognized this and Section 4(1) (c) is meant
to ensure that the citizens would be kept informed about proposals for
significant legislative and policy changes...
In view of the aforesaid, the Commission, under the powers vested in it vide
Sections 25(3) (g) and 25(5) of the RTI Act hereby directs the Chief
Secretary, GNCTD to develop a credible mechanism in all departments for
proactive and timely disclosure of draft legislations/ policies and
amendments thereto or to existing laws/ policies in the public domain, as
required under Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act, during the process of their
formulation and before finalization."

The complete text of this decision is attached. It is also accessible at:
http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_C_2010_000345_8440_M_37452.pdf

Public Consultation is necessary while drafting legislation or policy: CIC
full bench directs the Central Government in Septmber 2010
In September 2010 a full bench of the CIC reiterated this stand and directed
the Cabinet Secretariat under the Government of India and the DoPT to take
steps to create a mechanism for public consultation on draft laws before
they are tabled in Parliament. In this decision the CIC observed as follows:

"The Commission further recommends u/s 25 (5) that Cabinet Secretariat
considers amending Part V of Circular No. 1/16/1/2000-Cab of 15.4.2002 to
allow for public consultation in appropriate form."

The complete text of this decision is attached. It is also accessible at:
http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_WB_C_2010_000120_T_41373.pdf

What does Part V of Circular No. 1/16/1/2000-Cab of 15.4.2002 contain?
The Cabinet Secretariat issued a circular in April 2002 instructing all
departments and ministries under the Government of India on the methodology
of preparation of Cabinet notes. Drafts of proposed laws or amendments to
existing laws are attached to draft Cabinet notes and circulated to the
relevant ministries and departments for consultation. Part V refers to the
procedure for conducting such inter-ministerial consultations. During such
consultations with various ministries the draft Cabinet note is circulated
with the classificatory label- "TOP SECRET" So save a handful of senior
officers, all other citizens of India are excluded from this consultation
process. The full bench of the CIC directed the Cabinet Secretariat to amend
this portion of the circular and create appropriate spaces for public
consultation.

The complete text of this circular is attached. It is also accessible at:
http://cabsec.nic.in/showpdf.php?type=circulars_april_2002
<http://cabsec.nic.in/showpdf.php?type=circulars_april_2002&special>
&special

Despite the principle of mandatory public consultation having been laid down
by the CIC, the DoPT has not yet begun consultation with the people of India
on the draft RTI Rules. If the draft is ready for consultation with the CIC
which is a body outside of Government, surely it can be opened up for a more
widepsread consultation with the people of India who are using this law
every day. Surely no harm would be done if people's views are elicited on so
important a subject. The Rules lay down the detailing of the framework for
accessing information under the RTI Act. The people of India have a right to
be consulted on the draft Rules as they are the primary users of the RTI
Act. THE PEOPLE OF INDIA HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE CONSULTED NOW.

The principle of public consultation on draft Rules is more than a century
old in India
The principle of consulting people on draft Rules under any law made by
Parliament or a State legislature is not a recent one. It is mentioned in
the General Clauses Act, enacted under the British Raj in 1897. The complete
text of this Act is available at:
<http://trivandrum.gov.in/trivandrum/images/pdfs/generalclausesact.pdf>
http://trivandrum.gov.in/trivandrum/images/pdfs/generalclausesact.pdf This
law explains how common terms and phrases used in all laws enacted before
and after independence must be interpreted or understood. It is the basic
law for interpreting the meaning of terms used in the Constitution as well
(see Article 367, Constitution of India- accessible at:
http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/welcome.html). According to Section 23 of the
General Clauses Act:

"Provisions applicable to making of rules or bye-laws after previous
publication.- Where, by any (Central Act) or Regulation, a power to make
rules or bye-laws is expressed to be given subject to the condition of the
rules or bye-laws being made after previous publication, then the following
provisions shall apply, namely:- The authority having power to make the
rules or bye-laws shall, before making them, publish a draft of the proposed
rules or bye-laws for the information of person likely to be affected
thereby.

The publication shall be made in such manner as that authority deems to be
sufficient, or, if the condition with respect to previous publication so
requires, in such manner as the (Government concerned) prescribed.

There shall be published with the draft a notice specifying a date on after
which the draft will be taken into consideration.

The authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws, and where the
rules or bye-laws are to be made with the sanction, approval or concurrence
of another authority, that authority also, shall consider any objection or
suggestion which may me received by the authority having power to make the
rules or bye-laws from any person with respect to the draft before the date
so specified.

The publication in the (Official Gazette) of a rule or bye-law purporting to
have been made in exercise of a power to make rules or bye-laws after
previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule or byelaw has
been duly made."

In simple terms Section 23 explains that an administrative department may
make draft Rules public knolwedge through a gazette notification, give
people the time to file suggestions and objections on the draft Rules and
take such comments into consideration before finally notifying the Rules.
The administrative department is free to fix a time limit for this
consultation.

Why is this principle not observed in practice?

The principle of public consultation on draft Rules is sidestepped by almost
all governments by using a simple device. They simply fail to mention the
phrase - "subject to previous publication" in the rule-making provision of a
statute. When this phrase or its equivalent is not mentioned, the Government
is not duty bound to consult with people on draft Rules. Section 23 of the
General Clauses Act becomes ineffective. It has remained a dead letter for a
long time except in some instances in States like Karnataka. So the noble
principle of public consultation developed under foreign rule,100 years ago,
is mostly ignored by democratically elected governments in independent
India. This is one of the ironies of governance in India today. More often
than not undue secrecy governs the exercise of drafting laws, rules and
regulations.

What can you do to make the discussion on the draft RTI Rules more
transparent and participatory than it is today?
You may send an email or a post card or a letter to the Minister and the
Secretary in charge of DoPT urging them to publicise the draft RTI Rules and
allow people adequate time to offer their comments and suggestions. The DoPT
is under the charge of a new Minister of State: Shri V. Narayanasamy and a
new Secretary Ms. Alka Sirohi.

You may use the following sample message or adapt it as you think fit:

"Dear sir, (if addressing the Minister) or Dear Madam, (if addressing the
Secretary)

I/We have learnt that your Ministry has drafted a new set of Rules under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and sought comments from the
Central Information Commission. These draft Rules have not been placed in
the public domain.
The RTI Act was drafted after widespread consultations with the people.
Civil society organisations actively participated in these consultations.
These consultations have helped in crafting a robust law that has become a
model for many countries.
There is no justification for drafting the Rules under the RTI Act in
secrecy. In September 2010 the Central Commission directed the Government to
India to open up draft laws and policies for public consultation before they
are finalised for introduction in Parliament. Your Ministry has not yet
honoured this directive in relation to the draft RTI Rules.
I/We urge you to direct your Ministry to immediately place the draft Rules
in the public domain and give us a month's time to send comments and
recommendations. The existing RTI Rules must not be changed without
undertaking public consultation in a credible manner.

Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,

(Name/postal address/signature of the sender)"

Please send your email/postcard/letters to:

Shri V. Narayanasamy
Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Government of India
North Block
New Delhi- 110 001
Email: mos-pp@nic.in, <mailto:samyselvi@sansad.nic.in>
samyselvi@sansad.nic.in

and to

Ms. Alka Sirohi, IAS
Secretary to the Government of India
Department of Personnel,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
North Block
New Delhi- 110 001
Email: secy_mop@nic.in

In order to access the our previous email alerts on RTI and related issues
please click on:
<blocked::http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&
view=article&id=65&Itemid=84>
http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic
le&id=65&Itemid=84

You will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
receive these email alerts please send an email to this address indicating
your refusal.

[I have not posted this message on humjanenge@googlegroups.com. However this
message may be automatically relayed through that group to unintended
recipients. My apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused to such
recipients.]

Venkatesh Nayak
Programme Coordinator
Access to Information Programme
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi- 110 017
tel: 91-11- 43180215/43180200/ 26864678
fax: 91-11- 26864688
website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org
<http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/>
alternate email: <mailto:nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com>
nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com