Re: [HumJanenge] Re: COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-013

Dear Mr Roy

 

I am also a very sincere proponent of doing away with hearings. Whether in courts or quasi-judicial forums like consumer 'courts' or information commissions the charade of hearings is mainly to wear out the citizen complainant/petitioner. I am shocked at the number of hearings even an info cmmmr holds before disposing of an appeal/complaint. And this when the RTI Act specifcally mentions that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

 

Given the documents complainants/appellants submit with their complaints/appeals it should be possible for any info commr to decide apriori whether the PIO has defaulted or not. The opportunity of being heard before imposing the mandatoruy penalty is almost a formality. Come to think of it, what are the decisions the IC should take:

 

1. Is the info available?

 

2. Is available info disclosable?

 

3. If available and disclosable was it provided within the prescribed time frame? If not what is the duration of delay and what would be the penalty and adm action required?

 

The answers to the above questions are simple and straight forward. Whether the reply by the PIO/FAA tally with the answers is what creates the need for the opportunity to being heard to the PIO. Please do remember that even if I ask for a copy of the Finance Act 2010-11 from the PIO of PMO s/he cannot sit on it claiming that it is not available with him/her.

 

Even the duration of hearings is alright and is confirmed in real life. In fact the unfortunate thing is atleast the Kerala SIC has been holding closed door hearings and complaints about this has not produced any desired results. The hearings through video conference of course has its own limitations when holding public hearings and all my hearings with central ICs have been through video conferences and in one case even through conferenc call on telephone!

 

So the issues raised by Shailesh are very much in line with the the spirit of the Act. Where I tend to disagree is the need for appraisers/rejection of complaints and appeals without due process (he calls it summary rejection to denote rejection without admission!)

 

Hence my own suggestion is that having got the PIO's statement, if the IC has any genuine doubt he can raise it with the complainant/appellant and take his decision after getting the clarification. The ICs are appraisers and penalisers rolled into one nad the one cannot be separatd from the other. And NO complaint/appeal should be disposed off without admission.

 

regards n bw

 

ravi

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:54 PM, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Guptaji

I never say anything without having proof.

Shailesh Gandhi made the comment I referred to in this message at
HumJanenge-Yahoogroup. As you are a member there I suggest you verify
it at this link,
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/HumJanenge/message/13188
Titled "Disposals of information Commissions" dated 6,Jan,2007

Quotes:

"3.. Read the appeals/complaints to see primary admissibility, or if
suitable for
summary disposal. ... It might be worthwhile considering a pool of
about 50 people (appraisers), who could be paid maybe Rs. 200 per
case. They would be called by rotation and the cases given to them
would be in serial order number. They would read the
appeals/complaints and the annexures and make a short précis giving
the essential features of the matter. They would also recommend
whether the case is fit for summary disposal."
:
"3(b) If papers show that the Appellant has got a perfectly legitimate
rejection/
or has got information and is yet appealing or complaining unreasonably, dismiss
the appeal/complaint, and intimate the appellant. There may be cases, where in
at least five identical cases, the Commission has rejected the appeal/complaint,
in which case also it should be recommended for summary rejection."
:
"3(c) These suggestions along with the précis would be put before the
Information
Commissioner, who would take a decision. The Information Commissioner would also
be responsible for reading the original appeal and comparing it with the précis
being given to him in at least 10% of the cases. If there is a need to observe

the farce of a hearing, as per the so-called principles of 'natural justice'
enshrined in a Supreme Court judgement, about 60 matters could be disposed on
one day and a farcical 'hearing' held, as is done in certain courts. "

:
"4) Each side should be given not more than 7 minutes usually for
their arguments.
As far as possible,-in atleast 90% of the matters,- an order should be dictated
in front of the parties. A secretary could take dictation and directly type on
the computer. An average hearing including giving the order should be over in 30
minutes, and each Commissioner should normally hold about 10 to12 hearings in a
day, if required. All other correspondence in the Commissioner's
office should normally be handled by the Registrar."

A careful reading of the extracts I have selected show that almost
every aspect of the badmaashi which is being attempted now by the
draft RTI Rules is based on what Shailesh-bhai (and I stress 'bhai')
had dreamed up 4 years back. For instance,

a) Registry,  (incl Privatisaton of the Registry to NGOs at Rs.200 per case)
b) Hearing not required
c) Rejection of appeal at admission stage by Registry (in the name of
the Commission of course)
d) Matters being decided by the Registry, and the Commissioner only
checking "10%" of the cases.

Any normal / reasonable person reading this would tell you that he is
a maha-harami for honest decent citizens. And that is precisely what
our friend and member "ACF ANAND" told dear Shailesh bhai in reply
"Who has to implement this. I think you are in dreams"

Today my only query to Shailesh Bhai is this,

"In 2007 you calculated very scientifically (you are allegedly an
engineer) that even with only a farce of a hearing an Information
Commissioner could dispose of 10-12 cases per day. Yet, at your peak
you were disposing 25 cases per day - What are your secrets which are
still to be inflicted on the poor people of India ?"

Sarbajit

On 12/22/10, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Raminder ji, I think that we shold not take this seriously.  This is an old
> song
> about Mr. Gandhi, without any proof.
> ________________________________
> From: Raminder Singh <ramisingh.bbc@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 22 December, 2010 1:01:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS :
> ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-013
>
> Dear Sarbjit
>
> I could not believe what you wrote about Government removing the right of
> citizens to be heard in person while their appeals are being decided at the
> Central Information Commission. I then re-read the new rules and discovered
> you
> are absolutely correct. Spoke to an Information Commissioner who says that
> the
> entire procedure and changes for Central Information Commission"s procedure
> are
> based on CIC response to the draft rules which CIC agreed to at their
> meeting. I
> then asked if Sailesh Gandhi had agreed to this, and learned that Gandhi had
> also given his assent to all the CIC proposals, and that this was actually
> one
> of Gandhi"s suggestions to increase the disposal rate at CIC.
>
> Raminder.