The Right to Information
For BCAJ August, 2008
Narayan Varma
Part A : CIC’s decisions
Public
Notaries
Mr. Dhiresh Shah, advocate and notary of Ahmedabad
made an application-appeal to the Central Information Commission in connection
with the processing of the applications of Public Notaries for the renewal of
their licences issued by the Department of Legal
Affairs.
During the
hearing of the appeal, Mr. Shah pointed out that there were gross and avoidable
delays in renewing the licences of Notaries, which
not only frequently resulted in breaks in their service as Public Notaries, but
also caused them financial hardship and mental worry, and in some cases, even
loss of reputation. He pointed out that the main purpose of his coming before
the Commission was to ensure that a transparent and accountable system was kept
in place, so that not only the renewal applications of Public Notaries were
attended to with speed, but also there was certain accountability about timely
renewal of these licences.
CPIO,
Implementation Cell, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice,
Upon hearing
the parties, the impression the Commission got was that the respondents were
aware of the shortcomings in the system of renewal of licences
of Public Notaries, which caused unexplained and avoidable delays in effecting
these renewals. There was no centralised monitoring
of receipt of renewal applications, their processing and issue of renewal
certificates.
The Commission
felt that this is one system which was crying out for reform. The Commission
recommended to the public authority — the Department of Legal Affairs — to institute
a system of centralised monitoring of receipt,
processing and final approval of all applications received from Public Notaries
for renewal of their licences. This information
should be placed on the website in order to enable those whose interest it touched
to keep themselves informed about the progress of
their renewal applications. Since the number of such applications in a year is
not more than 500 to 600, there is no reason why centralised
monitoring for it could not be put in place. The effort on the part of the
public authority should be to renew the licences well
before the expiry of the time for which the licences
were initially issued. This system will not only save Public Notaries a good
deal of anxiety and botheration, it will help bring to the system much needed
accountability and transparency.
Based on the
above, CIC directed the head of the public authority, viz. Secretary,
Department of Legal Affairs, to apprise the Commission within two months of the
receipt of the order as to the action taken by it in respect of the above
recommendation of the Commission [S. 19(8)(a) of
In the course
of the hearing, Mr. Shah also pointed out that the public authority was
required to publish in an Official Gazette all notary-related information which
included the issue of notary licences and their
renewals. This has not been done for the past several years.
The Commission
also directed that a notice be issued to the head of the public authority as to
why a compensation of Rs.15,000 (Rupees fifteen
thousand only) not be awarded to the appellant for the detriment suffered by
him.
However, Mr.
Shah pointed out that he was not interested in either imposition of a fine or
penalty on the respondents, nor was he interested in compensation. What he actually
wanted was that the system must be so improved as to free it from its several
shortcomings which affected a broad cross-section of Public Notaries. The
Commission appreciated the appellant’s position.
We also
appreciate Mr. Dhiresh Shah’s spirit.
[No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01451 of
Travel
cost of
This is the
case of complaint by Mr. Yogesh Mehta of Mumbai (BCAS Foundation assists him in
his fights from time to time) requesting for penalty [S. 20(1)] on SEBI and
compensation from SEBI [S. 19(8)(b)].
In one
The Order of
CIC is as under :
·
The main contention of the respondents (SEBI) is
that delay on their part was not intentional and occurred as the requested
information was not readily available with SEBI and has to be obtained from
BSE. They have emphasised the fact that, as
acknowledged by appellant, all information has been provided to him. The
respondents have maintained that the information requested by the
appellant/complainant, Mr. Yogesh Mehta pertained to several transactions and
agencies, collecting and collating the same naturally took time. They have urged
that the delays were not without reasonable cause.
·
On perusing the records and hearing the
submissions of both parties, it is decided that no penalty need by imposed on
the respondents, because the delay that has occurred in providing the
information to the complainant is attributable to the complex nature of the
information requested, which needed time-consuming collection and collation
process, which brings it within the ambit of ‘reasonable cause’ u/s.20(1) of the
·
However, the Commission cannot be oblivious to
the fact that the delays in this matter have resulted in detriment to the
complainant and has impacted the complainant’s rightful claim to timely
information under the
·
In view of the above, it is directed that the
public authority, viz. SEBI shall pay an amount of Rs.
10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within 2
weeks from the date of receipt of this order and intimate the fact of payment
to the Commission within 1 week of effecting it. The
compensation amount may be paid from the resources of the public authority, viz.
SEBI.
[No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00591 &
00592 of
Income-tax
records of a Charitable Trust :
A very
significant issue of the concept of personal information vis-à-vis
public charitable trust is involved in this case. Mr. J. K. Sachdeva
sought information from Directorate General of Income-tax (Exemptions) of one
NGO, the
He sought the
following information :
a) Have
the trustees filed income-tax returns for years 2004-05 and 2005-06 ?
b) If yes,
how much income-tax they have paid for the trust ?
Copies of the audited statements be provided to me.
c) Has all
the expenditure incurred by them been for charitable purpose ?
d) How
much salaries either in cash or in kind/
movable properties been drawn by the trustees ?
e) Have
they accounted for all the cash amount received as advanced premium from the students ?
f)
Have they submitted to the department the
purchase agreements of all the properties bought in personal name or in the
name of trustees ? If yes, copies may be provided
to me please.
Information
was provided for (a) above, but
The
Commission, however, noted that this appeal is different from other petitions regarding
access to income-tax-return-related information, in the sense that the present
appeal is about information regarding a public charitable trust. Given the
character of a public charitable trust, it is important to decide whether the
income-tax-related information of such trust, when all of its activities are
open to public scrutiny, at all be allowed to remain
confidential. In other words, whether or not to disclose such information will
have to be examined in the context of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and whether
there could be a public interest in disclosure of such information u/s.8(2) of
the
The Commission
then felt that these matters should be first seen at the level of the public
authority (Appellate Authority) given the public authority’s experience in
similar matters. Income Tax Commissioners enjoy the power, u/s.138(b)
of the Income-tax Act, to decide whether confidentially held information, such
as certain classes of income-tax returns, be disclosed in public interest. A
determination regarding whether to disclose in public interest income-tax
returns of public charitable trust, is thus quite in order.
In view of the
above, the Commission remitted back the matter to the
Appellate Authority (AA), Mr. Laxman Das, Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions), with a
direction that he shall give a hearing to the parties, including the
third-party, and take a decision in this matter within 4 weeks from the date of
receipt of this Order.
We shall
follow up this case with interest as to what is the final decision in the
matter (hopefully shall report in BCAJ next issue).
[No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00170 of
Part B : The
I am of the
opinion that S. 4 of the
It is the
experience of all that many public authorities even more than 32 months after
Conference was
held of all CICs and SICs
on
“Enforcement of S. 4 of the
(1) The
duty of the Government is to pro-actively make available key information to
all. The Public Authorities to 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.
(2) It is
suggested that strict directions be issued by the Central Government, that all
the State Governments/Public Authorities should fulfil
their obligations laid down u/s.4 of the
(3) The
Central and State Governments must necessarily make adequate fiscal allocations
for computerisation and connectivity from Information
Commission level to Mandal/Taluk level Public
Authorities, so as to effectively operationalise the
provisions of the
(4) Standardisation of
procedure is a must for the disclosures mandated u/s.4 of the Act.
(5) Make
all Government services accessible to the common man in his locality, through
common service delivery outlets and ensure efficiency, transparency and
reliability of such services at affordable costs to realise
the basic needs of the common man.
(6) Citizen-centric
approach to delivery of selected (bulk) services through Common Service Centres (
(7) Notification
of e-District services u/s.4(1) of the Act to enable
and legally enforce sharing of information as prescribed, electronically.
(8) e-District to act
as an enabler for facilitating objectives/services relating to
(9) Need/feasibility
of notifying CSCs as APIOs
under the Act.
Part C :
Other News
·
Personal Information :
Residential
phone number, mobile number and e-mail fall under the category of personal
information. This was decided by the Information Commission in response to the
·
·
Cabinet documents :
Mr. Suresh
Joshi, SIC,
However, it is
the view of the Central Information Commission that all file notings are available for access in the
8(1)(i) : Cabinet papers including records of
deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other
officers :
Provided
that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the
material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public
after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over :
Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions
specified in this Section shall not be disclosed.
·
Information on FIIs
under the
Acting on an
While issuing
the order, Information Commissioner, A. N. Tiwari said : “SEBI would examine the matter closely in terms
of extant practices/instructions, consult all or a section of stakeholders,
examine international practices and obtain views of top functionaries in the
field and the Government, before formulating a response.”
Even as the
Commission had brought stock exchanges under the
·
Air-travel on Air India of high-profile passengers :
Air
In the request
made, it is stated : Aviation is a competitive
industry and only Air
Air