We all must understand that our empowerment by RTI act does not mean
that we are above rest of the world. If there is any problem with the
actions of an officer/office then we must exhaust all available
remedies to take care of it. If someone is not having a knowledge of
the available of the remedies, the fault lies with him and not with
the head of state.
On 8/21/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> To:
> Mr P M Ravindran
>
> I do not know why I am repeatedly receiving such rude, scandalous and
> ill conceived emails from you. Kindly stop sending me such emails. I
> particularly object to phrases in your emails which betray disrespect
> for the Constitution of India and its offices. I am given to
> understand that you are an ex-serviceman, and I opine that stoppage of
> your pension and other post-retirement benefits would be a fitting
> penalty for your disrespect, and I sincerely hope that Madam
> President, to whom you have addressed your offensive email, takes
> swift and appropriate action.
>
> Sarbajit Roy
>
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Ravindran P M <pmravindran@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Ms Pratibha Devi Singh Patil, President of India,
>>
>> Firstly, please note that I am not endorsing copy of this e mail to the PM
>> because I am amoung those who believe that the earlier the present
>> incumbent
>> is kicked out of that office the better it will be for the country.
>>
>> Next, I am writing this to you to bring to your attention the blatant
>> subversion of the RTI Act by the public servants of whom you are the
>> executive head and is responsible to set the wrongs right.
>>
>> Please see the DoPT OM No F/10/02/2008-IR dated 24 Sep 2010 in the
>> document
>> attached.
>>
>> Now, your attention is invited to Sec 6 of the RTI Act which is reproduced
>> for your study:
>>
>> 6 (1) 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.
>> (2)
>>
>> 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.
>> (3) Where an application is made to a public authority
>> requesting for an information,—
>> (i) which is held by another public authority; or
>> (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected
>> with the functions of another public authority,
>>
>> the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer
>> the
>> application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public
>> authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:
>>
>> Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section
>> shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days
>> from the date of receipt of the application.
>>
>> Now look at the highlighted portion and you will realise that the DoPT is
>> just trying to exploit the use of singular in Sec 6(3). Isn't this against
>> the very spirit of the act? I am sure you will realise why this provision
>> is
>> per se important. How many of us really know the intricacies of the
>> functioning of govt departments to know which public authority exactly
>> holds
>> which kind of information? (The pity is that till date none, including the
>> information commissions, have published the info required to be published
>> under Sec 4 of the RTI Act!) And even in one public authority we all know
>> how the employees make you run from pillar to post to get just a simple
>> job
>> done. So it was really a very deliberate provision in the RTI Act to
>> prevent
>> the public servants from knowingly or unknowingly harassing the
>> information
>> seeker.
>>
>> One cannot overlook the fact that the applicant is seeking information
>> with
>> some definite purpose (though he doesn't have to disclose the purpose
>> officially!) and he will not be interested in a five year plan to compile
>> info from dozens of public authorities with just one application to one
>> public authority. So let us accept it that in general any PIO will have to
>> use this provision to send the application to 2 or in rare cases to 3 and
>> in
>> rarest of the rarest cases upto 5 other PIOs, which by no means can be
>> considered unreasonable.
>>
>> In this context, one has to also recollect two other issues- one the
>> motives
>> of the DoPT and two the attitude of the information commissioners.
>>
>> You may recollect that the DoPT had also tried to SUBVERT the RTI Act by
>> trying to argue that every complaint or appeal to the information
>> commission
>> has to be heard by all the information commissioners together! The
>> ridiculousness of the argument does strike one immediately. The DoPT
>> ventured to make such a demand again because of the language used in Sec
>> 18
>> (1) which states that ' Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be
>> the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information
>> Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint
>> from
>> any person,—...' They want the Commission to be interpreted as the whole
>> lot
>> of commissioners sitting in one bench! Ridiculous on the face of it, isn't
>> it? Fortunately this has not been agreed to but the last I heard on this
>> issue was that the matter was being contested in Delhi High Court!
>>
>> The next issue I wanted to bring to your attention now is how the other
>> provisions, which favour the citizens, are not so intricately analysed and
>> implemented, even though there are absolutely no ambiguities in them.
>>
>> The first case is of Sec 5(2), dealing with appointment of APIOs. It reads
>> as
>> ' Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) (dealing with
>> appointment of PIOs), every public authority shall designate an officer,
>> within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, at each
>> sub-divisional
>> level or other sub-district level as a Central Assistant Public
>> Information
>> Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may
>> be,
>> to receive the applications for information or appeals under this Act for
>> forwarding the same forthwith to the Central Public Information Officer or
>> the State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified under
>> sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the
>> State Information Commission, as the case may be:..'
>>
>> Now again this a very important provision in favour of the citizen. The
>> task
>> of the APIOs is very clear- that is to accept applications (including, of
>> course, the fees prescribed) and appeals meant for other public
>> authorities
>> and forward them to the concerned PIOs/FAAs or ICs. The purpose is also
>> obvious, that is to help the citizens access info without running from
>> pillar to post, with the added advantage of saving on postal charges with
>> the assured accountability for delivering the document correctly! But it
>> is
>> the interpretation of the sub divisional level that is being misused to
>> deny
>> the citizens their right under this Act. Now what does 'every public
>> authority shall designate... at each sub divisional level' mean? It needs
>> to
>> be analysed as follows.
>>
>> A village office is also a public authority. Can it designate an APIO at
>> any
>> sub divisional level? Definitely NO! So the clause actually becomes 'every
>> public authority at sub divisional level shall designate an APIO...'
>>
>> Now does the clause restrict the task of the APIO to accepting
>> applications/appeals only for the PIOs of the same department/ autonomous
>> body? Again NO! In fact the liberal (if it should be considered so) and
>> correct interpretation would mean that an APIO at any sub divisional level
>> public authority can accept an application or 1st appeal to any other
>> public
>> authority (irrespective of the distinction between state and centre!) or
>> any
>> 2nd appeal to any IC!
>>
>> But what do you find in practice? While the SICs themselves have not
>> designated any APIOs at any subdivisional level (for obvious reasons) they
>> have wrongly interpreted the task of the APIOs in restricting them to
>> accepting applications and1st appeals pertaining to their own
>> departments/autonomous bodies only. ( The Kerala SIC had gone one step
>> further and even written an illegal letter to the PIO of the office of the
>> RDO, Palakkad not to accept any applications or appeals, contravening even
>> the RTI Rules promulgated by the Govt of Kerala and in force then. That
>> the
>> Govt of Kerala has itself has been subverting the letter and spirit of the
>> law by amending the rules is another cause for concern. But those details
>> later.) As far as the central public authorities are concerned, for some
>> of
>> them, the APIOs at designated Head Post Offices have been tasked to accept
>> applications and appeals meant for them. But this is a far cry from the
>> actual provision in Sec 5 (2)!
>>
>> The next important subversion is of Sec 20(1) regarding imposition of
>> penalty. It reads as ' Where the Central Information Commission or the
>> State
>> Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any
>> complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information
>> Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has,
>> without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for
>> information or has not furnished information within the time specified
>> under
>> sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for
>> information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading
>> information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request
>> or
>> obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a
>> penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is
>> received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such
>> penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:...'
>>
>> Here the important thing to note is that the imposition of penalty is
>> mandatory even if there has been only delay in providing the information.
>> The delay is an obvious fact and there cannot be an opinion whether there
>> has been any delay or not. The opinion can be only about the validity of
>> the
>> reasons for the delay. You may try and recollect now in how many cases
>> the
>> mandatory penalty have been imposed in your own appeals and what were the
>> valid reasons for the delay in other cases.
>>
>> I hope I have elaborated enough to drive home the point that this letter
>> from the DoPT is yet another act of subversion of the law and the CIC is
>> an
>> accomplice!
>>
>> Yours truly
>>
>> P M Ravindran
>> 2/18, 'Aathira'
>> Kalpathy-678003
>> Tel: 0491-2576042
>>
>> http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com
>> 'Judiciary Watch' at www.vigilonline.com
>> http://www.judicialreforms.org/
>> http://www.roguepolice.com
>> http://milapchoraria.tripod.com
>>
>>
>
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
