Right to Information
Nodal agency for RTI refuses information on selection of information commissioners
The Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), the nodal agency for implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, has chosen to be secretive regarding information on the selection process of information commissioners (IC), even though activists had successfully fought to make the selection process of chief information commissioners and information commissioners transparent. In fact, DoPT itself had earlier given information under RTI, regarding the number and names of applicants for these crucial posts, and any other information pertaining to this issue. Also, an order from the Central Information Commission (CIC) of 2012 supports transparency in this regard.
 
The trigger for denying information pertained to appointments for two information commissioners, posts which were advertised in September 2016 but to date no appointments have been made, despite the fact that Information commissioners MA Khan Yusfi and Basant Seth have completed their tenures in December 2016 and March 2017, respectively. Considering that these two vacancies have added to second appeal pendency, which numbers 30,000 now, activist Commodore (retd) Lokesh Batra filed an RTI application in January 2017, and subsequently a first appeal in March 2017. But these were stonewalled. 
 
Last week, the DoPT has denied information on Batra’s RTI query on the list, with names of applicants who have applied for ICs posts, names of Screening Committee members and inspection of files of the same. It has only replied to his query on the total number of applications received in DoPT for ICs posts in CIC. It stated that 225 applications were received by the DoPT for the post of the two information commissioners.
 
Both the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the DoPT have irrelevantly clung to two sub-sections of Section 8 of the RTI Act, to deny information. The exemptions are:
 
Section 8(1) (i): “Cabinet papers, including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed” and
 
Section 8 (1) (j): “Information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”
 
Interestingly, a CIC decision on 21 December 2012 has ordered that since files relating to appointment of information commissioners “are most demanded by citizens, the department can decide to upload all files in their website since, in our opinion, there could be very little in these files which could come under any of the exemption provisions.” 
 
It further stated “We direct the CPIO to obtain the orders of the competent authority within the department and carry out the uploading within a month of receiving this order. This option would be far more economical than employing larger number of personnel to assist the CPIO”.
 
In fact, the Delhi High Court, in its order of 9 April 2015, has also reprimanded the delay in the appointment of information commissioners. The HC stated, “…having regard to the undisputed fact that the non-appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner has virtually frustrated the very purpose of the Right to Information Act, 2005, we are of the view that it is necessary for this court to monitor the steps that are being taken for filling up the vacancies in question so as to ensure that all the vacancies are filled up within a timeframe.”
 
Regarding DoPT somersaulting on the CIC decision and its own record of showing transparency in this issue, Commodore (retd) Batra rues, “…none of the information requested falls in the exemption clauses, which was accepted by previous FAA and also CIC order of 21 December 2012. The DoPT is now making a mockery of the transparency law. Are authorities responsible for implementing transparency regime moving in reverse gear?”
 
Former Central Information Commissioner and RTI activist, Shailesh Gandhi, says, “This is a very unfortunate development, which suggests that there is a regression in the approach to RTI. We will all need to find a way to stop this.”
 
Here is the order passed by FAA of DoPT…
 
 
Here is the order passed by CIC in 2012…
 
 
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005, and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book, “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte”, with Vinita Kamte, and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)

User

Cooperative Societies Are Bound by RTI Act, Says Bombay HC order
Notwithstanding the myriad opinions and interpretations of several court judgments on whether cooperative societies come under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a recent landmark judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court reiterates that urban cooperative banks, cooperative financial institutions and other cooperative societies are bound by the Act.
 
The Association of Jalgaon Zilla Urban Cooperative Banks, Credit Societies and other financial institutions registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960, appealed in a petition to the High Court that cooperative institutions cannot be treated as public authority under the RTI Act. 
 
They contended, “In view of the provisions of Section 2(h) and Section 8 of the Right to Information Act 2005, cooperative institutions registered under the Cooperative Societies Act cannot be treated as public authority.” 
 
They also argued that under banking rules too certain information cannot be disclosed. Their contention was that in view of the provision of section 34A of the Banking 3 WP 1304 of 2008 Regulation Act, 1949, these institutions are not bound to disclose certain information which, according to them, is confidential in nature. 
 
The petitioners also argued that “these institutions are not receiving financial aid from the Government, directly or indirectly, and so the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable to them”.
 
The petitioners, in their prayer, urged the court to declare cooperative societies and others as “not public authorities” under the RTI Act. Following was their submission:
  • The urban cooperative banks, cooperative financial institutions, Patpedhis (credit cooperative societies) and other cooperative societies, which are registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960, are not public authorities within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.
  • These institutions stand exempted from disclosure of information u/s 8)1 (d), (e) and (j) of the Right to Information Act
  • That the court issue a writ, order or direction restraining the officers of the cooperative department from supplying any information to the members or general public which is, according to the said societies, confidential in nature.
  • The court, pending the hearing and final decision of the writ petition, restrain the respondent from disclosing any information other than the balance sheet and profit and loss accounts of the cooperative societies, urban banks and Patpedhis to the general public under Right to Information Act. 
 
In its order issued on 13 February 2017, the court observed that cooperative institutions, are registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and that cooperative societies and other such institutions are created by a statute; that they have a public authority over them which is the final decision-making body. 
 
Certain Articles of the Constitution also show that such institutions are discharging the duty of the State and there is an ‘authority’ over them, which is the final decision-making body and the co-operatives are bound to supply information (all of which comes under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act), to this authority. Hence, cooperative societies and other such institutions are bound to supply information under the RTI Act, the HC said.
 
The High Court observed:
  • Cooperative institutions are bodies created by the statute. But right from the registration till the liquidation there is control over these institutions by the authority created under the same Act. The authority steps in to take decisions on the rights of the members. The authority has control over the manner in which funds are invested or over the distribution of the funds. Such institutions cannot act independently and the apex bodies are created for such institutions. 
  • Even Articles 38,39,43 and 48 of the Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution show that to some extent such institutions are discharging the duty of the State
  • The provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act show that the authority under the Act can do the audit and inquire into irregularities. If loss is caused to the institution, by the directors, promoters etc., the authority can assess the damage, and the loss caused to the institution can be recovered from those persons. Under the Act, the authority can suspend the managing committee and remove its members. For all these and other purposes mentioned in the Cooperative Societies Act, the cooperative institution is bound to supply the record to the authority.             
  • The provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, if read with the definition of information given in Section 2(f) of the Act, makes it clear that everything which is mentioned in the definition of information needs to be supplied by the cooperative institution to the authority created under the Cooperative Societies Act. The definition of 'Public Authority' given in Section 2(h) shows that such public authority can be created by any law made by the State Legislature. It is already observed that the officers like Registrar and his subordinate officers are appointed under the Cooperative Societies Act. 
 
The High Court therefore concluded that, “…the reliefs claimed in the present petition cannot be granted as the reliefs can be used 14 WP 1304 of 2008 directly or indirectly by the cooperative institutions to deny the supply of the information... This Court holds that no relief which is claimed in the present petition can be given to the petitioner.”
 
RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, who has been pursuing this issue for long, says, “After the Supreme Court’s order in Thalappalam Services Cooperfative Bank Ltd. against State of Kerala, public authorities and public information officers (PIOs) said the RTI act was not applicable to cooperative societies. Actually even in the Thalappalam case, the apex court, in paragraph 52 of its judgment, had categorically stated that the PIO of Registrar of Cooperative Societies is duty bound to supply the information. But even then PIOs and cooperative societies were denying the information sought under RTI.”
 
Below is a copy of the order passed by Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court...
 
 
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005, and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book, “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte”, with Vinita Kamte, and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)   

User

COMMENTS

Bharat Gandhi

8 months ago

whether the Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgement in case of WP filed by the Association of Jalgaon Zilla Urban Co-op Bank Credit Society IS APPLICABLE TO CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETIES, as per today's newspaper report appeared in the DNA Mumbai edition it is reported that the state CIC has stated that " the order no where state that co-op institutions are public authority and covered under RTI." Furthermore, the former CIC Mr. Shailesh Gandhi opined that "While there could be exceptions when there is a substantial funding or when an administer is running the show at CHS, there are not public authority as yet".
On the other hand activist have different interpretations basis 97th amendment to the Constitution, cooperatives and maintaining that two years down from the line, it will have to be agreed upon with the judgement Shri. Vijay Kumar and RTI activist is of the opinion that 97th amendment to the constitution is clear on that and the interpretation of the order leads to that.
Considering the basis of judgement under consideration, at the moment situation is such that cooperative housing society are not falling directly under RTI Act, but the registrar of CS and its offices are covered under the RTI Act, hence responsible to call for certain information and provide the same to the public who apply to the Registrar and / or Dy. Registrar of their respective area.

Bharat Gandhi

8 months ago

Is cooperative housing society cooperating under the MCS Act, 1960 are covered under RTI Act? Since couple of days on various social WhatsApp groups order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of a Writ Petition No. DHC - WP (C) 6532/2013 (Petitoner Ms. Eliamma Sebastain V/s Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors is being continously circulated stating that basis the Delhi High Court order, all housing societies are covered under RTI Act. In my opinion and by going through the whole order, it is apparent that anyone's such impression is wrong. Gist of the judgement's analysis as under:
The above WP was decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court wherein main respondent was Ministry of Home Affairs. In the Hon’ble High Court’s order available, it is not known whether the concerned society was made the respondent, whereas from the record and Advocate for the Ministry of Home Affairs as Respondent No. 1 had appeared. Ongoing through detailed 13 pages order it seems that the petition was NOT AGAINST THE PARTICULAR SOCIETY FOR NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION/ DOCUMENT BUT against SPIO who did not reply to the RTI applications submitted by the WP petitioner.

While analyzing this order one has to bear it in mind that in fundamental the whole case is based on Section 139 of the DCS Act which is different than MCS Act, 1960.

The WP petitioner has filed the first appeal under the RTI Act, as a result the petitioner was to approach DDA for inspection and copies of documents and pay certain charges. Aggrieved by the response from the first appeal order and DDA the petitioner filed an appeal before CIC.

The CIC observed Quote after analyzing the facts and averments made before it through the course of the hearing, the CIC was of the opinion that the appeal was not maintainable due to the provision of DCS Act and that co-operative society are not public authorities to whom the RTI act directly applies. It was observed by the CIC that information held by societies was to be retrieved indirectly from the registrar who was public authority and who under the provision of DCS Act was competent to supply information. Unquote

The CIC held that ……………Quote these appeals are clearly not maintainable because the cooperative societies are not public authorities to whom the RTI Act directly applies. The information held by such societies is to be indirectly accessed under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act through a public authority i.e. the Registrar of cooperative societies…….Unquote

Keeping in view Section 139 of DCS Act (which is not similar or at par to MCS Act, 1960) but Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is similar it is recorded that Quote object of Section 2(f) of RTI Act is to provide information to an applicant. Some information can also be sought from a public authority under the RTI Act. The society in question is a private body and not a public authority as defined under the RTI Act and is not obliged to furnish information. In this case it is the RCS who is the public authority as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act as well as for the purpose of Section 2(f) would be the public authority from whom information could be accessed with respect to cooperative societies.

The issue whether the WP petitioner could directly seek information from the societies it is observed that the CIC has refused to grant relief on the ground that in case of cooperative societies RTI Act applied indirectly…….. In other words information would be approached by the RCS under Section 139 of DCS Act….with the Registrar of cooperative societies who discharges statutory functions is a ” public authority” . However the grounds of exemption spelt out under the RTI Act too would be attracted, wherever applicable.

Final verdict:
In the light of above findings the application of the petitioner shall be considered by the RCS to extent the information is available with his office. In regard to information not available, the RCS shall indicate clearly what material does not exist, in an order. *It is then open to the petitioner to seek such information under Section 139 of the DCS Act. The Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms.

Conclusion:

(1) The first Appellant authority and the CIC has opined that cooperative Housing Society is not directly covered under RTI

(2) It is the registrar of DCS Act is the authority undersection 2(f) to provide required information and not the society directly.


(3) The DCS Act Section 139 provides opportunity to a member or any other third person to seek information and documents from society operating under DCS Act.

(4) Apparently MCS Act 1960 is not having any section or provision for a member to obtain information or documents directly from the society operating under Maharashtra. Under the circumstances, the registrar of CS is required to be approached for information or documents from CHS in Maharashtra.

Vinayak Mahamunkar

8 months ago

I agree with the views expressed by shri Gandhi. Many of the hsg. societies are submitting the informations to the Dy. Registrar's Office.

REPLY

Bharat Gandhi

In Reply to Vinayak Mahamunkar 8 months ago

Free interpretation of the above judgement.
(1) To understand whether the judgement is directly applicable to any co-op housing society under management control of Dy. Registrar and/ or higher authority, it is essential to read sub Para No. 63, 66, 67, main para 7 to 10 of the judgement.
(2) The judgement in the last para No. 10 has defined public authority and definition of section 2(f) of the RTI Act supra “the definition of “public authority” given in section 2(h) shows that such public authority can be created by any law made by the state legislature. It is already observed that the officers like registrar and its subordinate officers are appointed under the co-op society Act and they have the control over and above said things. In view of these circumstances, the observation made by the apex court in the paragraph already quoted can be used safely when the information is sort from the authority like Registrar or his subordinate officers.
(3) To make the matter clear whether co-op housing society fall directly under RTI Act, the relevant parts of para no. 9 of the judgement reads Quote the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-op Society Act shows that the authority under the Act can ……… for all the above said purposes mentioned in co-op society Act, the co-op institution is bound to supply the record to the authority.
Note: It is too length to reproduce here all 14 pages wherein important observation and definition arrived by the Hon’ble Court is highlighted and underlined. Interested persons to have these all judgement with important paras highlighted, please register your request for the same by providing email ID on this forum, at due course and convenience without any prejudice and/ or any liability/ responsibilities, the highlighted judgement will be mailed.

Gurudutt Mundkur

8 months ago

The need is to differentiate between Co-operative HOUSING societies and other Co-operative societies. In Housing Societies, the admission is limited by the number flats/houses in the Society. Also, each Housing Society has its own Bye-laws within the framework by the Act and the Model Bye-laws. Rules are made by the Members themselves. When you allow Housing Societies to be open to the RTI Act, one needs to know how that information is of interest to the one applying for the information. A Member of a Housing Society is entitled to all information by the Byelaws, but of his own Society, not of any other Housing Society.

Moin Syed

8 months ago

Khumbhar sir..has done a good job by following such crucial and important issue which directly or indirectly affect aam aadmi of this country ...thanks indeed

Bharat Gandhi

8 months ago

Will Mr Vijay Kumbhar , Ms. Deshmukh or the MoneyLife please upload full judgment under reference please ?

Bharat Gandhi

8 months ago

A question being asked " is Co.op. Housing Societies also will be covered by this judgment ?". Its is said that the Managing Committee of any Co.Op., Housing Society ( unless financially funded and supported by government ) is not bound to reply any R T I application! To get any document from the Managing Committee, one has to approach the Dy. Registrar under whose jurisdiction the society operates. On the other hand, I may self has received formal reply frpom Dy. Registrar that " Demanded Documents are not on record of the office as not submitted by the concern society ". In view of the reality and now with the judgment under consideration, is Co.Op., HSG falls under R T I ? Clarification and guidance from the author of the article, Mr Vijay Kumbhar and / or any expert will be appreciated.

REPLY

Rajesh Nambiar

In Reply to Bharat Gandhi 8 months ago

Because Managing Committee is not bound to reply they are unaccountable and free to do at will. Even I got a similar reply from the office

Suketu Shah

8 months ago

IMportant for BJP to get clean majority today at BMC elections.The amount of open corruption in housing societies is staggering and goondagiri as well.The cooperative hsg society laws are having looholes good enough for frauds to take advantage.CM is right the coop hsg socety rules themselves have to be changed to start with.

REPLY

Rajesh Nambiar

In Reply to Suketu Shah 8 months ago

Agree

Shirish Sadanand Shanbhag

8 months ago

Under 97th Constitutional Amendment, Co-operative Societies are included under Part III of the Constitution, titled, Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(c).
Under Part IV of the Constitution, Directive Principles of State Policy, under Article 43-B Promotion of Co-operative Societies.
A separate Part IX-B The Co-operative Societies with 13 articles 243-ZH to 243-ZT were created especially for smooth administration of these Co-operative Societies.
Earlier to 97th Amendment, Co-operative Societies were included only in Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, under item No.32 of List-II State List, under Part XI Relations Between Union and State, in Chapter I Legislative Relations, Article 246.
Item 32 of List-II Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporation, other than those specified in List I, and universities: unincorporated trading, literary, scientific, religious and other societies and associations: co-operative societies.
Under this entry 32 of State List, legislation can be passed for providing forf nomination by Government of the Chairman and members of the Committee of Management of co-operative societies. It is open to the SAtate to legalislate on any or all aspects of co-operative societies including their management,
Sheetal Prasad Gupta v. State of Bihar, AIR 1990 Pat 81 (FB).
Since under Constitutional 97th amendment, Co-operative Societies are included under Part III and PartIV of the constitution, they are covered under Articles 12 and 36 of the constitution. Both articles are the first articles of respective parts III & IV. In these articles. definition of Government is stated, which is as under.
Article 12 : Unless the context otherwise requires, " "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Govedrnment and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
A comment on this article also reads "Any appointment made by a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India must be subject to the constitutional scheme. In making appointments, the State is obliged to comply with the same as also statutory requirements, if any.
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Hyderabad v. P. Mary Manoranjani
A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 1089.
Therefore, under 97th Constitutional Amendment, as Co-operative Societies are covered under Part II and Part IV of the Constitution of India, they are coming under "State" and therefore, Right to Information Act, 2005 is applicable to them directly.
Earlier, it was indirectly applicable. Anything that we want from any Co-operative Society, we can get it under RTI made to concerned Deputy Registrar, under which said Co-operative Society falls. Even now it is applicable, since Co-operative Society is still under Schedule VII, List-II, Item No.32.

REPLY

Vijay Kumbhar

In Reply to Shirish Sadanand Shanbhag 8 months ago

Forming Co Operative society now fundamental right With status of local self Government, under ambit of RTI act https://goo.gl/hUA4sK

Rajesh Nambiar

In Reply to Shirish Sadanand Shanbhag 8 months ago

Sir how does it hold good in view of this Supreme court order on Co-op Thalappalam Ser.Coop.Bank Ltd.& ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 October, 2013 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37517217/

Shirish Sadanand Shanbhag

In Reply to Rajesh Nambiar 8 months ago

Our aim is to get information from Co-operative Societies under RTI. With this judgment, as given by Moneylife and information given by me, it says that RTI Act is applicable to Co-operative Societies.

Ramesh B Mhadlekar

8 months ago

RBI is hand in gloves with its employees office bearers of RBI Staff@Officer credit copp Society wherein about 60 to 90 crores of black money has been converted to white money and RBI Governor has failed to take cognisance of the money laundering acts since its top executives are probably involved.The Reserve bank workers organisation a trade union having affiliation to Bhartiya mazdoor sangh had written letters to the Governor to probe the same but Dr. Urjit Patel has maintained a silence in the matter. Possibly protecting the money launderers.

REPLY

V.s. Joglekar

In Reply to Ramesh B Mhadlekar 8 months ago

I suppose you are somehow connected with the Staff Society. So am I. Whatever you have written goes beyond the scope or intent of this discussion. Whatever, you have written, assuming to be true within the limitations of your knowledge, why write to the Governor only! Why not to ED? Is it a fear that if proved wrong, you invite prosecution. Organisation in RBI has great brains but does not know how to use them. Perhaps this the reason why its size is shrinking and no one takes them seriously. Wake up, be sensible and don't wash linen, dirty or otherwise public.

V.s. Joglekar

In Reply to Ramesh B Mhadlekar 8 months ago

I suppose you are somehow connected with the Staff Society. So am I. Whatever you have written goes beyond the scope or intent of this discussion. Whatever, you have written, assuming to be true within the limitations of your knowledge, why write to the Governor only! Why not to ED? Is it a fear that if proved wrong, you invite prosecution. Organisation in RBI has great brains but does not know how to use them. Perhaps this the reason why its size is shrinking and no one takes them seriously. Wake up, be sensible and don't wash linen, dirty or otherwise public.

Rajesh Nambiar

8 months ago

Societies need to be accountable to its members and regulators. Co-operatives run on public money.

SRINIVAS SHENOY

8 months ago

It is a welcome judgement. Finally the members particularly of the cooperative societies, including cooperative banks will be in a position to demand under RTI, the information which was earlier denied to them even by the RBI, particularly with regard to the mismanaged urban cooperative banks.

When CIC Exceeds its Powers, HC Steps in
In the last week of January, Justice Sanjeev Sablok of the Delhi High Court handled two cases of two Public Information Officers (PIOs) who petitioned against penalty levied on them by the Central Information Commissioners. He gave different judgments on the two cases, one of which reflects on the approach of Information Commissioners, who sometimes go beyond their jurisdiction while giving orders. The other portrays the courage of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in giving a stiff penalty, though it remains to be seen whether it is taken to the logical end.
 
One case pertained  to the Tihar Jail authorities being directed by the CIC to pay compensation to one Mr Gandhi, who was detained for four extra days, besides directing the prison department to frame rules for such cases. The Delhi High Court overturned this order. 
 
In the other case, the PIO of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) was directed by the CIC to be given maximum penalty of Rs25,000, which was upheld by the Delhi High Court.
 
Case I: HC Overturns CIC Order on Compensation to Prisoner 
Om Prakash Gandhi, who served one year imprisonment in Tihar Jail in a cheque fraud case, completed his sentence but was kept in detention for four extra days.  Gandhi filed over 30 RTI applications regarding his extra detention and the compensation that he should be paid for it. Finally, he appealed to the Central Information Commission. 
 
The CIC directed that the PIO should pay a token compensation to Gandhi and also directed the Tihar Jail authorities “to put into place a policy or guideline or regulation for a system of resolving disputes regarding remission and paying compensation to prisoners who lost their personal liberty due to extra detention.”
 
Justice Sachdev of the Delhi High Court stayed the order of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), where the PIO of Tihar Jail was ordered to pay compensation to Gandhi for keeping him under extra detention. The High Court order stated, “The CIC has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is contended that the CIC appears to have exercised power vested in a Constitutional Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is contended that the CIC did not have the power to assess token compensation for delay in release of prisoners.
 
“Perusal of the order, prima facie, shows that the CIC has sought to exercise powers beyond those conferred on it under the Right to Information Act, 2005…Prima facie, this power does not vest in the CIC.”
 
Case Il: HC Upholds CIC Order on Penalty for Not Giving Information
An applicant had sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, from Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)’s Project Directorate, on funds allocated for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in animals. The information pertained to the cost sheet for 2012-13; whether the ICAR Team at headquarters at Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, was aware of it and; copy of the covering letter of the price per unit for 3AB3 Indirect ELISA Kits to individual FMD centres or network units or any other public institutes engaged in FMD sero-surveillance; name and designation of the ICAR official(s) who had instructed and or authorised the Project Directorate on Foot and Mouth Disease (PDFMD) to issue 3AB3 Indirect ELISA and so on.
Most of the replies by the CPIO were, “It is an institute matter.” 
 
Since the RTI applicant was not satisfied with the reply given, a complaint under Section 18 of the Act was filed with the CIC. The CIC said, “We asked Dr BB Dash, CPIO of Project Directorate on Foot and Mouth Disease to explain his reply dated 28 September 2015 in response to various queries of the RTI application, in which he disposed of most of the queries by stating that it was an institute matter. Dr BB Dash, CPIO, failed to provide the information without any cogent reason. The nature of his replies, to various queries in his letter dated 28 September 2015 shows that these were meant to circumvent the queries raised by the complainant in her application. All this is a pointer to wilful denial of information. Therefore, in our view, this is a fit case for imposition of the maximum penalty of Rs25,000 on Dr BB Dash, CPIO under Section 20 (1) Of the RTI Act.” 
 
“…The Head of the Project Directorate on Foot and Mouth Disease is directed to ensure that the above amount of penalty is recovered in five equal instalments from the monthly pay of Dr BB Dash, CPIO, beginning with his pay for the month of December 2016. The amounts so deducted should be remitted to the Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission, Room No. 305, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066 by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.”
 
The CIC came to the conclusion that the nature of CPIO’s replies to various queries showed that these were meant to circumvent the queries raised by the complainant in her application, which amounted to wilful denial of information. The CIC also observed, “The CPIO is to provide the information sought and, in case the information is not liable to be provided on account of it being exempt, give sufficient reasons for denying the supply of information.”
 
The Judge concluded “…the CIC has not erred in returning a finding that information sought has not been provided… No cogent explanation has been rendered for non-supply of the information. Thus, the order of the CIC dated 22 November 2016 cannot be faulted.’’ 
 
The petition was dismissed by Justice Sanjeev Sachdev.
 
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)
 

User

COMMENTS

GLN Prasad

8 months ago

A simple Lecture to a Professor.

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine)