RIGHT to INFORMATION - 2011 January to December- 2011
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RIGHT TO INFORMATION - 2011 January to December- 2011 Compiled By Human Rights Documentation ∗ Indian Social Institute, Lodi Road, New Delhi, India Scared Pune RTI activist takes back complaint "I am scared because my parents are under immense pressure ... I just want to get rid of everything," says Right to Information activist Arun Mane of Pune. Mr. Mane, who registered a police complaint after he was attacked by an unknown assailant on Sunday, withdrew his complaint on Tuesday. In the affidavit given to the Maval taluk tahsildar, Mr. Mane said two of his complaints — about being threatened and attacked — were false. "None of these incidents happened in reality. I am suffering from mental imbalance, which led me to file the complaints," is what the affidavit says, according to Pune Rural Superintendent of Police Pratap Dighavkar. On Sunday, Mr. Mane complained that he was attacked in the godown of his shoe shop early in the morning. Earlier, on December 28, 2010 he complained of having received threats, after which the local police granted him protection. Mr. Mane was following up on the applications filed by the slain RTI activist, Satish Shetty. Shetty was murdered on January 13, 2010. However, the police claim to have found 'circumstantial evidence' to show that Mr. Mane's allegation of having been attacked was false. "In both cases, there were no eyewitnesses. His servant, who had gone to fetch a newspaper while he was attacked, didn't hear any commotion." There was no indication of a scuffle, as claimed by Mane, having taken place in the godown, which is barely 3X3 feet, Mr. Dighavkar told journalists here. The forensic report also showed that the wounds on Mr. Mane's body were "self inflicted." "The report states the wounds and the cut marks on his shirt do not coordinate." Mr. Dighavkar said the forensic report came first, after which Mr. Mane told the police that he would like to take back his complaint. (Hindu, 05/01/2011) Official fined for delaying info under RTI Act MYSORE: State information commissioner H N Krishna on Saturday fined an official from Mandya for delaying information sought under the Right to Information Act. Hearing the petitions filed before the information court, the commissioner took the taluk panchayat official of K R Pet taluk to task and fined him Rs 5,000. The application was pending before him for nine months. "Officials must provide details within 30 days of filing of the application. In case the information is given after the specific period, the copies should be provided free of cost," the commissioner stated. Information is taxpayers' right and it is the duty of officials to provide the same to them, he said. Action would be taken against the officers who do not provide details within a specific period. The fine amount will be deducted from their salaries. Krishna said when the officials do not have information required by an individual, they have to transfer the applications to the other officers or get the details from them. "They can't escape saying they do not have the details or return the application," he said. (TOI, 24/01/2011) Information on corruption can't be withheld under RTI Act: CIC Information on allegations of corruption is not excluded from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has held. The information could be furnished by applying the severability clause under Section 10, Information Commissioner Sushma Singh said in an order passed on an appeal filed by Vishwanath Swami, a social activist of Chennai. Seeking information on every purchase made by the Narcotic Control Bureau for office modernisation from 1999 to 2006, he alleged that all purchases were made from a single company, D3D Technologies, without calling for open tenders. Initially, on Mr. Swamy's application under the RTI Act, the NCB Zonal Director, Chennai, said the company was selected on the basis of competency and it quoted the rate directly and through the Kendriya Bhandar as per rules and regulations. Not satisfied with the reply, Mr. Swamy filed an appeal but the First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied copies of the documents stating they were exempt under the RTI Act. The FAA said: "Access for any person to these documents such as quotations will expose the secrecy involved in such sensitive investigations and also the apprehension and prosecution of offenders by the NCB." The present appeal before the CIC is directed against this order. The Commission ∗ This is a collection of previously published news and views from the print as well as the electronic media, whose reference marked at the end of each news items. Department of Documentation and Library (DDL) of the Indian Social Institute, New Delhi neither claims to the veracity of the facts in the news nor subscribes to the views expressed. said: “The appellant alleges that a huge amount of government money has been illegally siphoned off. In order to expose this rampant corruption and pursue this matter to its logical end, he needs the documents which he has already requested and peruse the file related only to the purchases made by the then Director.” Under Section 24, “the information pertaining to allegations of corruption is not excluded from disclosure from an exempted organisation under the RTI Act.” Names to be given While rejecting the appellant's request for inspecting the documents, the Commission asked the authorities to provide within 20 days the names of companies and addresses from which quotations were called; to provide comparative statement/quotations from various suppliers of hardware and software equipment/system and other requisite information sought. (Hindu, 22/03/2011) RTI Federation demands publication of assets of Information Commissioners The State Committee of Kerala RTI Federation has demanded that the five Information Commissioners of the State Information Commission of Kerala, including the Chief Information Commissioner, should declare their assets and liabilities through the official website of the Commission. All the Information Commissioners of the Centre, including Chief Information Commissioner, have already published their Declarations of Assets and Liabilities in accordance with the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is regarded as one of the most important legislations passed in India since Independence, the Committee said. The RTI law demands transparency at every stage in public service, which is steeped in so much dishonesty. Therefore it is high and right time that all the Information Commissioners of Kerala, including the Chief, publish their assets and liabilities without further delay, said Advocate D. B. Binu, general secretary of Kerala RTI Federation. (Hindu, 09/05/2011) In a conflict, RTI Actwill prevail over Supreme Court rules: CIC The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that in a conflict between the Right to Information Act and the internal rules of a Public Authority, the RTI Act must prevail. It would prevail even if the internal rules pertain to the Supreme Court. CIC Shailesh Gandhi passed this order in a case, in which information on certain judicial records was sought from the Supreme Court under the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FFA) in the court held that any information on judicial records could be accessed only under Order XII of the Supreme Court rules. The judicial records pertained to letters written to judges by R.S. Misra, appellant in the case. Mr. Misra, who wrote the letters in connection with a Special Leave Petition filed by him, wanted to know their status and filed an application under the RTI Act. Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court could not cite internal rules to deny information if it had been sought under the RTI Act. Further that information could be denied only if the information sought was prohibited under the RTI Act itself. “The right to information is a fundamental right of the citizen of India. This has been clearly recognised by the Supreme Court in several decisions and subsequently codified by Parliament in 2005. The RTI Act was enacted with the spirit of ensuring transparency...Section 3 of the RTI Act lays down that subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, all citizens shall have the right to information… Further Section 22 of the RTI Act expressly provides that the provisions of the RTI 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 the RTI Act. In other words, where there is any inconsistency in a law as regards furnishing of information, such law shall be superseded by the RTI Act. Insertion of a non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act was a conscious choice of Parliament to safeguard the citizens' fundamental right to information…If the PIO has received a request for information under the RTI Act, the information shall be provided to the applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act and any denial of the same must be in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only..” (Hindu, 13/05/2011) SC rushes to HC seeking stay on CIC's bare-all RTI order NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has rushed to the Delhi high court seeking a stay on the Central Information Commission's May 11 order allowing litigants to raise RTI queries on the logic behind judgments. How could the Supreme Court provide information under RTI on why a particular order or judgment was passed that went beyond the reasoning and logic given in that order or judgment, the SC asked. The CIC's bare-all order on an RTI appeal filed by RS Misra directed the SC to answer his queries — why his special leave petition was dismissed and whether in deciding the appeal, the bench followed the principles of natural justice — by June 5.