Sensitising state info commissions: Novel approach.

[jps50]

Attachment shows how state info commissions can be activated in the interest of rti. Activists in other centres can take a clue including for CIC.

[abhi987]

SIC has been appointed by the CM. What must be the track record of the mentor i.e. CM? if the person's appointed by him have this track record.

Never blame the SIC just blame CM, could he not find one proper and dedicated person for the august post of SIC.

[sidmis]

This approach needs time consuming and painstaking observation. The efforts of these activists are really laudable. It too needs team effort.

Now these team will really miss Shailesh Gandhi's inspiration.

But the real effectiveness of these efforts are yet to be known. Only time will tell.

Such efforts should be replicated at all state levels and also at the CIC.

[jps50]

The report should be sent to the hon'ble Governor, as he can initiate action u/s 17 of the act.

[abhi987]

Governor may take action/disqualify SIC, and the same CM who selected the incumbent SIC will select and appoint another similar SIC. It is a vicious circle.

RTI Activists + Media = Good Way forward.

[karira]

Sidmis,

This involves a simple Time, Motion and Work Study.
Hardly takes any time - but needs good observation and concentration.
It is done every day, by thousands of Industrial Engineers, on the shop floor.

PS: Oh My ! Never thought that I will start applying principles of Industrial Engineering to RTI !

[karira]

As reported in indiatogether.org on 22 September 2008:
India Together: The key to speeding up languishing RTI appeals - September 2008

The key to speeding up languishing RTI appeals

Maharashtra's RTI activists recently attended and recorded hearings at the state's Information Commission and identified why pendency of disposals is building up: Information Commissioners were not hearing cases for not more than two hours per day. Shailesh Gandhi has more.

22 September 2008 - Since 2006, RTI activists have watched with alarm as pendencies mount at Information Commissions, increasing the wait for closure of cases. They have cried themselves hoarse coaxing Information Commissioners to speed up disposals of second appeals and complaints, and have met with only vague justifications and insincere promises of better performance in future.

At Maharashtra State Information Commission, 16,500 cases are waiting to be heard – considerably more than the 10,000 cases disposed off in the past two and a half years. In a contentious meeting on 22 August, the State Information Commissioners invited RTI activists to attend their hearings and suggest ways to improve their performance. A group of RTI activists attended 96 hearings between 27 August and 10 September 2008 and made records of the hearings that they witnessed.

Observers Shailesh Gandhi, Sundeep Jalan, S K Nangia, Krishnaraj Rao, Bhaskar Prabhu monitored Dr Suresh Joshi and Ramanand Tiwari at the State Information Commission at Nariman Point, Mumbai. Ajay Marathe monitored Navin Kumar, Information Commissioner, who holds hearings at Konkan Bhavan, Belapur, Navi Mumbai.

Summary of findings

The activists, following their observations, have identified the root cause of pendency as the less time that is being spent on case hearings. Individual Information Commissioners are hearing cases for not more than two hours per day.

1. The total time for the 96 hearings was 767 minutes, which means the average time spent on a hearing by the Commissioners is eight minutes. Usually they slot about eight to 15 hearings per day. This means they hold hearings for about 64 to 120 minutes in a day. The main job of the Commissioners is to adjudicate and decide the complaints and second appeals. High Court judges hold continuous hearings for five hours, i.e., 300 minutes in a day. No wonder inspite of more complex cases the High Court judge disposes more than double the disposal of an Information Commissioner. If the Commissioners hold hearings for about five hours they could have over 30 hearings every day.

2. Out of the 96 hearings observed, adjournments were pronounced in 18.

3. Activists have noted that in a significant number of cases the RTI issues were really sidelined. It would be appropriate if the Commissioners focused only on the RTI issues before them.

Other observations

This team saw first hand that there are question marks on other several serious issues such as:

1. Ambiguous orders
2. Lack of proper procedure for recording orders
3. Total lack of accountability as to when written orders will be given
4. No penalties imposed even on PIOs who have denied information without any
justification 5. Arbitrary refusal of information for reasons not justified by the RTI Act
6. Information Commissioners arguing on behalf of public authority, manufacturing imaginary justifications for denial of information when PIOs are not present to represent their own case.

But for the time being, this team of observers have consciously chosen to stress on one key issue -- that Information Commissioners at the office in Mumbai (and presumably elsewhere also) are not hearing cases for enough numbers of hours.

Our conclusion

The disregard for punctuality and speediness was observed in something as basic as coming on time. Information Commissioners routinely came in late – often at 11.30 am or later – although appellants and PIOs are called at 10.30 for hearings.

Our conclusion is that if both Information Commissioners sitting in Mumbai were to hear cases for five hours a day (as High Court judges routinely do)–thereby devoting a total of 600 minutes together—then they could dispose off 75 cases a day, as opposed to the current 15-20.


• Preparing for the future of RTI
• One year of unfreedom
The primary issue is of less amount of time being spent every day on hearings. Given the fact that the average turnaround time per case is a reasonably quick eight minutes (many cases are wound up or adjourned in less than five minutes), many more disposals could be achieved if the commissioners worked longer.

Our conclusion is that if both Information Commissioners sitting in Mumbai were to hear cases for five hours a day (as High Court judges routinely do) – thereby devoting a total of 600 minutes together—then they could dispose off 75 cases a day, as opposed to the current 15-20. This would total up to about 1800 cases per month (assuming 24 working days per month) and about 21,000 cases per year. At this rate, they could bring pendency under control in less than one year—just by working five hours a day.

The State Information Commission is working at 30 per cent of its 'installed capacity', and the onus as well as the power lies with State Information Commissioner Dr Suresh Joshi to rectify the situation. In the meanwhile, we urge RTI activists and citizens in all cities to form monitoring groups and observe their Information Commissioners in relays for a few weeks.

Tabulated format for monitoring information commissioners

Observer: Shailesh Gandhi, Ist column J-Joshi; T-Tiwari

(Sorry cannot load the tabulated format - it is available to jps50 post #1 in this thread)

(Such tabulated formats have been prepared by each of the observers.)

Sample of detailed report prepared by observers each day

Date: 08.09.08

Dr Joshi had no hearing today. Ramanand Tiwari came at 14.15 hrs. He had some relative to be taken to hospital.

1) 14.24 to 14.36 = 13 mnts. Both applicant (App) and authority (auth) were present. App was given inspection of files wherein he may seek the desired info.

2) 14.39 to 14.44 = 6 mnts App present. Auth absent. Illegal construction. No info given. Adjourned.

3) 14.48 to 14.56 = 9 mnts. Both app and auth present. Issue of BSES Hospital now of Reliance Energy. Adjourned for calling appropriate PIO and app auth.

4) 15.27 to 15.29 = 3 mnts. Both app and auth were present. Info should be given.

5) 15.30 to 15.37 = 8 mnts. App present, auth absent. Apparently info was denied by PIO on the ground that massive info is sought and will divert the limited resources of auth. Similarly, Info Comm was of the view that Comm has discretion to deny info if the info sought is voluminous and so will divert the limited resources. Adjourned.

6) 15.41 to 15.44 = 4 mnts. App absent, auth present. Info given on FAA's order but perhaps not received by app.

7) 15.56 to 15.59 = 4 mnts. App absent, auth present. Coopeartion Dept. Adjourned.

Summary

Total 7 cases of Tiwariji took 47 minutes; in 5 cases App present, in 5 cases Auth present.

Details of Information Commissioners’ attendance of office recorded by observers

Observer Shailesh Gandhi

Date: 27.08.08 Joshi came at about 11.45 am. Tiwari was in office when observer reached.

Date: 29.08.08 Both Joshi and Tiwari were in by 11 am.

Date: 01.09.08 Tiwari arrived at 11.20 am. Joshi arrived at 12.05 pm.

Observer Sundeep Jalan

Date: 08.09.08. Joshi had no hearing. He came to office in the afternoon.

Date: 09.09.08 Joshi has adjourned all his hearings scheduled for today to 15.09.08. He was absent.

S K Nangia

Date: 05.09.08 Joshi had 2 hearings for the day. No hearings for Tiwari.

Date: 10.09.08 Joshi came at 12.30 pm and Tiwari at 11.15 am. ⊕

Shailesh Gandhi
22 Sep 2008

Shailesh Gandhi is a Mumbai based Right to Information activist and Working Committee member of National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI). He has recently taken over the Central Information Commissioner at India's Information Commission in New Delhi.