User Tag List

Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Posts
    411
    Name:
    khan
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    0%
    Monthly Activity
    0.21%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0

    Default ACR must be communicated to official: supreme court


    REPORTABLE
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7631 OF 2002
    Dev Dutt .. Appellant
    -vs-
    Union of India & Ors. ..
    Respondents
    JUDGMENT
    Markandey Katju, J.
    2
    1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned
    judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 26.11.2001 in Writ Appeal No.
    447 of 2001. By the aforesaid judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati
    High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal of the appellant filed against the
    judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 21.8.2001.
    2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
    3. The appellant was in the service of the Border Roads Engineering
    Service which is governed by the Border Roads Engineering Service Group
    'A' Rules, as amended. As per these rules, since the appellant was promoted
    as Executive Engineer on 22.2.1988, he was eligible to be considered for
    promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on completion of 5 years
    on the grade of Executive Engineer, which he completed on 21.2.1993.
    Accordingly the name of the appellant was included in the list of candidates
    eligible for promotion.
    4. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held its meeting on
    16.12.1994. In that meeting the appellant was not held to be eligible for
    promotion, but his juniors were selected and promoted to the rank of
    Superintending Engineer. Hence the appellant filed a Writ Petition before
    3
    the Gauhati High Court which was dismissed and his appeal before the
    Division Bench also failed. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by special
    leave before this Court.
    5. The stand of the respondent was that according to para 6.3(ii) of the
    guidelines for promotion of departmental candidates which was issued by
    the Government of India, Ministry of Public Grievances and Pension, vide
    Office Memorandum dated 10.4.1989, for promotion to all posts which are
    in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5000/- and above, the bench mark grade should
    be 'very good' for the last five years before the D.P.C.. In other words, only
    those candidates who had 'very good' entries in their Annual Confidential
    Reports (ACRs) for the last five years would be considered for promotion.
    The post of Superintending Engineer carries the pay scale of Rs.3700-
    5000/- and since the appellant did not have 'very good' entry but only 'good'
    entry for the year 1993-94, he was not considered for promotion to the post
    of Superintending Engineer.
    6. The grievance of the appellant was that he was not communicated the
    'good' entry for the year 1993-94. He submitted that had he been
    communicated that entry he would have had an opportunity of making a
    4
    representation for upgrading that entry from 'good' to 'very good', and if that
    representation was allowed he would have also become eligible for
    promotion. Hence he submits that the rules of natural justice have been
    violated.
    7. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a 'good'
    entry is not an adverse entry and it is only an adverse entry which has to be
    communicated to an employee. Hence he submitted that there was no
    illegality in not communicating the 'good' entry to the appellant.
    8. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of this Court
    in Vijay Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1988 (Supp) SCC 674
    in which it was held that an un-communicated adverse report should not
    form the foundation to deny the benefits to a government servant when
    similar benefits are extended to his juniors. He also relied upon a decision
    of this Court in State of Gujarat & Anr. vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah
    1999 (1) SCC 529 in which it was held:
    "Purpose of adverse entries is primarily to forewarn the
    government servant to mend his ways and to improve his
    performance. That is why, it is required to communicate
    the adverse entries so that the government servant to
    whom the adverse entry is given, may have either
    opportunity to explain his conduct so as to show that the
    5
    adverse entry was wholly uncalled for, or to silently
    brood over the matter and on being convinced that his
    previous conduct justified such an entry, to improve his
    performance".
    On the strength of the above decisions learned counsel for the respondent
    submitted that only an adverse entry needs to be communicated to an
    employee.
    9. We do not agree. In our opinion every entry must be communicated
    to the employee concerned, so that he may have an opportunity of making a
    representation against it if he is aggrieved.
    10. In the present case the bench mark (i.e. the essential requirement) laid
    down by the authorities for promotion to the post of Superintending
    Engineer was that the candidate should have 'very good' entry for the last
    five years. Thus in this situation the 'good' entry in fact is an adverse entry
    because it eliminates the candidate from being considered for promotion.
    Thus, nomenclature is not relevant, it is the effect which the entry is having
    which determines whether it is an adverse entry or not. It is thus the rigours
    of the entry which is important, not the phraseology. The grant of a `good'
    6
    entry is of no satisfaction to the incumbent if it in fact makes him ineligible
    for promotion or has an adverse effect on his chances.
    11. Hence, in our opinion, the 'good' entry should have been
    communicated to the appellant so as to enable him to make a representation
    praying that the said entry for the year 1993-94 should be upgraded from
    'good' to 'very good'. Of course, after considering such a representation it
    was open to the authority concerned to reject the representation and confirm
    the 'good' entry (though of course in a fair manner), but at least an
    opportunity of making such a representation should have been given to the
    appellant, and that would only have been possible had the appellant been
    communicated the 'good' entry, which was not done in this case. Hence,
    we are of the opinion that the non-communication of the 'good' entry was
    arbitrary and hence illegal, and the decisions relied upon by the learned
    counsel for the respondent are distinguishable.
    12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that under the Office
    Memorandum 21011/4/87 [Estt.'A'] issued by the Ministry of
    Personnel/Public Grievance and Pensions dated 10/11.09.1987, only an
    adverse entry is to be communicated to the concerned employee. It is well
    settled that no rule or government instruction can violate Article 14 or any
    7
    other provision of the Constitution, as the Constitution is the highest law of
    the land. The aforesaid Office Memorandum, if it is interpreted to mean
    that only adverse entries are to be communicated to the concerned employee
    and not other entries, would in our opinion become arbitrary and hence
    illegal being violative of Article 14. All similar Rules/Government
    Orders/Office Memoranda, in respect of all services under the State,
    whether civil, judicial, police, or other service (except the military), will
    hence also be illegal and are therefore liable to be ignored.
    13. It has been held in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR
    1978 SC 597 that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. In
    our opinion, the non-communication of an entry in the A.C.R. of a public
    servant is arbitrary because it deprives the concerned employee from
    making a representation against it and praying for its up-gradation. In our
    opinion, every entry in the Annual Confidential Report of every employee
    under the State, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or other service
    (except the military) must be communicated to him, so as to enable him to
    make a representation against it, because non-communication deprives the
    employee of the opportunity of making a representation against it which
    may affect his chances of being promoted (or get some other benefits).
    8
    Moreover, the object of writing the confidential report and making entries in
    them is to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve his
    performance, vide State of U.P. vs. Yamuna Shankar Misra 1997 (4) SCC
    7. Hence such non-communication is, in our opinion, arbitrary and hence
    violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
    14. In our opinion, every entry (and not merely a poor or adverse entry)
    relating to an employee under the State or an instrumentality of the State,
    whether in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the military) must
    be communicated to him, within a reasonable period, and it makes no
    difference whether there is a bench mark or not. Even if there is no bench
    mark, non-communication of an entry may adversely affect the employee's
    chances of promotion (or getting some other benefit), because when
    comparative merit is being considered for promotion (or some other benefit)
    a person having a `good' or `average' or `fair' entry certainly has less
    chances of being selected than a person having a `very good' or
    `outstanding' entry.
    15. In most services there is a gradation of entries, which is usually as
    follows:
    (i) Outstanding
    9
    (ii) Very Good
    (iii) Good
    (iv) Average
    (v) Fair
    (vi) Poor
    A person getting any of the entries at items (ii) to (vi) should be
    communicated the entry so that he has an opportunity of making a
    representation praying for its upgradation, and such a representation must be
    decided fairly and within a reasonable period by the concerned authority.
    16. If we hold that only `poor' entry is to be communicated, the
    consequences may be that persons getting `fair', `average', `good' or `very
    good' entries will not be able to represent for its upgradation, and this may
    subsequently adversely affect their chances of promotion (or get some other
    benefit).
    17. In our opinion if the Office Memorandum dated 10/11.09.1987, is
    interpreted to mean that only adverse entries (i.e. `poor' entry) need to be
    communicated and not `fair', 'average' or 'good' entries, it would become
    arbitrary (and hence illegal) since it may adversely affect the incumbent's
    chances of promotion, or get some other benefit.
    10
    18. For example, if the bench mark is that an incumbent must have `very
    good' entries in the last five years, then if he has `very good' (or even
    `outstanding') entries for four years, a `good' entry for only one year may yet
    make him ineligible for promotion. This `good' entry may be due to the
    personal pique of his superior, or because the superior asked him to do
    something wrong which the incumbent refused, or because the incumbent
    refused to do sycophancy of his superior, or because of caste or communal
    prejudice, or for some other extraneous consideration.
    19. In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant must be
    communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair,
    average, good or very good entry. This is because non-communication of
    such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways : (1) Had the
    entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of
    his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve
    his work in future (2) He would have an opportunity of making a
    representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its
    upgradation. Hence non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has
    been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka
    11
    Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of
    the Constitution.
    20. Thus it is not only when there is a bench mark but in all cases that an
    entry (whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good) must be
    communicated to a public servant, otherwise there is violation of the
    principle of fairness, which is the soul of natural justice. Even an
    outstanding entry should be communicated since that would boost the
    morale of the employee and make him work harder.
    21. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of this
    Court in U. P. Jal Nigam vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain AIR 1996 SC 1661.
    We have perused the said decision, which is cryptic and does not go into
    details. Moreover it has not noticed the Constitution Bench decision of this
    Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) which has held that
    all State action must be non-arbitrary, otherwise Article 14 of the
    Constitution will be violated. In our opinion the decision in U.P. Jal
    Nigam (supra) cannot be said to have laid down any legal principle that
    entries need not be communicated. As observed in Bharat Petroleum
    Corporation Ltd. vs. N.R. Vairamani AIR 2004 SC 4778 (vide para 9):
    12
    "Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's
    Theorems nor as provisions of the statute, and that too,
    taken out of their context".
    22. In U.P. Jal Nigam's case (supra) there is only a stray observation "if
    the graded entry is of going a step down, like falling from 'very good' to
    'good' that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both are a positive
    grading". There is no discussion about the question whether such 'good'
    grading can also have serious adverse consequences as it may virtually
    eliminate the chances of promotion of the incumbent if there is a benchmark
    requiring 'very good' entry. And even when there is no benchmark, such
    downgrading can have serious adverse effect on an incumbent's chances of
    promotion where comparative merit of several candidates is considered.
    23. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the decision of
    this Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. S. K. Goel & Ors. AIR 2007 SC
    1199 and on the strength of the same submitted that only an adverse entry
    need be communicated to the incumbent. The aforesaid decision is a 2-
    Judge Bench decision and hence cannot prevail over the 7-Judge
    Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of
    India (supra) in which it has been held that arbitrariness violates Article 14
    13
    of the Constitution. Since the aforesaid decision in Union of India vs. S.K.
    Goel (supra) has not considered the aforesaid Constitution Bench decision
    in Maneka Gandhi's case (supra), it cannot be said to have laid down the
    correct law. Moreover, this decision also cannot be treated as a Euclid's
    formula since there is no detailed discussion in it about the adverse
    consequences of non-communication of the entry, and the consequential
    denial of making a representation against it.
    24. It may be mentioned that communication of entries and giving
    opportunity to represent against them is particularly important on higher
    posts which are in a pyramidical structure where often the principle of
    elimination is followed in selection for promotion, and even a single entry
    can destroy the career of an officer which has otherwise been outstanding
    throughout. This often results in grave injustice and heart-burning, and may
    shatter the morale of many good officers who are superseded due to this
    arbitrariness, while officers of inferior merit may be promoted.
    25. In the present case, the action of the respondents in not
    communicating the 'good' entry for the year 1993-94 to the appellant is in
    14
    our opinion arbitrary and violative of natural justice, because in substance
    the `good' entry operates as an adverse entry (for the reason given above).
    26. What is natural justice? The rules of natural justice are not codified
    nor are they unvarying in all situations, rather they are flexible. They may,
    however, be summarized in one word : fairness. In other words, what they
    require is fairness by the authority concerned. Of course, what is fair would
    depend on the situation and the context.
    27. Lord Esher M.R. in Voinet vs. Barrett (1885) 55 L.J. QB 39, 39
    observed: "Natural justice is the natural sense of what is right and
    wrong."
    28. In our opinion, our natural sense of what is right and wrong tells us
    that it was wrong on the part of the respondent in not communicating the
    'good' entry to the appellant since he was thereby deprived of the right to
    make a representation against it, which if allowed would have entitled him
    to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. One
    may not have the right to promotion, but one has the right to be considered
    for promotion, and this right of the appellant was violated in the present
    case.
    15
    29. A large number of decisions of this Court have discussed the
    principles of natural justice and it is not necessary for us to go into all of
    them here. However, we may consider a few.
    30. Thus, in A. K. Kraipak & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1970
    SC 150, a Constitution Bench of this Court held :
    "The concept of natural justice has undergone a great
    deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought
    that it included just two rules, namely (1) no one shall be
    a judge in his own cause (Nemo debet csse judex propria
    causa), and (2) no decision shall be given against a party
    without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram
    partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged
    and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in
    good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or
    unreasonably. But in the course of years many more
    subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural
    justice".
    (emphasis supplied)
    31. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in K. I. Shephard
    & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 686 (vide paras 12-15). It
    was held in this decision that even administrative acts have to be in
    accordance with natural justice if they have civil consequences. It was also
    held that natural justice has various facets and acting fairly is one of them.
    16
    32. In Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar Pant
    AIR 2001 SC 24, this Court held (vide para 2):
    The doctrine (natural justice) is now termed as a
    synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands
    as the most accepted methodology of a governmental
    action".
    (emphasis supplied)
    33. In the same decision it was also held following the decision of
    Tucker, LJ in Russell vs. Duke of Norfolk (1949) 1 All ER 109:
    "The requirement of natural justice must depend on the
    circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the
    rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subjectmatter
    that is being dealt with, and so forth".
    34. In Union of India etc. vs. Tulsiram Patel etc. AIR 1985 SC 1416
    (vide para 97) a Constitution Bench of this Court referred to with approval
    the following observations of Ormond, L.J. in Norwest Holst Ltd. vs.
    Secretary of State for Trade (1978) 1, Ch. 201 :
    "The House of Lords and this court have repeatedly
    emphasized that the ordinary principles of natural justice
    must be kept flexible and must be adapted to the
    circumstances prevailing in any particular case".
    (emphasis supplied)
    17
    Thus, it is well settled that the rules of natural justice are flexible. The
    question to be asked in every case to determine whether the rules of natural
    justice have been violated is : have the authorities acted fairly?
    35. In Swadesh Cotton Mills etc. vs. Union of India etc. AIR 1981 SC
    818, this Court following the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs.
    The Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 851 held that the
    soul of the rule (natural justice) is fair play in action.
    36. In our opinion, fair play required that the respondent should have
    communicated the 'good' entry of 1993-94 to the appellant so that he could
    have an opportunity of making a representation praying for upgrading the
    same so that he could be eligible for promotion. Non-communication of the
    said entry, in our opinion, was hence unfair on the part of the respondent
    and hence violative of natural justice.
    37. Originally there were said to be only two principles of natural justice :
    (1) the rule against bias and (2) the right to be heard (audi alteram partem).
    However, subsequently, as noted in A.K. Kraipak's case (supra) and K.L.
    Shephard's case (supra), some more rules came to be added to the rules of
    18
    natural justice, e.g. the requirement to give reasons vide S.N. Mukherji vs.
    Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1984. In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of
    India (supra) (vide paragraphs 56 to 61) it was held that natural justice is
    part of Article 14 of the Constitution.
    38. Thus natural justice has an expanding content and is not stagnant. It
    is therefore open to the Court to develop new principles of natural justice in
    appropriate cases.
    39. In the present case, we are developing the principles of natural justice
    by holding that fairness and transparency in public administration requires
    that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the
    Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial,
    police or any other State service (except the military), must be
    communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a
    representation for its upgradation. This in our opinion is the correct legal
    position even though there may be no Rule/G.O. requiring communication
    of the entry, or even if there is a Rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the
    principle of non-arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14 of
    19
    the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication. Article 14
    will override all rules or government orders.
    40. We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the
    public servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry
    to the concerned authority, and the concerned authority must decide the
    representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also
    hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the
    one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation
    will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an
    appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and
    transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public
    servants. The State must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards
    its employees. Only then would good governance be possible.
    41. We, however, make it clear that the above directions will not apply to
    military officers because the position for them is different as clarified by
    this Court in Union of India vs. Major Bahadur Singh 2006 (1) SCC 368.
    But they will apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector
    20
    corporations and other instrumentalities of the State (in addition to
    Government servants).
    42. In Canara Bank vs. V. K. Awasthy 2005 (6) SCC 321, this Court
    held that the concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change
    in recent years. As observed in para 8 of the said judgment:
    "Natural justice is another name for common-sense
    justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons.
    But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of
    man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a
    common-sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially
    on natural ideals and human values".
    43. In para 12 of the said judgment it was observed:
    "What is meant by the term "principles of natural justice"
    is not easy to determine. Lord Summer (then Hamilton,
    L.J.) in R. v. Local Govt. Board (1914) 1 KB 160:83
    LJKB 86 described the phrase as sadly lacking in
    precision. In General Council of Medical Education &
    Registration of U.K. v. Spackman (1943) AC 627:
    (1943) 2 All ER 337, Lord Wright observed that it was
    not desirable to attempt "to force it into any Procrustean
    bed".
    44. In State of Maharashtra vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust
    & Ors. 2007 (3) SCC 587, it was observed (vide para 39):
    "In our opinion, when an authority takes a decision
    which may have civil consequences and affects the rights
    21
    of a person, the principles of natural justice would at
    once come into play".
    45. In our opinion, non-communication of entries in the Annual
    Confidential Report of a public servant, whether he is in civil, judicial,
    police or any other service (other than the military), certainly has civil
    consequences because it may affect his chances for promotion or get other
    benefits (as already discussed above). Hence, such non-communication
    would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
    46. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that both the learned
    Single Judge as well as the learned Division Bench erred in law. Hence, we
    set aside the judgment of the Learned Single Judge as well as the impugned
    judgment of the learned Division Bench.
    47. We are informed that the appellant has already retired from service.
    However, if his representation for upgradation of the `good' entry is
    allowed, he may benefit in his pension and get some arrears. Hence we
    direct that the 'good' entry of 1993-94 be communicated to the appellant
    forthwith and he should be permitted to make a representation against the
    same praying for its upgradation. If the upgradation is allowed, the
    22
    appellant should be considered forthwith for promotion as Superintending
    Engineer retrospectively and if he is promoted he will get the benefit of
    higher pension and the balance of arrears of pay along with 8% per annum
    interest.
    48. We, therefore, direct that the 'good' entry be communicated to the
    appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy
    of this judgment. On being communicated, the appellant may make the
    representation, if he so chooses, against the said entry within two months
    thereafter and the said representation will be decided within two months
    thereafter. If his entry is upgraded the appellant shall be considered for
    promotion retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee
    (DPC) within three months thereafter and if the appellant gets selected for
    promotion retrospectively, he should be given higher pension with arrears of
    pay and interest @ 8% per annum till the date of payment.
    49. With these observations this appeal is allowed. No costs.
    .............................................J.
    (H. K. Sema)
    ............................................J.
    (Markandey Katju)
    23
    New Delhi;
    May 12, 2008


    LAGE RAHO RTI KE SAATH

  2. #2
    Posts
    41
    Name:
    rajiv
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    0%
    Monthly Activity
    0.21%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0

    Default Re: ACR must be communicated to official: supreme court


    a great post.I had been searching this judgement for past 3 months .I had read this news in the Times Of india.Thanks Nuke

  3. #3
    Posts
    411
    Name:
    khan
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    0%
    Monthly Activity
    0.21%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0

    Default Re: ACR must be communicated to official: supreme court


    welcom rajiv
    LAGE RAHO RTI KE SAATH

  4. #4
    Posts
    3
    Name:
    Pradeep Kumar Patra
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    0%
    Monthly Activity
    0.21%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0

    Default Re: ACR must be communicated to official: supreme court



    Really it is a remarkable decesion. I was in search of this decesion since last month. Thanks for providing this in your esteemed web site.

  5. #5
    Posts
    41,218
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Total Downloaded
    633.3 KB
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    67.98%
    Monthly Activity
    53.5%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    8
    Best Answers
    7
    Good Answers
    11

    Default Re: ACR must be communicated to official: supreme court


    Quote Originally Posted by pkpworld View Post
    Really it is a remarkable decesion. I was in search of this decesion since last month. Thanks for providing this in your esteemed web site.
    You might also be interested in reading this long thread:

    http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/118-di...ret-act-5.html
    @cjkarira



About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook youtube Tumblr RTI Microblog RSS Feed Apple App Store Google Play for Android

Newsletter Subscription