CIC'S letter on the implementatin of Sec. 4, (SUO MOTU Disclosure) of RTI Act. D.O.No.CIC/AT/D/10/000111 Dated : 18.11.2010 Subject : Implementation of Section of the RTI Act 2005 Reference Commission's directive dated 15.11.2010 under Section 19(8)(a) to the public authorities for time-bound implementation of Section 4 obligations under the RTI Act. 2. I invite your kind attention to the directive of the Commission for time-bound implementation of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, issued under the powers vested in it under Section 19(8)(a) of the RTI Act. Section 19(8)(a) of the Act states the following:- "19(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to— (a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including— (i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form; (ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be; (iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information; (iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records; (v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials; (vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4;" 3. The directive emphasizes that compliance with the Section 4 obligations by public authorities is at the heart of the RTI Act. It enjoined public authorities to accept transparency commitments by undertaking time-bound suo-motu disclosures. 4. Underlining that, transparency commitments and suo-motu disclosures would remain nothing more than vague promises, unless these are matched by tangible action through proper record-management-practices, and time-bound disclosure of several items of identifiable information under supervision and guidance of a senior officer of the public authority, this directive gives the following instructions:- (i) Public authorities to carry out time-bound action to complete parts of their Section 4 obligation within 120 days. (ii) The balance obligations, which involve sifting of records and making a conscious determination about what information can be brought into the public domain suo-motu, is to be completed within six months. This is part of the record-management aspect of Section 4 of the Act. Page 2 of 3 (iii) It commends designation by the public authority of a sufficiently senior officer as Transparency Officer, to oversee the implementation of the Section 4 obligations. These officers are also required to be the interface with the Central Information Commission on the one hand and the public on the other, about transparency aspects of the functioning of the public authority. 5. As per the provisions of the RTI Act, a large part of the Section 4 commitment by the public authorities was to be completed within 120 days of the Act coming into force, i.e. 6. It is important to note that Section 4 obligates the public authorities to use the latest technologies to discharge their transparency commitments under that Section, subject to availability of resources. 7. Commission feels that it has now become necessary that the top echelons of the public authorities are sensitized about seriously addressing the several aspects of discharging their Section 4 commitments, including progressive digitization of data and use of other available technologies, to not only make transparency the hallmark of their functioning, but also to create the right conditions for the public to access the information through painless and efficient processes that shall be put in place. 8. The ultimate aim of the RTI Act is that public should have access to most information held by public authorities without the use of the RTI laws. Section 4 of the RTI Act is an initial, but necessary, prelude to achievement of that objective. Hence the importance of this Section. 9. I have been directed by the Commission to communicate to you its above mentioned directive for implementation by your Ministry / Department as well as all public authorities within your jurisdiction. It is requested that you may kindly issue appropriate directives to all top officers under your control as well as to the top officials of the public authorities controlled by the Ministry / Department to give immediate effect to the Commission's directive dated 15.11.2010. 10. It is further requested that the relevant details of the officer designated as Transparency Officer by your Ministry / Department may be intimated to the Commission in about two-weeks' time. It is also requested that the public authorities within your jurisdiction may also be similarly instructed. 11. A portal is being set-up for uploading all the Section-4-compliance-related information. The idea is that an average citizen should be able to see for himself as to how public authorities have progressed in complying with the transparency obligations cast on them by Section 4 of the RTI Act. The details about the portal being developed shall be sent to you separately. 12. For the purpose of uploading information, a format has been devised, which is enclosed. It is requested that your Ministry/Department as well as all public authorities under your jurisdiction may be instructed that the information relating to Section 4-compliance should be put-up on the portal in the format prescribed and annexed. Page 3 of 3 13. It is requested that, given the importance of this initiative for promoting not only transparency, but overall good governance, this matter may kindly receive your personal attention and necessary instructions be issued to all concerned about implementing the Commission's directive within the prescribed time-schedules. 14. Any clarification with regard to the Commission's directive and its implementation may be obtained from Shri Aakash Deep Chakravarti, Joint Secretary (Legal) (Tel. No. (011) 26105021 and e-mail aakash.dc@nic.in) or Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey Shreyaskar (Tel. No. (011) 26717354 and e-mail: pkp.shreyaskar@nic.in). 15. I shall be grateful, if this communication is acknowledged. Enclosures:- 1. Commission's directive dated 15.11.2010 2. Format for uploading Section 4 information Sincerely, (B.B. SRIVASTAVA) All Secretaries to the Government of |
Friday, February 4, 2011
[rti4empowerment] CIC'S letter on the implementatin of Sec. 4, (SUO MOTU Disclosure) of RTI Act.
[HumJanenge] Neither Minister nor Orissa Information Commission care to provide information to State Legislative Assembly
Neither Minister nor Orissa Information Commission care to provide information to State Legislative Assembly
Dear friends,
On 3.8.10 Mr. Karendra Majhi, Hon'ble MLA of Orissa Legislative Assembly in his Non-Star Question No. 3524 had asked Mr. Prafulla Samal, Minister for Information and Public Relations, Govt. of Orissa to know about "the Act and Rules which have been followed by Govt. of Orissa to sanction huge amounts of money to Orissa Information Commission for organizing awareness programme on RTI in the state and whether it is the function of Orissa Information Commission under RTI Act ?"
In absence of the requisite information, the reply given by Mr. Prafulla Samal, Honorable Minister was- " the information has been sought from Orissa Information Commission". Such a peculiar reply by the Minister implied that the office of the Minister had not been posted with the necessary information either by his Dept of Information and Public Relations the nodal RTI agency of the State or by Orissa Information Commission which had been sanctioned with huge funds on IEC activities every year since inception.
Being curious about the matter, I submitted an RTI Application on 18.10. 2010 to the PIO, Orissa Legislative Assembly (OLA) to know the contents of the reply given by Orissa Information Commission on the question raised by ML Mr. Karendra Majhi. In his reply furnished within the statutory time limit, the PIO, OLA informed me that no information had been received from the office of Orissa Information Commission till then.
Then on 25.11.10, I submitted another RTI Application to the said PIO seeking information on the following subjects-
a. What are the norms or Rules observed to provide the information to the concerned MLAs by the Minister in the Assembly and what is the time limit fixed for concerned Dept./Office to supply the information to the Assembly.
b. In a situation where the Minister while responding to any question raised by the MLAs says that the requisite information is in the process of collection or the concerned office has been asked to provide the information, then what is the time limit within which these offices are to to supply the requisite information to the Office of OLA, so that the Assembly can send the said information to the concerned MLAs?
c. If the concerned Dept. or the office fails to supply the information within the statutory time limit, what action will be taken against them?
d. Has the office of OLA taken any steps against any Dept. or office for non-supply of information in the year 2010?
On 18.1.2011, the PIO OLA supplied the following information-
a. As per Rule 41(a) (1) of Rules of Business of Orissa Legislative Assembly, each dept will provide answer sheet to the office of Assembly 12 hours prior to the supply of the same to the Assembly on the scheduled day. But the concerned Depts. usually provide the answer sheet just an hour before the reply is given.
b. From the day when the Minister said in the Assembly that "Information is in the process of Collection from the Dept.", the concerned Dept. shall supply the answer sheet to the office of Assembly within 60 days. The office of Assembly will immediately pass on the said information to the concerned MLA.
c. In a case where a Dept. fails to supply the information, the Committee on Assurances for internal working will take steps against the concerned Dept for its failure in supplying answer sheet to the Assembly.
d. During 2010, the Committee on Assurances has not taken any steps against any Dept. on account of gross negligence in supplying the answers to the State Assembly.
It is generally seen that in many cases the Hon'ble MLAs don't pursue the pending unanswered question with the Minister to get the answers. Rather they submit the same questions seeking answer in the successive sessions of the Assembly. It is my feeling that the MLAs abandon the pursuit of pending questions because the concerned bureaucrats don't care to give answers as required to the Ministers, like the instant case where Orissa Information Commission failed to provide the information even after being queried for the second time. .
There is another side to the story of non-supply of information about the above matter. In fact, as per Section 26 of RTI Act, the State Govt. has been mandated to organize public awareness campaign on RTI through publication of booklets and other IEC materials and conduction of seminars and workshops and training for Officials and PRIs in the state. As the Information and Public Relations Department is the nodal Dept. for implementation of RTI Act in the State, it should have been provided with necessary funds to organize such awareness programmes in the state. But the tragedy in Orissa is that since inception Orissa Information Commission itself remained is busy in conducting the awareness programmes like publications, meetings and training of the officers. The Officials of I and PR Dept. have been sitting idle without discharging their legal obligation in any manner for popularisation of RTI in the state. It is worth mentioning here that no other State Information Commission or Central Information Commission is found to have involved itself in RTI awareness campaign taking funds from the Government. It is only Orissa where the State Information Commission has already spent a total Rs.3,25,61,787/- during the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 alone on account of IEC (Information, Education and Communication) activities from from the state exchequer. Nobody knows what the output at ground level is. On the other hand, as the public are well aware that Orissa Information Commissioners have precariously failed in respect of the primary statutory obligtion assigned to them i.e. disposal of complaints and appeals. More than 8,000 cases are pending in the office of Commission for disposal. The way the Commission hears and disposes the cases, it will take several years to dispose of the pending cases, not to talk of the new complaint or second appeal cases to be filed in the coming four years.
Thus it should be now the look-out of all conscious RTI well-wishers to know for sure on which legal basis, the Orissa Information Commission was assigned with IEC funds from the State exchequer in blatant violation of Section 26 of RTI Act, that resulted in double jeopardy – increasing numbers of pending cases in the office of Commission on one hand, and disablement of the nodal RTI agency of the State (Dept. of I&PR) from discharging their primary obligation of conducting IEC activities on RTI on the other.
Regards
Pradip Pradhan, RTI Activist, Orissa
M- 99378-43482
[HumJanenge] Minutes of Discussion with SCIC, Orissa
Dear friends
Since last five years, the RTI Activists of Orissa have been raising series of issues relating to mal-functioning of Orissa Information Commission in the state. After retirement of notorious Chief Information Commissioner Mr. D.N.Padhi, Mr.Tarun Kanti Mishra has been appointed a s new Chief Information Commissioner, Orissa. Soon after he assumed the office, he had held discussion with RTI Activists about various issues affecting effective implementation of RTI Act in the state. below is the minutes of the meeting.
Regards
Pradip Pradhan
Minutes of Discussion with Mr, Tarun Kanti Mishra, State Chief Information Commissioner, Orissa, at OIC Office, Toshali Bhawan, Bhubaneswar at 4 PM on 18th Dec 2010
A meeting of representatives of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan with Mr.Taruna Kanti Mishra, State Chief Information Commissioner, Orissa was held as scheduled at 4 PM on 18.12.2010 in his office at Toshali Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Mr. Pradip Pradhan and Mr. Tapan Mohapatra representing Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan were present. The objective of the meeting was to apprise Mr. Tarun Kanti Mishra the present SCIC, Orissa about the critical issues relating to functioning of Orissa Information Commission and Implementation of RTI Act in Orissa, which used to be persistently raised by the Abhijan over five years last and submit some specific and constructive suggestions for improving the performance of Commission and as well for proper implementation of RTI Act in the state. The issues raised by the Abhijan representatives and response of the State Chief Information Commissioner thereto were as follows.
A. IEC activities conducted by OIC – violation of Section 26 of RTI Act.
It was stated by the Abhijan representatives that as per Section 26 of RTI Act the State Govt. is statutorily responsible for conducting the required IEC programmes, such as organising training and awareness activities, publishing booklets and propaganda materials like poster, pamphlet etc. But an opposite trend was found in case of Orissa. Instead of the State Government conducting the same, Orissa Information Commission was found to remain engaged in conducting the said programmes by way of distributing funds to different Govt. and non-Government organizations during last five years.
Mr. Mishra wanted to know the exact provision of RTI Act that dealt with the IEC activities, and thereafter perused the relevant one i.e. Section 26. He also wanted to know, what is the practice in other states? The representatives replied that they were not aware about it, but as per the letter of the Act, the Commission should not be involved in IEC activities.
Mr. Mishra assured that that being the provision of the law he won't not take it up in future. "However, I will also get to know the practice in other states", Mr.Mishra added. Then he expressed his apprehension about the capability of I and PR Dept, the nodal RTI agency of the State in carrying out the IEC programmes as required by law. But the representatives added that we all must abide by the law and act accordingly. If the Commission finds any problem with I and PR Dept in above respect, it can recommend to the Govt. under Section 25 (5) of RTI Act as to how to capacitate the said Dept or make any alternative arrangement at Government level so as to fulfill a statutory obligation. He assured to seriously look into the matter and not to receive the funds for IEC from the Government w.e.f. coming financial year.
B. Inordinate delay in sending the copy of the Decisions to Complainant/Appellants
The Representative stated that over the years it has been noticed that the copy of a decision used to be sent by the Commission to the concerned complainant/appellant after an inordinate delay, that is, five to six months after the decision is made. As a result of this wrongful practice the complainant/appellants remain in dark about the final decision of the Commission for several months at a stretch. Many a time, the complainants feel compelled to take recourse to filing an RTI Application simply to receive the copy of the relevant decision from the office of the Commission. Having heard this Mr. Mishra got surprised and wanted to know the reasons for such delay. As for his own practice, he drew the attention of the representatives to the files lying on his table and mentioned that he would dictate the decision as quickly as possible. He further assured to take necessary steps quickly in this matter.
C. Low disposal of cases
The next issue related to low disposal of cases by the Information Commissioners. The representatives informed Mr.Mishra that on an average an Information Commissioner in Orissa was disposing only 35 to 40 cases per month, while in contrast Mr.Sailesh Gandhi the Central Information Commissioner and quite some Commissioners in other States are disposing 200 to 300 cases per head per month. Low disposal along with absence of proper hearing by the Commission has led to a massive pendency of about 8000 cases in the office of the Commission. In reply Mr. Mishra shared the discussion on this matter he had already had with other Commissioners like Mr. Satyendra Nath Mishra Central Chief Information Commissioner and Mr. Sailesh Gandhi, Central Information Commissioner. He highly praised them and appreciated their work. He agreed that in order to avoid huge pendency the Commission should work towards speedy disposal of the cases. He would discuss with other Commissioners of the State so as to ensure quick disposal of cases. He also said that he has been able to dispose 20 cases in one day only. Then he continued to say that if all the Commissioners could act accordingly, then they would be able to dispose 500 to 600 cases per month, and as a result the whole backlog would be cleared within one year. He said that he would give top priority on speedy disposal of cases.
D. Neglect by the Commission towards Section-4 related the cases
It was stated by the representatives that most of the Public Authorities in the State have not made voluntary disclosure of information in the manner they should have under Section 4 of RTI Act. Moreover, the Information Commissioners are not entertaining the complaints by citizens against the negligent public authorities who are found violating Section 4 of RTI Act during last five years. Thus the Information Commissioners are not hearing such complaint cases nor directing the concerned Public Authorities to comply with the said provision of the Act.
Mr.Mishra was also appraised about the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Govt. of India to be abided by all public authorities across the country I.e., Template for Information Handbook under Section 4(1b) of RTI Act. However, this Guideline has not been followed by any public authority in our State while making any suo motu disclosures under Section 4(1b) of RTI Act.
The representatives further noted that any complaint case relating to Section 4 are simply getting rejected by the Commission even without any registration. Mr. Mishra got surprised to know that the complaint cases arising from the violation of Section-4 are not being heard by the Information Commissioners. He also recalled that when he was the Chief Secretary, he had instructed all the offices to disclose the necessary information under Section 4 (1b) of RTI Act. He also further referred to the order issued by his predecessor Mr. Ajit Kumar Tripathy instructing all the offices of Govt. of Orissa to make suo motu disclosures under Section 4(1b) of RTI Act. He wanted to know the practice, if any of the hearing of the Section-4 related complaint cases by other Commissioners. The representatives readily referred to a complaint case of the above type, heard by Mr. Sailesh Gandhi Central Information Commissioner. Then Mr.Mishra assured to take quick positive steps to ensure that Section 4 related cases would also be heard by the Commission henceforth.
E. Fees applicable to BPL persons
The representatives told that the illegal practice of collecting fees towards the cost of information from the BPL persons has deprived a large section of BPL population of their right to use the Act in our State. Mr. Mishra wanted to know the particular Section of the Act which exempted the BPL people from paying the cost of information. It was presented to him that the proviso to Section 7(5) of RTI Act exempted the BPL families from paying any kind of fees such as fees for application {Section-6(1)}, fees for information {Section-7(5)} and fees for additional information such as in electronic format {Section-7(5)}. But as a matter of practice in Orissa, the BPL people have been exempted only from application fee. Even going against the mandate of the Act and misinterpreting the Orissa RTI Rules.2005, the Information Commissioners in Orissa, in course of hearing of the cases, have been directing the BPL Complainants to deposit the fees towards the cost of information.
However, Mr. Mishra expressed an apprehension about the possibility of misuse of the above provision by vested interest groups. Well off persons might take recourse to this provision for getting all the information free of cost by way of filing applications in the name of BPL persons. But the representatives told that every provision runs the risk of getting misused. But that does not mean that hundreds of BPL applicants will be deprived of their legitimate right to get information free of cost as guaranteed under the Act.
Further Mr.Mishra also wanted to know the practice of other State Information Commissions and Central Information Commission in this regard. He was readily shown a copy of the decision given by Central Information Commissioner Mr.O.P. Kejriwal, where he has directed the concerned Public Authority to provide information free of cost as required under Section 7(5) of RTI Act.
After a lot of discussion that ensued, Mr. Mishra assured to discuss this matter with the State Govt. and take appropriate steps accordingly.
F. Right to Re-appeal against a Decision of the Commission
It was presented by the representatives that the Commissioners in Orissa Information Commission have been invariably closing the cases without giving the complainant/appellant any scope for re-appeal against the decisions made by the Commission. Further it was told that even if the concerned Complainant/appellant has not received any information, the Commissioners, let alone impose any penalty on the guilty PIO, closed the case unilaterally basing upon the self-serving statement of the said PIO. Mr.Mishra wanted to know some instances of this kind if any. The representatives readily furnished the example of a complaint case lodged by a person from Bolangir, who being a migrant labourer himself had to go out to far-off places for work in Brick Klin and therefore couldn't attend any hearing of the Commission. Taking advantage of the absence of the Complainant the PIO made the deposition that the Complainant had received all the information he had sought, and the Commission, without verifying the truth, took for granted the veracity of the statement of the PIO and closed the case, whereas the true fact remains that the said Complainant has not received any information till date. Thus, the Commission by not allowing the Complainant the right to re-appeal against a decision throws the complainant into a lurch for ever and protects the guilty PIO from any manner of penalty that he deserves. Such a practice by the Commission is also against the letter and spirit of RTI Act
Then Mr.Mishra wanted to know if there was any provision in RTI Act that allows the Complainant's right of re-appeal against a decision of the Commission. The representatives showed the Section 19(9) of RTI Act that mandates the Commission to mention in every decision whether the complainant has a right to appeal against the said decision. Mr.Mishra not only agreed with this provision of law but assured to put it into practice henceforth.
.G. Provisions of Orissa RTI Rules 2005 utra vires the parent Act
It was presented before Mr.Mishra that Orissa RTI Rules 2005 suffered from some illegal provisions like compulsory application form, compulsory appeal forms, appeal fees and prohibitive modes of payment of fees. which need to be withdrawn. Mr.Mishra wanted to know the development if any that has taken place at the Govt. level in this regard. It needs to be mentioned here that when Mr.Mishra was the Chief Secretary, a team led by Mr. Pradip Pradhan from Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan had submitted a memorandum with regard to amendment of Orissa RTI Rules 2005. In that meeting, Mr.Mishra had also called the officers of I and PR Dept to remain present and get appraised about the issues raised by the Abhijan.
In the instant meeting, Mr.Mishra wanted to know the development if any that has taken place since then at the level of the Govt. The representatives replied that no development has taken place meanwhile. Mr.Mishra then assured to have discussion about the matter with the State Govt. in the next month.
H. Non-issue of Registration Nos. of Complaints and Second Appeals to the Complainants/ appellants
It has been observed in the last 5 years that the Complainants or appellants who submitted their complaint or appeal in the Commission were not issued the Registration nos. of their cases. Strangely enough, they only came to know their registration Nos. after the notice is sent to them in connection with the first hearing of the case after an inordinate delay. Even then the Registration no. is not mentioned in the preliminary notice. Secondly, the cases are not being heard on first come first serve basis. Using an extra-legal plea i.e. the so-called public interest, the cases are selected for hearing on whims of the Commission. It was suggested that the Registration no. of each case should be sent to the Complainant or appellant as quickly as possible and the cases should be heard on first come first serve basis. Mr.Mishra agreed to the suggestion so put forth regarding immediate issue of Registration No and the order of cases selected for hearing to be worked out on first come first serve basis.
WRAP-UP
Due to paucity of time, many important points could not be covered in the discussion. As per the suggestion of the SCIC, the discussion was closed for the day and it was agreed that the next round of discussion shall be held in the coming month, to cover other issues.
In course of the discussion, Mr.Mishra sought the cooperation of Civil Society Groups and Activists to work together with the Commission for effective implementation of RTI Act in the State. He also said that as he understood, the primary work of the Commission is to adjudicate the cases for which a big infrastructure has been developed here and available now. "If we don't do this, what else shall we do?", quipped Mr.Mishra in a positive spirit. He admitted that within last five years the staffs and officers of the Commission have been demoralized due to criticism from outside. "My first priority is to restore credibility of the Commission. We are in the same boat. If we destroy the boat, it is sure both of us will die. It is high time that we should work together". With this optimistic and constructive note from the Chief State Information Commissioner Orissa followed by sincere thankfulness expressed by the representatives to him, the meeting came to a close.
Compiled by
Pradip Pradhan
M- 99378-43482
Re: [rti4empowerment] Fw: Stand with Egypt
| V shld support both. --- On Fri, 4/2/11, Ram Das <rarrd27854@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
|
Re: [rti4empowerment] Fw: Stand with Egypt
| Many thanks for the mail, keep in touch. Das. --- On Wed, 2/2/11, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] Wajahat Habibullah is new minority body chief - Tired but never retired
I WISH HIM LONG LIFE
REGARDS
DR. JN SHARMA
On 2/4/11, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tired but never retired !
> Sir, I thought you were looking forward to riding in your farm in Barabanki.
>
> http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/fullnews-139613.html
>
> Wajahat Habibullah is new minority body chief
> New Delhi, Feb 3 : The country's first Chief Information Commissioner
> Wajahat
> Habibullah took over as the new chairman of the National Commission for
> Minorities here.
> He fills a vacancy caused by the expiry of Mohammad Shafi Qureshi's term in
> September last year.
>
> A former Jammu and Kashmir cadre IAS officer, Mr Habibullah had served as
> Chief Information Commissioner under the Right to Information Act.
>
> Mr Habibullah,66, will hold the office for a period of three years from
> today.
>
> Mr Habibullah, who retired as the CIC in September last year, is also now on
> the
> World Bank's first 3-member appeals board set up for public scrutiny of its
> dealings, with a 2-year stint.
>
> He held a meeting of the commission after taking over and also met the
> senior
> officers of the NCM.
>
> Delhi-based English language poet and author Keki N Daruwala (73), a retired
> 1958 batch IPS officer, becomes a member of the NCM.
>
> The Commission, a statutory body for safeguarding constitutional and legal
> rights of minorities, has now the full bench of the chairman, vice-chairman
> and
> five other members.
>
> Mizoram-based Dr H T Sengliana (67), a former MP and retired IPS officer, is
> the
> vice-chairman.
>
> Other members are: Former Congress MP from Punjab H S Hanspal (72), Ladakh
> Hill Council member Spaizes Angmo, Mumbai-based author Syeda Bilgrami Imam,
> an
> award-winning advertising professional, and Vinod Sharma, a journalist of
> Hindustan Times.
>
>
>
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: My Grievance concerning the non-disclosure of the National Common Minimum Programme on the website of the NAC
You have not comprehended the issues raised by me, possibly because you are reading me at a superficial level.
PS: I am not a naxalite / leftist, nor do I support multi-party democracy (or dynastic politics)
Sarbajit
Dear Sir,I do not know you personally and have never taken the path you have taken in last 30 years.I understand your feelings,but please let me know,why did you not opposed the corruptionand family dictatorships.I had the oppertunity to meet D. Raja, Somnath Chatterjee, and many other elected members ofParliament prior to 12th May,2004 at New Delhi.They had joined the hand with Indian National
Congress to remain in power.Mr. Somnath Chatterjee was elected Speaker and he refused theparty line.The issues of Minimum Programme agreed could not materialise.To day we are facing acute shortage of food articles, inflation wenton double digit.The CPI and CPI (M), and other left parties have lostgrip on poor and common man .Now the one time elected Member of Parliament Mr. Pranab Mukherjeecould not force upon Smt Sonia Gandhi to make him Working Prime Minister,when Dr.Man <Mohan Singh was sick. and he claims the all the oppositonleaders are trying to unstable the Government and acting like naxalite.Are we all are naxalites?We elected the people on our votes.Is the voter,who casted thevote to the candidate other than INC are naxalites?Just think on it and may reply,if you wish.
Warm regards,
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 4 February, 2011 4:49:50 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: My Grievance concerning the non-disclosure of the National Common Minimum Programme on the website of the NAC
To: Justice K. Nath
Respected Sir
Let me hasten to assure you that your emails are not an intrusion in any way.
Many citizens of India are agitated at the moment over the twin issues of a) corruption. and b) non-hearing of the citizen's voice by State. The outcry against this is taking place in many diverse ways, such as by satyagraha or naxalism etc.
The NAC is not a place for the ordinary citizen's voice to be heard, they have no structural mechanisms in place for this, nor are they likely to put these in place. As a legal luminary you will immediately catch this from the order of Cabinet Secretary dt. May.2004 constituting the NAC. The entire device of NAC is a legal fiction for Ms.Sonia Gandhi to interfere in Govt openly and get access for her private network of Congress-Leftist touts into corridors of power. (You will recall Sir, that the first UPA govt was dependent on Communist support so the NAC was packed with left-leaning Congress stooges). The members who pack the NAC are of 2 varieties - the eminent senior persons who are regrettably all in their 80's and only figure-heads, and the professional 'haramis' who actually do all the dirty work. The NAC at present is therefore a fountain of corruption in India.
Incidentally, all the "eminent" people who approached the Satyagraha brigade on 30th Jan to call off your fasts are part of the 'harami' network. They are all foreign financed touts also working for UPA govt, and they would do anything / say anything to shut down your protest. I think it was unwise to call off your fasts so soon on their say / assurances.
I don't think NAC would listen to me. In any case, I am not a fighter against corruption nor do I waste my time fighting it as an issue. I recognise corruption as a necessary part of the human condition, whilst steeling myself against it to remain pure / above it personally. With 30 years of intense experience fighting cases in person in SC and HC, my tactics are different from ordinary activists.
Lastly, I don't believe that the LOKPAL Bill is a good idea at all. It is just another diversionary device to buy more time and fool the voting masses / angry mobs. The Brigade's 2nd point (barring convicts from fighting elections) is well taken, the third (confiscation) is impractical.
Warmly
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sri Roy,
Pl. excuse me for this intrusion. I learn from your e-mail that NAC is, after all, on line and ideas could be expressed for its consideration. I do not know much about NAC, and may learn through its website; but that would be later.
Here I only wish to know whether NAC has any 'Anti-corruption' agenda. Every one knows now that 30th Jan 2011 (Martyr Day Anniversary – Gandhiji's martyrdom) rallies were taken out in more than 60 Cities against Govt. of India's inaction on Issues of Corruption and that 7 Satyagrahis (6 of them Freedom Fighters and more than 80 years of age) of Gandhian Satyagraha Brigade, New Delhi, went on FAST-UNTO-DEATH in continuation of Satyagraha since 1st Jan, after full advance Notice to the Government. The demand of the Brigade was on the Govt. to enact (i) an effective LOKPAL for investigating corruption by public functionaries, (ii) disqualification of persons charged of heinous criminal offences by a Court of Law from contesting Elections and (iii) forfeiture of property acquired through corrupt/illegal means. Late in the afternoon (of 30th Jan), the Fast was POSTPONED for 3 months on assurance of the leaders of the rally which started from Ramlila Grounds and went up to the site of Fast to promote and strengthen the resolve to achieve the 3 demands. Despite all this, not a leaf has stirred – much less any assurance – in the corridors of Power. Would you like to take up this issue with the NAC, because no amount of development projects will bring any good to the people if, in their implementation, the political bureaucracy swallows the fruits through corruption ?
Regards,
KN
From the Desk of :
Justice Kamleshwar Nath
Retd.
:
Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ),
Vice Chairman – C.A.T ( Allahabad ),
Judge – High Court ( Lucknow & Allahabad )
Address
:
`Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, Lucknow : 226 020. Uttar Pradesh, India
Phone(s)
:
+91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459. Mobile : +91-9415010746
From: humjanenge@googlegroups.com [mailto:humjanenge@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:58 PM
To: Office NAC; ritasharma.secy@nac.nic.in; secy_mop@nic.in; jsata@nic.in; dirrti-dopt@nic.in; humjanenge
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: My Grievance concerning the non-disclosure of the National Common Minimum Programme on the website of the NAC
To:
The National Advisory Council, by
the Joint Secretary
03-Feb-2011
Dear Mr Raju,
cc: Ms. Rita Sharma/Secy/NAC for directions
Many thanks for your email in reply,
Kindly note the correct spelling of my name as was given in my referred email as "Sarbajit Roy" for future correspondence.
I beg to state that my grievance was clearly stated to be in the context of "constitution, functions, duties and procedures etc for the National Advisory Council." (all to be declared under RTI suo-moto) As per the documents published on NAC website so far concerning the constitution of NAC, specifically the Cabinet Secretariat orders of 31.May.2004 and 29.March.2010, it appears to me that the present NAC ("NAC-2") is constituted "in pursuance of" the order of 31.May.2004 for the 2 purposes specified therein. The first purpose being for NCMP and the second for providing inputs / support on Govt policy and legislative business respectively.
I was therefore surprised to see from the initial Minutes of Meeting of NAC-2 that the members have arrogated to themselves powers inconsistent with the objectives for which NAC-2 was constituted on 29.May.2010 as specified in the CabSec order. Instead they have broadly referred to unspecified portions of a speech of her Excellency Madam President to Parliament as being the focus/vision of the NAC. It is not clear to me how the NAC is legally empowered to set its own agenda, and I seek clarity from you on this aspect. As it was very well known on 29.May.2010 that UPA-II does not have a NCMP, this could have been clarified in the CabSec order of even date itself by specifying "flagship programmes of Govt" for NCMP..
As a citizen of India, who is being invited by NAC-2 to participate in processes such as submitting comments and objections to proposed legislations like Food Security Bill, Communal Violence Bill etc being drafted by NAC-2, it is mandatory for NAC-2 to completely inform me of the "constitution, functions, duties and procedures etc for the National Advisory Council". The information on the NAC-2 website is incomplete, half-baked and evasive. No reasonable person can meaningfully participate under conditions of such information denial. This information evasion further confirms the words of the Hon'ble Prime Minister I had set out, viz. that NAC-2 is the instrument for Congress Party activists to participate in Government. The necessary converse is that persons not associated with Congress Party have no place in NAC-2's scheme of things and shall be subjected to information asymmetry and discrimination .
Accordingly, I clearly call upon you to inform me immediately the underlying basis (ie. Govt documents) for the following claims in the VISION on NAC website, so that I may submit my comments on NAC's various time bound public processes referred above. I am especially interested in the source of powers of NAC and their delegation to and exercise by NAC, its officers, Chairperson and members (such as I had described for Ms. Aruna Roy).
1) "NAC has been set up as an interface with Civil Society."
2) "The NAC would also give attention to the priorities stated in the address of the President of India to Parliament on 4 June, 2009."
3) "In addition, the NAC would review the flagship programmes of the Government and suggest measures to address any constraints in their implementation and delivery."
Looking forward to your prompt reply.
Yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Office NAC <office.nac@nac.nic.in> wrote:Dear S. Roy,
This has reference to your email addressed to Secretary, NAC dated 1.2.2011 bearing the subject "My Grievance concerning the non disclosure of the National Common Minimum Programme on the website of the NAC".
With reference to the grievance you have referred to in your email, I would like to inform you that NAC's vision statement does not refer to National Common Minimum Programme as there is no National Common Minimum Programme for UPA-II
This is for your information.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/
(K. Raju)
Joint Secretary
Shri Sarabjit Ray