What Distinquish Rti Act From Other Enactments ?

[colnrkurup]

Our Administators of yester-years are at loss to identify the distinctive features of the RTI Act from other enactments. As per existing jurisprudence, based on enactments of British-Raj and their most obedient servants, the burden to establish one's plea with proven evidence and reason is purely on the Plaintiff/Appellant. But our wise-men are not aware that in RTI Act, this liability is shifted from the Appellant to Respondent. Apart from various other provisions, Section 19(5) of the RTI Act is categorical. Our Administers who are trained in the old system and has been practicing it for more than 35 years can neither change their mind-set nor think otherwise. This exactly is the Curse of our RTI Act. Our elected/nominated leaders partly out of compulsion/gratitude/black-mail and partly due to their blinkers are forced to choose the CIC/SICs and Information Commissioners from these bureaucrates whose actions/inactions were the root-cause of enactment of the RTI Act. These Wise-men does not find anything wrong in dismissing or brushing aside a second appeal/complaint under RTI Act ordering that " He was the appellant, and it was for him to state his case, prosecute the same before the Commission " and " The appellant was summoned to appear before the Commission to substantiate his case " (Extracts from an SIC's orders of 12-11-2007). Until these wise-men are trained to grasp the critical aspects of RTI Act, ke-zara-zara.

[vashisthvivek]

Respected Colonel Sir,
I have analysed the position with regard to the appontments in the Information Commisions and have downloaded the same in your thread, "Public Servants Cry Of ' Misuse Of RTI Act'. I would also like to add here that it seems difficult to believe that the concerned PIOs, AAs and ICs have not the knowledge of S.19(5). They have full knowledge with regard to their salaries etc. There does not seem to be a single IC all over India, who has not been able to get all the benefits available to the ICs due to the ignorance of law. Then why are they ignorant about S.19(5). It is totally deliberate on their part. Since they are determined to save the PIOs etc. they make such lame excuses as they have no better excuses.
In fact during one hearing, I even pointed out regarding S.19(5), but the AA did not budge and went on to say that the PIO is right in his action of rejecting my application. Fortunately enough, I was armed with some decisions of the courts relating to the case and some positive decisions from some ICs, he had no alternative except to get annoyed. He used to deliver his decision in favour of the PIO instantly, but in this case, he has not been able to deliver the decision even after the lapse of one week. I am waiting for the limit to expire and let us what happened?

[karira]

Broadly, the ONLY factor that distinguishes RTI Act 2005 from any other legislation is that in ALL other legislation, it is the citizen who has to defend himself......please prove this, please give that paper, please submit this document, why did you do this, why did you not do that, why did you not submit within a particular time limit, etc....

Under the RTI Act, the citizen has to only apply for information. All other things have to be done by the Public Authority and the PIO. They are the ones who have to provide information, prove anything, defend themselves and their actions.

[colnrkurup]

Exactly, Mr.Karira. After my persistant struggle of approaching the Chief Minister and Governor,coupled with creating waves, it appears that the SIC want to get rid of my nuisance. Recently in the covering letters of my complaints/second appeals to SIC I have been stating that I have nothing more to add unless the PIO/AA contrdict any of my pleas in which case I had sought for thePIO/AAs comments for clarifying the position. I had also stated therein that I will not be attending the hearing unless the SIC quote relevant provisions of the RTI Act which stipulate obligation of appellant to attend hearing. To-day I get 4 notices addressed to the AAs with only copy to me considering 4 of my cases for "Further evidence on decisions taken" for hearing on 29-1-2008 atTrivandrum. I think I won my plea before the Commission that the RTI Act has no provision to insist attendance of the appellant for hearing. This time the SIC dared not call me for hearing; but given only copy of all the 4 Notices addressed to the AAs of ech case with a note on the bracket "Your evidence at that time is solicited). I just could not understand the new methodology of "further evidcence", "soliciting my presence before the Commission during hering" etc. The exact wording in bracket is " At that occasion your evidence before the Commission is solicited(In malayalam) " Anyway I have no intention of attending the hearing and wish to continue my fight to sort out the methodology. I request for your advice to enable me to give a very suitable reply to the SIC establishing that even calling for my further evidence is unlawful.

[karira]

colnrkurup,

That is good work...at least a small beginning.
Probably, they mean that they need your additional evidence based on reply received from AA/PIO. This is because, although a appelant has to give copies of the second appeal to the PIO/AA, they do not have to give copies of their reply to you. You will only come to know about their reply during the hearing.
I suggest that better to attend the hearings:
- Firstly to rebut the new contentions of the PIO and AA, if any
- Secondly, you will get familiar with the procedure in the SIC
- Thirdly and most important, your face will become known to everyone in the SIC
and if you put forward your arguments with ease and gutso, they will "remember" you and you can use this to your advantage in any future hearings.

[colnrkurup]

I had already done it 4 months back. I had attended a hearing where my 2 cases were heard for 3 hours where I had established the corruption, and ignorance of the Commission. It is a long story. My contentions and criminal acts established by me did not find reflected in the orders issued. The pity is that even the oral and written orders to the RDO is not obeyed by any one. The SIC and one of his Commissioner will never forget me