For BCAJ September, 2007
Narayan Varma
CIC’s decisions
Dr. Vijay Kumar Sinha of Patna filed RTI application
with the Public Information Officer, National Human Rights Commission, New
Delhi, on 24th July 2006, seeking information on the action taken on the
complaint dated 13th December 2002, sent by him, and other related issues.
The PIO stated that there were
no entries available in the computer of having received different complaints
purportedly to have been sent by the appellant during 1999 to 2002.
The Commission heard both the sides and noted that basically this was not a case regarding seeking of any particular information by the appellant. The case actually relates to an incident of trespass by Police authorities on private property, regarding which the appellant had lodged a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission sometime in 2002. During the hearing, the respondents admitted that they had not been able to decide the issue as yet. Although it is not the concern of this Commission to make any intervention in the affairs of the National Human Rights Commission, it does share the concern of the appellant that a case which may have possibilities of physical violence could not be settled even after 5 years. The only consolation seemed to be that according to the respondents, the case had made substantial progress, and that it was likely to be settled soon.
(Dr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Kanti Niketan, Choudhary Tola, Patna v. National Human
Rights Commission, CIC/OK/A/2007/00588 of 10-9- 2007)
Application of one Ms. Pooja Joshi to the Regional Passport Office, Ahmedabad was not replied to. Ms. Joshi complained to the
CIC and requested to levy penalty of Rs.25,000. In
response to the show-cause notice, the PIO explained that the application fee was
not paid in the prescribed mode and hence, he argued that the application
cannot be treated as an RTI application and so the penalty proceedings should
be dropped. On examination of the RTI application, the Commission observed that
the application was not accompanied with the prescribed fee in the prescribed
mode i.e., against IPO/Bankers Cheque/Cash.
Hence, the Commission accepted the submission of the PIO and decided to drop
the penalty proceedings.
(Ms. Pooja
Paresh Joshi v. Regional Passport Office, Ahmedabad, CIC/OK/C/2006/00178, dated 3-9- 2007)
In the first case of its kind,
a former Deputy Commissioner of Police has successfully invoked provisions of
the Right to Information (RTI) Act to secure information on a departmental
probe pending against him. Dilip Bhujbal,
former DCP of the Ghatkopar-Mulund Zone and now Superintendent
with the State CID, Pune, was suspended after the hooch
tragedy that had claimed a record number of lives in December 2004. Along with Bhujbal, 21 other senior officials were suspended on
charges of dereliction of duty. Subsequently, pending a departmental probe,
they were reinstated by the Home Department.
Meanwhile, a PIL was filed
before the High Court by a social organisation, Janhit Manch. Bhujbal
then asked for certain papers to be submitted before the Court to prove that he
was not guilty. On
His RTI application and first appeal were rejected. Both contended that as the departmental probe was still in progress and the case was also pending before the High Court, it would not be possible for them to part with the information sought by him.
The SIC ruled that as the
papers sought by Bhujbal had been submitted before
the Court, the same should be made available to him. Also, giving the information
to Bhujbal would not have an adverse impact on the
ongoing probe against him or the case pending before the Court. He further held
that there is nothing confidential in it. In fact, even the principle of
natural justice demands that he (Bhujbal) be given
the relevant papers.
The RTI Act
In September 2007 issue, I had extensively discussed the term ‘Public Authority’ within the meaning of S. 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Full Bench of the Commission has held that stock exchanges are ‘public authority’ within the meaning of S. 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was also noted that the Delhi High Court has stayed the order of the CIC acting on petition by NSE. Now the Bombay Stock Exchange has filed a writ in Bombay High Court, challenging the order of CIC. Two persons, one Yogesh Mehta (who was one of the applicants in the CIC’s order) and one NGO have entered as interveners. The matter is likely to be heard soon.
Other News
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000 to a city resident for causing ‘mental torture’ and ‘anxiety’ to him by giving misleading information on tracing his property file.
The CIC asked the DDA to pay a token compensation of Rs.50,000 to the applicant, saying that this amount could be recovered from the persons who had handled the file so casually.
In response to RTI application
made by one lawyer, Mr. Gokhale, IFCI produced a
certificate from the Government that said it wasn’t a ‘public body’. Therefore,
the company argued, it was outside the RTI purview and did not have to respond
to the request.
But Mr. Gokhale persisted and went to SEBI, the stock exchange regulator. Because SEBI is a public body that comes under the RTI canvas, it could be approached for information on another company controlled by it.
Having done that, he also went
to the Central Information Commission (CIC) challenging the validity of the
certificate issued by the Government. In a recent ruling, the CIC favoured Mr. Gokhale, pulled up
IFCI, declared the certificate it held ‘invalid’ and urged Government
departments and ministries to refrain from issuing such certificates. “Whether
an entity is a public authority or not is to be determined only under the RTI
Act”, it ruled.
Pune
Police Commissioner, Mr. Jayant Umranikar
and RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi, on
Admitting that officials who
possess information often try to guard it, Umranikar
said, “Citizens need to act as the owners and demand their rights. They are
empowered by the RTI Act to do so”.
However, in the same breath, Umranikar underlined the need to ensure that RTI
applications sought genuine information.
Green activist Sunita Godbole’s RTI application on the depleting green cover in Malabar Hill, the city’s swank destination, has confirmed the fears that many trees are pulled down in Jinnah House. Fifteen trees in Jinnah House, a heritage structure, have been pulled down by the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR), its present custodian.
While the ICCR has consistently
denied that any tree was cut inside Jinnah House,
replies to Godbole’s RTI queries reveal that PA Naringrekar, Superintendent of Gardens and Public
Information Officer (PIO) of the BMC’s Tree
Authority, had given permission to chop trees. The reason ?
They were uprooted, fallen and dangerous !
Yet another RTI Clinic :
When I was younger, I knew that
the RTI acronym stood for Ratan Tata
Institute (on
Now, of course the RTI stands
for the increasingly popular Right to Information. The common man now knows he
has the right to information, but does not know how to go about it.
Right To
Information clinics are sprouting all over the city. Yet another has been organised by the Bombay Chartered Accounts’ Society at
Jolly Bhavan No. 2, New Marine Lines. For more
details, you can call 66595601-05.
RTI in action (No. 5)
BCAS had considered filing a writ challenging amendment
made vide the Finance Act, 2007 by insertion of proviso to clause (iv) to S.
193, which reads as under :
“Provided that nothing
contained in this clause shall apply to the interest exceeding rupees ten thousand
payable on 8th Savings (Taxable) Bonds, 2003 during the financial year.”
It was the view of BCAS that this retroactive amendment
is against norms of fair tax policies. For this purpose, we sought certain
information from RBI on subscription to 8% GOI Savings Bonds, 2003 (taxable),
one of them :
In reply RBI writes :
We advise that the data in respect to subscription to
8% Government of India Savings Bonds Scheme — 2003 (taxable), by individuals,
trusts and the number of subscribers, etc. is not available with us, since the
Scheme is being handled by agency banks ever since its inception and reporting
by them is done ‘Bond — Ledger Account’ (BLA)-wise. However, the year-wise and
BLA number-wise details of the same up to
|
Summarised
Annexure |
|
|
Year |
Number of subscribers |
|
2003 |
107,594 |
|
2004 |
310,099 |
|
2005 |
236,369 |
|
2006 |
156,557 |
|
2007* |
18,044 |
|
|
828,663 |
* Data for the year 2007 are as reported by agency
banks/ SHCIL up to
|
Subscribers
subscribing bonds of |
|
|
Less than Rs.1 lakh |
479,376 |
|
Between Rs.1 lakh to 3 lakhs |
174,811 |
|
Between Rs.3 lakh to 5 lakhs |
72,218 |
|
Between Rs.5 lakhs to 10 lakhs |
56,272 |
|
Between Rs.10 lakhs to 15 lakhs |
15,479 |
|
Between Rs.15 lakhs to 25 lakhs |
13,635 |
|
Above 25 lakhs |
16,869 |
|
|
828,613 |
Based on the advice of the counsel, the plan to file a
writ was dropped. The above figures are interesting for readers to note. The
dates for RTI Clinic in October are Saturdays, 13th, 20th and 27th :