RTI Related Frequently Asked Questions-

1.

When did the Right to Information Act, 2005 come into force?

The Right to Information Act came into force fully on the 12th October, 2005 (120th day of its enactment i.e., 15th June, 2005). Some provisions came into force with immediate effect viz. obligations of public authorities [Section 4(1)], designation of Public Information Officers and Assistant Public Information Officers [Sections 5(1) and  5(2)], constitution of Central Information Commission [Sections12 and 13], constitution of State Information Commission [Sections 15 and 16], non-applicability of the Act to Intelligence and Security Organizations [Section 24] and power to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act [Sections 27 and 28].

2.	Who is covered under the Right to Information Act, 2005?
	The Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir [Section 1].

3.

Are "file notings' included in the definition of Information?

Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act defines 'information’ which includes ‘record'. Section 2(i)(a) states that a 'record' includes any document, manuscript and file. The operative definition of a 'file' is given in the Manual of Office Procedure prepared by the Central Secretariat, Government of India. The definition of 'file' in the Manual includes 'notes' and 'appendices to notes'. In CIC Decision No. ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006 dt.31.01.2006, the CIC held that “file notings are not, as a matter of law, exempt from disclosure”. Thus, file notings can be disclosed under the Act.

4.

If the law under which a Public Sector Unit (PSU) has been constituted does not allow access to information to the people such as agendas of board meetings etc., will such information have to be given under the RTI Act?

PSUs fall within the category of public authorities. Even if the law constituting a PSU does not allow disclosure of certain categories of information, the RTI Act, 2005 overrides any such law in existence. Hence the designated PIO for the organisation under question has to provide the information. However, if an applicant seeks information, that includes commercial confidence, trade secrets or Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) etc. the disclosure of which will affect the competitive position of that PSU, such information may not be given unless there is a larger public interest involved.

5.	Government offices have been providing information to people on the basis of their oral requests in the past. Does the RTI Act require such informal practices to end?
	No, there is no need to discontinue the conventional and informal practice of giving information upon oral request. The RTI Act does not put an end to such practices. If information can be given without delay upon oral request it is better to give such information to the requester rather than require him/her to put in a formal application. This helps reduce paper work for the public authority.

6.

Can Government officers get access to Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) under the RTI Act?

As per decision No.18/IC(A)/2006 dt.28.03.2006, the CIC held that “the assessment reports by the superior officers are personal and confidential information and therefore exempted under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act”. In the case stated above, the Central Information Commission upheld the public authority’s (Indian Oil Corporation’s) decision that ‘Annual Performance Appraisal Reports’ cannot be shared as they are confidential in nature.

7.	Can students ask for copies or inspection of their answer scripts if they are unhappy with the marks awarded by the examiner in public examinations?
	The present position is that the Central Information Commission has ruled, on an appeal submitted to it, that students cannot have access to answer scripts / supplements [CIC Decision No. 22/ICPB/2006 dt. 18.05.2006]

8.

Every department performs different kinds of functions at different levels of operation from the Secretariat to the Taluka/Village level. Will disclosure under Section 4 (1) (b) have to be made for every one of these levels separately?

Yes. In several states more than one public authority are notified within every department from the secretariat level to the district and sub-district levels. Every such public authority will have to develop its own proactive disclosure  documents or Information Handbooks unique to its powers, functions, area of operation etc. Section 4 (1)(b) is designed to ensure that public authorities disclose certain information which are important to the public voluntarily at every level of operation.  It is to be noted that, if implemented properly, Section 4(1) (b) will reduce the workload of officials and public authorities with regard to the requirement of providing information on request. This is because the information which is regularly needed by the public can be accessed by them without the need of going through a process of making specific request.

9.

Will not the publication of the 17 manuals mentioned under Section 4(1)(b) be very difficult and burdensome?

The requirement to publish 'manuals' reflects the objectives of Section 4 (1)(b) for proactive disclosure on the part of every public authority, which is simply to publish and disseminate key information routinely in a manner and form which is easily accessible and understood by the public [Sections 4(3) and 4(4) of the RTI Act which specifically require this]. The 17 subsections of Section 4(1)(b) are 17 categories of information that a public authority is required to prepare and disseminate proactively through handbooks, notice boards, print and electronic media etc. Most of the information required to be published proactively under this section may already be available within the public authority albeit in a scattered manner. These will need to be collected and collated to fulfil the requirement of Section 4(1)(b). Several officials are pleased with Section 4(1)(b) as it will help them streamline their own recordkeeping, monitoring and reporting procedures. Once the information is compiled and published it in a suitable format it will be easy to update it. Furthermore, not every public authority may be required to collate information under all categories of Section 4(1)(b). For example, the Finance Department in a State may not be issuing any permits or concessions. As it does not perform such functions the Finance Department will not be held at fault for not including this category of information in its Public Information Directory. The CIC has, in one of its letters (dt. 10.05.2006) to all Ministries / Departments, stated that “it is in the interest of the public authorities to make available all the 17 manuals to the citizens, which is likely to reduce the volume of requests for information under the RTI Act”. If appropriate management information systems are developed and maintained by departments using information and communication technologies, the preparation of the information to be published at different levels annually can be a simple affair

10.	Is it enough to disseminate information under Section 4 (1)(b) on the Internet?
	Information under Section 4 (1) (b) shall be disseminated through notice boards, news papers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the Internet or any other means.

11.

Is it enough to publish information under Section 4 (1)(b) only once at the time of the commencement of the RTI Act?

No. The Act requires that every public authority has to update its publications under Section 4(1)(b) every year. The Central/State Government/ Departments will have to come out with general instructions for time-bound updating of all categories of information, including formats for publication. Every public authority may in turn publish updated information that is specific to its functions following the guidelines.

12.

What will be the penalty if a public authority/department is not able to meet the deadline for proactive disclosure (120 days)?

It is advisable to publish as much information as possible under Section 4(1)(b) within the deadline and give it wide media publicity so that people know that the public authority/department is earnest about implementing the law. Any person can make complaint to the relevant Information Commission under Section 18 (1)(f) of the Act and the Commission may even require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered.  It must be noted that the Information Commission has the power under Section 19(8)(a)(vi) to receive from a public authority an annual compliance report in relation to Section 4 (1)(b). This reporting mechanism will technically make the public authority answerable to the Information Commission for all acts of commission and omission in relation to proactive disclosure.

13.

Can a request be denied if it is too big? If not, how can we handle such requests best? How much information can a citizen request in one application? If he/she asks 20-30 kinds of information in one application should it be given? Or should the citizen be asked to put in fresh applications for each point of information requested and also be asked to pay application fees every time?

The Act does not permit rejection of an application simply because it relates to a large number of documents. Under Section 7 (9), information shall be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would ‘disproportionately’ divert the resources of the public authority.  A PIO can request the applicant to visit his/her office personally and inspect the required documents or files. However, the PIO shall communicate the date and time to the applicant for such inspection. The PIO has to determine and justify what constitutes ‘disproportionately divert resources’. An applicant can ask for 20 to 30 different kinds of information in the same application and cannot be asked to apply afresh. If the information published under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act is comprehensive and proper information systems are maintained to enable such publication, even if an applicant requests for many pieces of information, the same can be provided to the applicant without much difficulty. Appropriate record management systems need also to be instituted.

14.	If in a single application the applicant requests information that relates to a public authority and also other public authority/authorities, is the PIO responsible for giving all that information himself/herself?
	The RTI Act makes it clear that the PIO has the power to transfer an application or parts of it if the same relates to information held by another public authority [Section 6 (3)]. The application shall be transferred to the PIO concerned immediately - within 5 days - and the applicant has to be informed about the transfer in writing.

15.

Is it possible that some elements may misuse this law and use the information to blackmail/threaten officers?

The fact that the Act requires making as much information as possible available with the public authorities in the public domain may actually prevent blackmail to honest and sincere officers. If information is divided into two types, namely ‘open to disclosure’ and ‘not open to disclosure’, that which is not disclosed must be based only on the exemptions stipulated under the Act. Thus, the question of blackmail or threatening may not arise. As far as possible, information must be made public so as to reduce any possibility of blackmail. An honest and sincere officer need not fear blackmail at all. The strict adherence to the law would facilitate smooth functioning of such officers as they will be protected by law.

17.

If there is a flood of applications for inspection of records how will the PIO provide access to all applicants and also do justice to his/her other designated duties? What if one such applicant mutilates or destroys a record during inspection?

Under the Act, every public authority will need to designate as many PIOs as may be required to deal with requests for information from citizens. The PIOs may fix one or two particular days in a week for inspection of records. The Competent Authority needs to make rules and guidelines for public authorities regarding the procedure to be followed for allowing inspection of records [The Public Records Rules (1997), Rule No. 11(2) prepared by the Government of India may be adopted as a model]. It is important that the PIO takes adequate precautions for the safety of records being inspected. If, however, it is found that a person examining a record or document has mutilated or tampered with the document or attempted to do so it will be appropriate for the PIO/public authority to lodge a criminal complaint immediately.

18.	If the same kind of information is sought by more than one person should it be made available to all such requesters?
	Yes, it has to be made available. However it is advisable that such records be digitised as far as possible and uploaded on the Internet to facilitate easy access.

19.	If the information requested by a citizen has already been proactively disclosed can a PIO refuse to accept the request?
	There is nothing in the RTI Act that states that information disclosed proactively should not be provided to a citizen on request. If such information is requested the same can be provided in the available formats upon payment of fees/charges at rates prescribed by the Government.

20.

Is the Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) an assistant to the Public Information Officer (PIO)?

No, the APIO is not an assistant to the PIO. A Central / State APIO (as the case may be) may be designated at the sub-district or sub-divisional level where a public authority may not have an office or administrative unit [Section 5(2)]. Designation of APIOs is particularly useful for Departments of the Government of India which rarely have offices below the district level. However, it has been decided that the CAPIOs of Department of Posts will also act as CAPIOs for other Central Government Public Authorities, which do not have an office / or an administrative unit operative at the sub-district / sub-divisional level. These CAPIOs (of the Department of Posts) will receive requests on behalf of the Central Government public authorities and forward them to the CPIOs concerned.

21.	If the information requested by the applicant is in the possession of the APIO should he/she not give that information to the applicant?
	Under the RTI Act, the APIO’s obligation is confined to forwarding the request to the PIO concerned forthwith – within five days.

22.

If a PIO has touring duties as well, then he will not be physically present to receive application in the office. Will his absence amount to refusal to accept information request?

The best solution for such situations is for the public authority concerned to designate another official within the same public authority (to act as PIO) and to receive applications. The duty of this PIO in maintaining the PIO’s register will be the same. This will ensure that citizens' applications are always received to suit their convenience and prompt action is taken on the same. Incidentally, a particular public authority may appoint multiple numbers of PIOs such that each PIO is designated for a specific area of the organisation’s functioning. Yet, if an applicant approaches any PIO, he/she cannot refuse to accept the application on the ground that it does not belong to his/her jurisdiction. Accepting the application, the PIO has to seek the requested information from the officer/s in control of the requested information (who may be another PIO, but for the purpose of dealing with this application, he/she becomes an ‘Other Officer’ – in control of the requested information). He / she cannot direct the applicant to take his / her application to the other PIO.

23.	Will Panchayats/Municipalities (or any local authority) have to appoint PIOs irrespective of the size of their office / administrative unit?
	Yes. Every public authority shall have to appoint a PIO, irrespective of the size of its office / administrative unit.

24.	Should   BPL   applicants   be   charged   the further fees for providing information requested?
	Persons belonging to the ‘Below Poverty Line’ category cannot be charged any fees / charges at all. The form of access can be decided by the PIO concerned subject to the provision of the Act that information shall be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would ‘disproportionately’ divert the resources of the public authority.

25.

If the applicant does not pay the additional fees towards cost of providing information within the 30 days deadline will the PIO be penalised for failing to provide information to the applicant?

No. The PIO will not invite any penalty in such cases. The 30-day clock stops ticking from the date of dispatching the intimation for further fees issued by the PIO and restarts on the date on which the applicant pays the additional fee [Sections 7(3)(a) & 7(3)(b)]. For example, if the PIO dispatches the intimation letter on the 5th day from the date of receipt of the complete application only 5 days would have elapsed from the 30 days limit. The clock will restart on the date on which the applicant pays the ‘further fees’. The PIO will have to provide the information within 25 days from the date of payment of such further fees. If the applicant chooses to seek a review of the additional fee from the appellate authority or the SIC/CIC the period taken for giving a decision on this matter (if it is decided that no further payment is needed) or for actual payment of further fees (if it is decided that further fees would need to be paid), will not be included in the 30 day limit.

26.	If the applicant does not respond to the intimation letter of the PIO requesting payment of further fee will the PIO be duty-bound to provide information to the applicant? Will the PIO be duty-bound to provide information within 30 days even in such cases?
	No. The PIO is not duty bound to provide information to the applicant in such cases. The RTI Act states very clearly that the PIO will provide access to information only upon payment of further fee as may be determined [Section 7(1)] by him/her (for non-BPL cases).

27.	Are officials required to give information about themselves and their families under the law? Can the public request this kind of information? Should it be given?
	Officials are not required to provide private or personal information which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Again, this must be decided on a case by case basis (as has indeed been the case with the decisions of the CIC). If public interest is served by disclosing such information then it must be given.

28.

Can any citizen ask any information that is more than 20 years old even if it does fall within the category of exemptions? Will the PIO be penalised if he/she is unable to provide such information?

Yes, any citizen can ask any information more than 20 years old held by or under the control of a public authority, irrespective of whether the information requested for falls within the category of exempted information or not. Nothing in the Act bars a citizen to ask for such information. The PIO concerned has to provide information ‘held’ under the control of the public authorities subject to the provisions of the Act relating to exemptions stipulated under the Act.

29.

In cases where building plans and designs of bridges or other important public structures have been requested and if the PIO has reasonable suspicion that the applicant will use those plans for commercial purposes and make a profit out of it, should such information be given?

If disclosure of building plans and designs would prejudicially affect the economic or security interests of the State or if they relate to commercial confidence, or trade secrets or intellectual property rights, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, then such information would attract exemption under the Act. However, if the concerned authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information, the same can be disclosed.

30.

What if existing departmental manuals prevent disclosure of information to the people?

All such manuals were drawn up before the RTI Act came into force. These manuals will have to be reviewed in the light of the new law and all procedures for denying access to information will have to be done away with unless they relate to the exempt categories of information. Even in the case of exempt information the manuals should be so designed as to facilitate complete or partial access in the public interest. All new departmental manuals likely to be drawn up in future must conform to the new regime of transparency set up under the RTI Act, 2005.

31.	Periodic weeding of files results in destruction of many documents which are not important enough to maintain for as long as 20 years or more. So it will not be possible to give such information after they have been destroyed. Will the PIO be penalised for this?
	If a record has been destroyed legally the question of penalisation does not arise. But the RTI Act clearly requires a review of all weeding practices in existence to ensure that information which could be requested under the Act is not destroyed. More generally, it is necessary to consider a review of current records management processes.

32.

What is the process for taking a decision on granting partial access to a record? Who is the authority to make this decision within a public authority?

Section 10(2)(b) of the RTI Act makes it clear that the PIO is the deciding authority for granting partial access to records that may contain exempted information. However, when partial information is disclosed the PIO needs to provide valid reasons for the decision. He also needs to mention his name and designation as the decision maker and the applicant’s right with respect to the review of the decision, including the particulars of the AO, time limit, process etc.   Only that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information, may be provided.

33.

Will the APIO be punished for giving wrong or misleading information just as a PIO can be penalised under this Act?

Given that, under the RTI Act, the APIO’s obligation is confined to forwarding the request to the PIO concerned forthwith - within five days, the question of punishment for an APIO for giving wrong or misleading information does not arise. In one of its decisions, the CIC has stated that the APIO has a limited role of transmitting applications and appeals to their proper destination… and that the APIO’s responsibilities are not co-extensive with the PIO.

34.

Will a PIO be penalised if the suiperior officer orders him not to release information to the requester?

It needs to be mentioned here that the PIO must note that it is not necessary on his / her part to seek the permission / approval of a superior officer of the public authority concerned for providing information under his / her control. The Act is clear about the fact that the PIO is an independent authority under the law and no approval is required from any superior official to release the requested information. If a PIO acts upon any order of his/her superior and malafidely rejects requests fully / partially, he/she is liable to be penalised under the Act. In case the information sought for is not available with a PIO, he/she can take the assistance of any other officer including asking for information under that officer’s control and such officer will be treated as a PIO for the purpose of the Act and its penal provisions. In the event a PIO seeks information from another official for providing information, his/her communication and receipt of information (to and from the other official) should be put down in writing and a proper record of the same should be maintained. This will be helpful, in the defense of the PIO concerned, should the information, turn out to be misleading or wrong, and an appeal is made against the PIO.

35.

If the information given by the PIO in response to a request turns out to be wrong, false or misleading but the PIO was not responsible for the creation of that record or such information will he/she be penalised by the ICs?

The RTI Act provides protection to the PIO for ‘action taken in good faith’. If the requested record has not been prepared by the PIO but by some other officer or if the data compiled by the PIO was received from some other officer and the PIO merely passed on that information to the applicant without having prior knowledge that such information was wrong or false or misleading he/she is not guilty of an offence under the RTI Act. The Information Commission will penalise PIO only in such cases where it may find him/her guilty of giving wrong, false or misleading information in a malafide manner.

36.

The PIO continues to be under the purview of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) of 1923. How will he reconcile his duties under the RTI Act with the secrecy required to be maintained under the OSA? What happens to the oath of secrecy every officer is required to take while joining service?

It must be noted that the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 shall be effective notwithstanding anything that may be inconsistent with its provisions in the Official Secrets Act, or any other Act of the Union or the State Governments (see RTI Act, 2005, Chapter VI, Scetion21). The ‘Oath of Secrecy’ taken by Government employees therefore only applies to the information that has been exempted from the ambit of the provisions of the said Act. Broadly, this exempted information pertains to matters / issues related to national security, defence, and integrity of the country.  The Oath  will not be adequate and the test of public interest is the overriding consideration.

38.

What is “Public Interest”?

In the Indian context, and especially in the context of the RTI Act, 2005, a significant judgment of the Supreme Court of India can be taken note of in understanding the term “public interest”. In ‘S. P. Gupta v President of India’, AIR 1982 SC 149, Justice Bhagwati, in referring to ‘public interest’, maintained: “Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, ‘diffused’ rights and interests vindicate public interest… [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”  In State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others AIR 2006 Supreme Court 212, the Apex Court held “the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide import covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]”. One of the decisions of the Central Information Commission also throws some light on this term. Public interest includes “disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability” [in the working of a public authority] (Decision No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00046, dt. 02.05.2006).

39.

Who are the Appellate Authorities and what are the key provisions for appeal under the Act?

First Appeal: First appeal to the officer senior in rank to the PIO in the concerned Public Authority within 30 days from the expiry of the prescribed time limit or from the receipt of the decision (delay may be condoned by the Appellate Authority if sufficient cause is shown).  Second Appeal: Second appeal to the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission as the case may be, within 90 days of the date on which the decision was given or should have been made by the First Appellate Authority (delay may be condoned by the Commission if sufficient cause is shown).  Third Party appeal against PIO's decision must be filed within 30 days before first Appellate Authority; and, within 90 days of the decision on the first appeal, before the appropriate Information Commission which is the second appellate authority. Burden of proving that denial of Information was justified lies with the PIO.  First Appeal shall be disposed of within 30 days from the date of its receipt. Period extendable by 15 days for reasons to be recorded in writing. [Section19 (6)]  There is no time limit prescribed under the Act for deciding second appeals.

40.	What is the jurisdiction of courts?
	Lower Courts are barred from entertaining suits, applications or other proceeding against any order made under this Act [Section 23]. However, the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution respectively remains unaffected.

RTI plea seeks details of J & K citizens affected in Uttarakhand Tragedy

et plus report 
Jammu, July 12 : To ascertain the facts regarding total number of J & K citizens dead or missing in Uttarakhand natural calamity, an RTI application has been filed before the Public Information officer of the J & K Home Ministry at Civil Secretariat, Srinagar. An application dated 12/July/2013 under Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information act 2009 has been submitted by RTI activist Raman Sharma. In his plea, the applicant has sought the details like total number of J & K citizens who have been reported missing in Uttarakhand State where tragedy struck last month. 
The application also seeks details like name, age, address of JK residents including male, female and minors who have been reported dead/injured and the steps being taken by the J & K government to trace out/find its missing citizens. 
The applicant has also wanted to know whether the state J & K government has dispatched its officers to Uttarakhand to trace its people and the other monetary assistance being offered by the government to next kin of the deceased. Explaining the motive for this RTI plea, the applicant Raman informed that he has filed this application to set the records straight because the state government was not giving the exact facts and figures about those killed or missing leaving kith and kin of the affected people suffer.

Early Times Plus

Published in Early Times Plus, JK Newspoint, Northlines and others..

http://www.earlytimeplus.com/newsdet.aspx?q=8055

http://www.thenorthlines.com/newsdet.aspx?q=68597

http://www.jknewspoint.com/newsdet.aspx?q=17701

No rules for meeting Governor: J&K Raj Bhavan reply to RTI plea after 5 Months

RTI Plea Seeking Procedure For appointment with Governor

   

JAMMU, 11/JULY/2013: Very Simple Information (under RTI) which could have been easily supplied within hours or at least within specified period of 30 days is being provided to an information seeker after a  delay of more than 150 days by none other than the Public Information Officer of the Jammu and Kashmir Raj Bhavan. In a case, RTI Activist, Raman Sharma vide his Right to Information  application dated 06/02/2013 has sought  detail from the Raj Bhavan about the procedure to seek appointment of meeting with the Honourable Governor,   procedure adopted by the Rajbhavan in allowing or rejecting appointment to the Individual/delegations, details of total number of Individual/delegations who visited and met Honourable Governor during the period 01/Jan/2010 to till date, the applicant has also wanted to know some other simple queries like, the total number of memorandum and representations revived by the Raj Bhavan during the same  period but instead of providing this information to the applicant, earlier the PIO vide his office letter dated 12/03/2013 had preferred  to reject the plea stating that office of the governor is ‘privileged one’ hence the sought information cannot be shared.

But after the strong written protest and argument by the information seeker before the 1^st appellate authority of the governor’s secretariat, the PIO on 13/06/2013 was directed to give proper reply to the applicant as per the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act 2009.  

Now, finally after strong rap by the higher authorities,   PIO of the Raj  Bhavan vide his office letter dated 10/July/2013 has furnished reply to the applicant which states that there are no rules and regulations exists regarding the governor’s meeting with the people .

 The reply also states that the individuals and delegations seeking to meet the governor ask for appointment on telephone,  e.mails or letters and all such requests are reviewed by the governor who decides how does his appointments would be spread over the week/month. It has also been intimated in the reply that governor normally meets all the people  unless he has met or heard them earlier. The reply also reveals  that during the period 01/01/2010 to 30/05/2013, a total of 1705 individuals and 241 delegations which comprises 2215 persons met the governor and Governor’s Secretariat received 2194 memorandum. Commenting on the unnecessarily delay caused by the PIO in furnishing reply, activist  Raman Sharma said the information which is now being served after the intervention of the senior officer of the Raj Bhavan should have been provided by the PIO  at the 1^st instance without wasting the time of the applicant and the senior officers, he also said this shows that some bureaucrats are yet not willing to share information with the citizens which is absolutely a violation of the fundamental right. i.e right to information.

published in PTI, Zee News, Business Standard, Rising Kashmir, Earlytimes Plus, The Northlines, JK Newspoint, Kashmir Times and many other News Papers.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/no-rules-for-meeting-guv-j-k-raj-bhavan-reply-to-rti-plea-113071100861_1.html

http://zeenews.india.com/news/jammu-and-kashmir/no-rules-for-meeting-governor-jandk-raj-bhavan-reply-to-rti-plea_861641.html

Applicant Alleges Humiliation by CIC

RTI Application waved in full public view

Sumit Sharma Early Times Plus JAMMU, July 10: The Chief Information Commissioner allegedly violated section 11 of the  J&K RTI Act 2009, third party act, when he humiliated applicant by waving his RTI query  in full public view at a function organized in Press Club, a couple of months ago. The action of the CIC not only hit the sentiments of the applicant but also brewed resentment  among the RTI activists. According to them, the CIC had no mandate to take the public document  with him from his office before disposing it off and that too without consent of the applicant. The incident of waving the RTI application took place on March 20, 2013 at Press Club, Jammu  where CIC was invited as guest .The CIC during his deliverance on RTI displayed the copy of  RTI application with the statement that the RTI application is a misuse of the RTI Act and  harassment .

Later, reacting over the act of the CIC, an application was filed before commission 
demanding the name of the applicant whose RTI application was waved in full
 public view. The information seeker also sought title of the case with the query
 that since the CIC has already given his judgment and pre decided case and
 stated that it was a clear cut misuse of the RTI act and harassment to PIO.
 In this regard kindly intimate whether said applicant is eligible to file any 
appeal or complaint under RTI act if he does not receive the information.

t to the PIO.  In Reply having No SIC/PIO/CO/18/2013/550-52, the commission gave the  name of applicant   as Mohd Ayub Khan of Mahore, with the title Mohd Ayub Ayan v/s FAA &PIO office of Deputy  Commissioner, Jammu. Replying the query, the commission said that as regards alleged  pre-deciding or pre-judging the case, the information seeker is informed that factually the  commission has decided this 2nd appeal much before the programme held at Press Club,  Jammu vice decision No SIC/J/A/257/2012/399 which is self explanatory and available on  commission website. published in Early Times Plus, Newpaper on 11/July 2013 http://www.earlytimeplus.com/newsdet.aspx?q=7946

ADC Jammu takes commission for a ride, SIC orders enquiry

Mismanagement of RTI cell in DC office

Early Times Plus.

SUMIT SHARMA JAMMU, July 4: Deputy Commissioner, Jammu has been directed by State Information Commission (SIC) to hold an inquiry to fix responsibility of any official if found guilty of causing delay in furnishing the information to the information seeker and also initiate /recommend disciplinary action against the official concerned under Service Rules as applicable to him. The directions came following the allegations by the information seeker that the ADC Jammu, who happens to be the PIO mislead the commission. The RTI activist Raman Sharma R/o K-236 Mast Garh, Jammu moved an application dated 17-09-2012 under J&K RTI Act, 2009 before the PIO office of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu seeking the information including total number of licenses issued by District Magistrate Jammu under J&K Cinematography Act, 1989 to cinema theatres for public exhibition of films and movies for the last three years, details of action taken by District Magistrate, Jammu on violation of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of J&K Cinematography Act, 1989 during last three years, seeks the copy of list of members of Board of Film Censors along with their designations and tenure, as enshrined in J&K Cinematography Act, 1989, the list of orders along with numbers and date if any, passed by the State Govt. vide Sections 7,8 and 9 of J&K Cinematography Act, 1989. The information seeker in his complaint dated 14-02-2013 filed before the Commission and alleged that no information till date has been provided to him by the PIO and the PIO has also not intimated him about his right to file an appeal before the FAA. He further alleged that the situation created due to inaction on the part of PIO constrained him to file the complaint before the Commission rather than preferring an appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority. The information seeker also prayed that the Commission may after verifying the facts initiate appropriate action against the respondent as enshrined in the RTI Act. Dr Ravi Shankar Sharma, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu / PIO (Now transferred) appeared in person before the Commission and informed the Commission that the information was dispatched by ordinary post vide office letter no. DCJ/PIO/RTI/2012-13/3080 dated 17-10-2012 to the information seeker. He also submitted a letter bearing no.DCJ/misc//12-13/4693 dated 17-10-2012 addressed to PIO / Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu by Jr. Assistant Misc. Section containing the information as requested by the information seeker in his RTI application. Both these letters have been placed in the file for reference and record. Reacting over the reply, Raman Sharma, the information seeker, vehemently denied in his complaint the receipt of any such communication from the office of PIO / Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu and alleged that the information had been deliberately denied to him. The Commission, keeping in view the sensitivity of the matter, directed Deputy Commissioner, Jammu to hold an inquiry in order to fix up the responsibility of any official if found guilty of causing delay in furnishing the information to the information seeker and also initiate /recommend disciplinary action against the official concerned under Service Rules as applicable to him. The Deputy Commissioner, Jammu is further directed to file compliance report to the Commission within one month from the date of receipt of this order. It is alleged that, though the direction was forwarded to DC Jammu for compliance of report, but commission remained at receiving end. The information seeker has applied to second appellant authority but here again after lapse of one month; the information seeker is waiting for justice. http://www.earlytimeplus.com/newsdet.aspx?q=7535    published in early times plus on 05/07/2013

NHRC seeks personal appearance of Union Home Secy, Chief Secretary

SECURITY OF J & K PANCHAYAT MEMBERS

JAMMU, 28/June/2013:  Taking serious note of non-compliance of its earlier order in case of security for Panchayats, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), invoking provisions of section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 has now asked the top officers of Union Government and Jammu and Kashmir State to appear in person before it.

During the hearing of petition filed by Jammu-based RTI activist Raman Sharma demanding security for 33,000 Panchayat members of Jammu and Kashmir, the National Human Rights in its order (Case No. 334/9/13/2012 ) dated 12th June, 2013 has  directed the Union Home Secretary and Chief Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir State to appear in person before the commission on 24th September 2013.  Earlier in its order the commission had warned Union Home Secretary, Chief Secretary and Director General of Police of J and K to submit a detailed report over the issue of security for 33,000 Panchs and Sarpanchs or get ready to face section 13 of the Human Rights Act under which the NHRC can compel personal attendance of any officer/officials but none of the senior officer replied to the notice of commission.

The commission in its order has also specified the plea  of the petitioner Raman Sharma where he has  alleged that the 33,000 Panchayat members in Jammu and Kashmir have been threatened by the Hizbul chief Salahudin to submit their resignation, failing which to face the consequences. He has submitted that in spite of such threats the State Government and the Central Government did nothing  to provide security to these members.

The petitioner has also argued that if these Panchayat members succumb to the diktat of the terrorists, the institution of democracy will weaken therefore he has sought the intervention of the commission. NHRC order further reads as, “In spite of final reminder sent to the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of India and Chief Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar, requisite reports have not been received. In the circumstances, the Commission is constrained to invoke provisions of section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and directs the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of India, and the Chief Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar to appear in person before the Commission on the 24th September, 2013 at 11:00 AM along with the requisite reports”.

However the commission’s direction also states that in case the reports are received on or before 17th September 2013, the personal appearance of the officers shall stand dispensed with. The activist expressed gratitude to the commission for such a bold order. It is pertinent to mention here that till date six Panchayat members of the State have been killed by gunmen in different incidents and hundred others have submitted their resignations.

published in Daily Excelsior, State Times, The Tribune Early Times, JKnewspoint, Dainik Jagran, Northlines, Journey Line and many other newspapers.

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/nhrc-seeks-personal-appearance-of-union-home-secy-cs/

http://www.statetimes.in/news/nhrc-seeks-personal-appearance-of-top-officers/

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130629/j&k.htm#8

Governor’s Secretariat slams its PIO for ‘ Vague ’ Order

Raj Bhavan  insists on explicit RTI Reply

Jammu, 20/June/2013: Slamming its own PIO, Public Information   Officer, the Jammu and Kashmir Raj Bhavan (Governor's Secretariat) has set aside the order of the PIO dated 12/March/2013 where the PIO has denied  information to the applicant, RTI activist Raman Sharma citing 'privilege'.

Navin K Chouhan,  Principal Secretary to Governor who is also  first appellate authority under  RTI Act has  not only set aside the order of the PIO/Deputy Secretary but has also termed the order as 'Vague'. Principal Secretary in his order no. 01/2013 dated 13/o6/2013 has stated 'As the PIO's order suffer from the defect of vagueness, his order dated march/12/2013 is set aside. The appeal order also states that the PIO's order should specific clause (s) of sub section 1 of section 8 of the RTI Act under which the appellant has been denied information and also explain how the information sought by the appellant falls within the  four corners of that specific provision(s).  The PIO's order should also specifically consider whether all the information sought by the appellant is exempted or only a part thereof is exempted from disclosure. If the information or a part thereof is not available or for any other reason cannot be provided the same should be explicitly spelt out in the reply to the appellant.  In the same order it has also been directed to the PIO to consider the appellant's request for information afresh in the light of the issues raised in the appeal order strictly as per the provisions of the RTI act and rules and make available revised consideration within a period of two weeks.

Giving brief about his appeal and RTI Plea Raman Sharma informed that he filed RTI application on 06/Feb/2013 to the PIO of the Raj Bhavan, seeking information about the total number of Individual/delegations who visited and met Honourable Governor during the period 01/Jan/2010 to Feb/2013 in  Jammu/Srinagar along with total number of memorandum/representations received by Rajbhavn or Honourable Governor in person during   the   same period.  His plea also wanted to know the procedure to seek appointment of meeting with Honourable Governor and procedure adopted to allow appointments. While expressing his gratitude to the First Appellate Authority of the Governor's Secretariat, the applicant has said transparency ensures bonhomie between the public institutions and citizens which is an essential ingredient   of democracy. 

http://m.risingkashmir.in/news/governor%E2%80%99s-secretariat-slams-its-pio-for-%E2%80%98vague%E2%80%99-order-49609.aspx 

Published in Rising Kashmir, Journey Line, JK Newspoint, JK Monitor and others.

32,000 passouts of JU waiting for Degrees

Jammu: In a reply to Right to Information Query the authorities of Jammu university have admitted that over 32,000 passouts including graduate and post-graduate candidate are waiting to get their degree  from Jammu University which includes students from 2006 to 2011 batch. The varsity has not issued  graduate and post-graduate Degrees to a total of 32,120 passout students from different streams the list includes 26,564 graduates and 5,556 post-graduate students who have not received their degrees since  2006-07 (Undergraduate courses) and 2010-11(PG Courses).

The information has been provided by the Public Information Officer of the Jammu University vide his office letter no. PIO/JU/13/7169 dated 29/May/2013 in response to application of RTI Activists Raman Sharma. While appreciating the Public Information Officer of the university for providing all the information, Raman said the reply is quite shocking. It is very unfortunate that the university which owns ISO status can be so careless and tardy in its action that it has not issued degrees to 33,000 successful candidates for  last 5 to 6 years. Today the institutions are awarding online degrees to the students but here in our state the people at the helm of affairs still lagging behind. As per the reply total number of successful candidates who have not been issued their graduation degrees from session 2006-07 onwards are 26,564 and  the total strength of post-graduate candidates waiting  for degrees from session 2009 onwards are 2,256 of session 2010 and 3,300 of session 2011, the RTI reply states. The reply also states that over 1100 students only from Women College Parade, Jammu have not been issued their Degrees who passed out in the year 2009. There are many other students who have not been issued their degrees by the JU.  

When the matter of pending degrees was brought to the notice of the Vice Chancellor’s Secretariat, the senior officers there immediately issued orders to the concerned department to clear the backlog without any further delay. In the meanwhile , the  RTI applicant has said he has also apprised the governor about the issues and has sought a direction in this regard . ‘A similar RTI application  was also filed with the Kashmir University on 04/April/2013 through Jammu and Kashmir State Information Commission but till no intimation in this regard has been received from there, Raman informed.  

(( Published in JK Newspoint, Journey Line, Amar Ujala, Dainik Jagran, Rising Kashmir, Times of India, The Tribune, Daily Udaan and many others.))
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130612/jmtrib.htm#1

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-11/news/39897886_1_jammu-university-degree-certificate-graduate

Rising Kashmir

The Tribune

Amar Ujala

Jk Newspoint

Direct Government to Accept RTI Fees by Electronic Mode: Activists to J & K CIC

J & K RTI activists have asked the Jammu and Kashmir State Chief Information Commission to direct the government and Public Authorities to accept RTI fees in electronic mode like E.IPO, Debt/Credit Card and other means of internet to pay the fees. In this regard the activists submitted a written submission to the J & K CIC on 10/May/2013 with their list of demands.

Jammu Kashmir Activists File RTI Pleas with State Political Parties

Jammu : Taking a stance of the recent order passed by the Central Information Commission to include National political parties under the ambit of RTI Act, the activists of Sangarsh RTI Movement Sd. Balvinder Singh (Convener) and Deepak Sharma today filed RTI application to three main State regional political parties of the state to make them also accountable under state RTI Act. While hailing the decision of the Central Information Commission to bring National political parties under the RTI Act 2005, the activists Sd. Balvinder Singh and Deepak Sharma shared that since the J&K State has its own RTI Aact and Information Commission , so the same order of Central Information Commission is not applicable for regional political parties of the state and the State Information Commission has no powers to act suo motto to declare these regional political parties as public authorities under State RTI Act unless any resident of the state approaches the commission in this regard .

The activists shared that  they have filed RTI application to three main political parties of the state namely National Conference, Peoples Democratic Party and J&K National Panthers Party and sought details which includes details of the donators who have given donation to these political parties during last 5 years , details of all the expenses incurred by these political parties for the last 5 years and details of  benefits enjoyed by these regional political parties in terms of office accommodations and income tax exemption .

The activists urged that all the regional political parties to which the RTI applications has been filed, should divulge the asked information under the provisions of the State RTI Act as it will give a clear message to other National political parties that J&K State regional political parties stands together for the promotion of accountability and transparency and shows no compromise in this regard. While appreciating the role of all these regional political parties for their contribution in the promotion of transparency in the state , especially to young and dynamic Chief Minister of the State Sh. Omar Abdullah , who is pioneer in bringing the State RTI Act in to a reality , the activists has hoped that without any prejudice all the regional political parties will welcome this move to bring them under the RTI Act ,as all these regional political parties have always remained in the forefront for the cause of RTI in the state. The activists also urged the regional political parties to suo motto disclose as much as information so that there is minimal resort to filing RTI. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Plea filed for bringing J&K parties under ambit of RTI Act 

Jammu: Amid a debate on CIC order bringing major political parties under RTI, activists here have filed a plea before the J&K Information Commission seeking that regional political parties of the state be brought under the ambit of the transparency law. "We hail the decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring national political parties under the RTI Act 2005," activists 

Balvinder Singh and Deepak Sharma of Sangarsh RTI Movement said today.  The activists said that they have filed a petition for bringing three main political parties of the state National Conference (NC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and J&K National Panthers Party (JKNPP) under the ambit of state RTI Act. They said the order of the CIC is not applicable to regional political parties and the State Information Commission has no powers to suo motu declare these parties as public authorities under State RTI Act unless any resident of the state approaches the state Commission in this regard. 

Left to Right: Ms Mehbooba Mufti(PDP), Bhim Singh(Panthers Party), Omar Abdullah, (NC)

 "We have also sought details from parties which include their donors during the last five years, expenses incurred by these political parties for the period and benefits enjoyed by these regional political parties in terms of office accommodations and income tax exemption," the activists said and expressed the hope that the parties will support efforts to bring transparency in the system. 

http://zeenews.india.com/news/jammu-and-kashmir/plea-filed-for-bringing-jandk-parties-under-ambit-of-rti-act_853812.html

 http://www.jknewspoint.com/newsdet.aspx?q=15425

JK Activists Hail CIC’s Judgment

Political Parties under RTI: JK Activists Hail CIC’s Judgment

June 8, 2013

Srinagar:  The activists in Jammu and Kashmir state working for the promotion of Right to Information Act have hailed the recent judgment of the Central Information Commission where it had been ordered that the Political parties like BJP, Congress, BSP, NCP, CPI and CPI-M fall under the ambit of the act and where the heads of these political parties have been asked to designate public information officers and the appellate authorities as per the provisions of the Right to information Act2005.

In a statement issued to press, the activists have also congratulated the members of the  Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) an NGO who took the issue of bringing political parties under RTI act to the Central Information Commission.    Demanding similar order from the J & K State Information Commission , the  activists have urged the  State Commission to direct all the political parties to designate PIO’s and follow all the provisions of the J & K RTI law. They have also asked the  Jammu and Kashmir government to reinstate Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Rules 2010 which were unfortunately repealed vide SRO no 279 issued by the GAD on 30th Aug/2012. The joint statement has been endorsed by activist Balvinder Singh, Convener, Sangarsh RTI Movement, Dr. Shiekh Ghulam  Rasool, Chairman, JK RTI Movement, RTI Activist Raman Sharma, Deepak Sharma, Advocate Dewaker Sharma, Dr. Shiekh Ghulam  Rasool, Convener JK RTI Movement, Advocate Ashraf Wani Farooq Kuthu, Bilal Bhat, Tanvir Hussain Khan,  Rahil, Munish Sharma and others. 

http://www.globalkashmir.net/political-parties-under-rti-jk-activists-hail-cics-judgment/

Two Days State Level RTI Workshop Held in Jammu and Kashmir

Sangarsh-CHRI Conducted State Level RTI Workshop at Jammu

Jammu, 30/May/2013: Two days state level RTI training for trainers workshop concluded here, the program was organized by Sangarsh RTI Movement in collaboration with CHRI, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi. In two days program the participants from different districts of the state including college professors, senior citizens, activists, ex-army officers, legal experts’ and students were provided section wise and rule wise information about all the aspects of the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act 2009. As per organizers, the objective of conducting this workshop is to prepare more trainer and experts on the subject RTI so that they can further become ambassador of this transparency law and educate others about the same.

Wajahat Unveils RTI User Guide

After the RTI Workshop,  Wajahat Habibullah, Chairman of the National Minority Commission unveiled a book titled ‘Your Guide to Using the J K RTI Act ‘ authored by Venkatesh Nayak and Nandita Sinha from CHRI. On this occasion  Rehana Batool, Additional Deputy Commissioner Jammu, Nandita Sinha, Amikar Parwar of CHRI, Feroz Ahmad, retired IAS officer, Balvinder Singh, Convener Sangarsh RTI Movement, RTI Activist Raman Sharma, Darvinder Singh, Deepak Sharma, Rahil Gupta and Dr. Shiekh Ghulam Rasool, Convener JK RTI Movement from Kashmir were also present. Wajahat Habibullah while appreciating the Sanagarsh RTI Movement and CHRI for their effort of taking RTI to the people  and for launching the user guide also urged the participants to use the act for the public interest. On this occasion special guest, Rehana Batool, Additional Deputy Commissioner Jammu also assured the organizers to give  fullest support in their movement towards transparency. The members of the host organization, Sangarsh RTI Movement presented vote of thanks to the Chief Guest, Special Guest, Participants and other dignitaries present on the book release program.