Up State Information Commissioners, Good for nothing

[NIRAJ]

No body seems to be bothered to go in to the actual problem of U.P. State Information Commission. The root of all the problems germinates out from the basic fact that most of the S I C's people not known to public as being eminent in their respective fields, till they were appointed Hon’ble Information Commissioners in Uttar (Ulta) Pradesh, who generally are nothing more than stooge of Government. It is only after the advent of the TV media that the Government's misdeeds in some cases are being exposed which these Newspapers were all the time sweeping under the carpet and getting fat on Government dole. Therefore what needs to be done is to clearly get the term "Persons of eminence in Public life" clearly defined in the RTI Act, Section-12-5. which provides that CIC and other Commissioners as well as SIC's should come from this category and the Governor be sounded on this. Surely discarded Government Advocates of High Court can not belong to this category. Maybe eminent advocates like Nani Palkiwala, Soli Sorabji, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan etc. may qualify but how can persons like Subhash Chandra Pandey, Ram Saran Awasthi, Gyanendra Sharma, Virendra Saxena, Brijesh Mishra, Sunil Chaudhary, R H V Tripathi, Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Major Sanjay Yadav qualify as persons of eminence in public life. I still feel that initially till the legal aspects of all the exemption clauses of the Act are settled, for which, high degree of legal Competence is needed, the majority should comprise of reputed retired High Court or Supreme Court Judges coming from Non Government Advocates Cadre only and a few persons of real eminence in public life like Anna Hazare, Sandeep Pandey, Rajendra Singh etc. Even in our country there is no dearth of retired bureaucrats whose dignity and intellectuality can not be questioned. Even these bureaucrats if appointed Information Commissioners would be far better than the present serving ones. A most welcome step would be to appoint these IC’s outside of the State, who have no local connections.In this respect a welcome step has been taken by appointing Mr. Shailesh Gandhi as one of the Information Commissioners at the Central Information Commission, New Delhi.
The functioning of State Information Commission of Uttar Pradesh is far away from the spirit of the RTI Act. Though it has 9 Information Commissioners (the office of Chief Information Commissioner is lying vacant after the removal of Justice M. A. Khan on July 9, 2008 by H.E. The Governor of U.P. under Sec. 17 of the Act.) and are being paid salary for their full time work. But in practice they work only half time i.e. in two shifts. One shift consisting of half the strength starts from 11.00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and the second shift consisting of remaining half holds hearing only in post lunch session. Even the High Court and Supreme Court have not taken the liberty of starting at 11.00 A.M. Is this not a clear waste of public money? This might give an impression that in U.P. there is no need of 10 members Commission and the Information Commissioners have been just appointed for reasons best known to Government.
In fact the behaviour of all most all the U.P. State Information Commissioners are hostile towards the Appellant. In large number of cases it is observed that they become the ADVOCATES of the Government or Public Authority. The information seekers feel helpless in front of these autocratic attitudes of IC's in U.P. They have for all practical purposes killed the RTI Act in U.P. they have been disposing off cases at their own sweet will. However, in most of the cases it has been observed that these so called Hon’ble Information Commissioners all the time, during the hearing brief the P I O’s of the concerned departments to use such and such section to deny the information.
The basic object of the Act to bring transparency and quick availability of information to Information Seekers is defeated as the Complaint/Second Appeal are not even registered for 4 months together. i.e. the Commission after receiving the Application fixes the first date of hearing after about three to four months of receiving it. And the Commission normally fixes next date for hearing after 2 months interval. If any applicant requests for early fixation he is told in very plain words ‘go to High Court’.
The notice of hearing, which is sent by ordinary post by the U.P. State Information Commission mostly it is hardly sent to the Applicants. A pertinent question arise again why the Commission does not send date fixation Notices by Registered Post is a mystery because the Civil Courts always send notices by Registered A.D. post. The intention is clear they want to decide as many cases as they can in the absence of Information seekers or dispose off in default on the ground that Applicant is not present.
The Information Commissioners hardly follow the spirit of the Act. Even they refuse to hear any ruling of CIC cited by the Appellant, saying that the Central and State Information Commissions are on the same footing hence they will not consider any rulings of either Central or other State Commissions in decided cases.
No decision is announced in large number of cases for more than a year and that too after fixing 12 to 14 dates. In case due to being absent on the date of hearing by the Appellant/Complainant, if the case is disposed off, the cases are not even being restored if the application for restoration is moved by them. People have to run from one room to another in vain in order to find out the status of their restoration application.
Taking a lesson from the I.C.’s even the clerical staff in the Commission are now bent upon to harass the poor Information Seekers by their uncourtious behaviour, who at the initial stages were quite friendly. The peon of the Chief Information Commissioner thinks himself as above SIC and do not even hesitate to physically throw out the helpless senior citizens.
There is no registration of applications for certified copies of the Orders. The applicants are asked to fill in the application for copy of order, fix rupees Ten Court Fee Stamp and one Rs Two Court Fee Stamp (Total of Rs. 12/-) and drop it in a box. The applicants who come from far off places have no means of knowing whether their applications for copies of orders are ever registered or simply thrown away after removing the stamps. Although the Commission is given power of Civil Court but it has not bothered to note that in Civil Courts, Applications for copies are given registration numbers and a record off all such applications is kept and the applicant is aware of his application’s registration number. Here in U.P. State Information Commission it takes months together to obtain a copy of the order. However, in Central Information Commission there is no provision of charging any fee for the copy of the final order.
The Act is very clear on Section 20 i.e. if the PIO has not provided the information within stipulated time of 30 days, the commission should not only impose penalty @ Rs. 250/ per day for the delay subject to maximum of Rs. 25,000/ and recommend for departmental proceedings. Although in majority of the cases the Information even if given partly is delayed and as per the Act such delay attracts penalty clause, which is mandatory and even if the applicant is satisfied by the Information but if the same is given after delay then too it is mandatory for the Commission to issue show cause notice regarding the delay and only if the Commission is satisfied by the reason of reply, then and only then can it waive the penalty. This clause is the back bone of the Act and was inserted so that the Public Authorities take the Act seriously. In all the cases before the Commission it has not even issued show cause notices in even 5 % of cases. However, even if 100 cases are selected at random basis, one will find that the Commission has miserably failed to invoke such provisions. This is also why the Applicants are not being provided informations’ by the respective PIO’s.
A peculiar way of functioning can be noticed by the fact that if the Applicant/Complainant is not present the Appeal/Complaint is outrightly dismissed on this ground whereas in the Act itself the provision is that the IC’s will examine the facts on record before them and then decide the case by speaking order. Nowhere it is stipulated that it is must for the Applicant/Complainant to be present on the date of hearing. However for PIO’s it is a compulsion. In U.P. State Information Commission the reverse is true. Seldom the PIO’s themselves appear, rather they prefer to send a person loke a Clerk in their organisation, that too without any authorization, to attend the hearing, before these Hon’ble State I.C.’s.
For a test case let us take the example of Applications filed by one Mr. Robby Sharma of 865, Block-B, Panki, Kanpur and what he has to say:
“Out of about one dozen of applications wherein I was never given the Information or if given, it was delayed by many many months and even a year, only on my insistence was show cause issued in only one case in which the PIO of PWD department fabricated back dated replies and when on my insistence he was asked to produce receipt of registry, they on 01-09-2008 produced a peon book in which the reply was shown to have been given at a address, which was not mine and even the Peon book was not original, a piece of plain paper was pasted on it and photocopied however the Noble and all knowing Information Commissioner Ram Saran Awasthee found nothing wrong in this forgery and did not impose penalty. It is a common occurrence that in many cases, two complaints are registered on one application rendering both as illegal. This happens due to poor upkeep of applications/appeals. I had sent one Appeal on 23rd April 2008, in two copies, the receipt of the Appeal was recorded in the register on 23 April, but the same was again recorded in fist week of May-2008 resulting in two appeals being registered on one application. The result was that I got intimation by ordinary post in one of the two Appeals. S-1-2406 (C) /08 & fixing1st July-2008 and went to attend the same on 1st of July-2008 in the Court of the Chief Commissioner Mr. Khan , who happened to be absent, so attendance of the parties was recorded, My attendance was recorded and the date was given as 5th of August-2008, the PIO of the concerned department was absent. On 26th July I was shocked to receive a letter No.22009/SIC/08 dated-22-7-2007, which contained an order passed in Complaint No. S-1-2763 (C)/08 on 14-07-2008 passed by the Hon’ble Commissioner Mr S.C. Pandey in this letter I was informed that I had absented myself from the hearing on the 14th of July-2008 & the Opposite party was present and had told them that they had repeatedly asked me to deposit the Fee of Rs-682 for the Information, which I had failed to deposit & as such I was advised by the Commission to deposit the fee as required and get the information & 5th of August was fixed as the next date. I never got any intimation of the Complaint case No.S-1 2763 (C) /08 & thus had no occasion to attend the hearing. Now the fact of the case was that in spite of the fact that by some mistake, two complaints had been registered on one Second Appeal & in spite of the fact that I was absent due to lack of knowledge, still, had the Hon’ble Commissioner taken care to read my Appeal, which was most concise, short & specific, he would have not passed such an order because the Appeal mainly was in protest about the demand of fee for Information which the Complainant could not be forced to pay for Information in view of Section-7-6, read with Section-7-5, as the Letter asking for it was dispatched by them much after the Statutory period of Section-7(1) & 7(3)(a).Thus the Information Commissioner S.C Pandey never bothered to read even a very short appeal filed by me resulting in more delay and complications”.
The recent anarchy of the Commission is in getting Mr. Shailendra, of RTI Cell of Congress, arrested. This action of the Commission to needs condemnation and an independent enquiry may be made either by the retired Judge of the Supreme Court or by CBI into the whole episode as there was no fault of Mr. Shalendra. I can say it with confidence since I was very much present at that time. The slogan given below fits to the U.P. State Information Commission:
DEKHO SOOCHNA AYOG KA NAYA KHEL
MANGO SOOCHNA MILEY JAIL
I would suggest to change the name of this Uttar Pradesh Soocna Ayog to CHOOSNA AYOG
Here I would like to reproduce what Hon’ble Supreme Court has to say for the common man in a case before them, Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 at 262-263, in the following words: “…….. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook.”
If such trend goes further it is sure this sunshine Act will die very soon in U.P. The day is not far away when the Act will be murdered and forced to die a unnatural death – courtesy – Hon’ble Information Commissioners of U.P.
Activist cry foul as Commissions drafts regulation. This draft on the website of the U.P. State Information Commission no where declares that it is only a draft copy. However, this is also an excellent example of Commission’s autocratic style of its functioning and creating hurdles for Information Seekers.
The UP State Information Commission has formulated some regulations for the implementation of the Right to Information Act, which, activists allege, are contrary to the spirit of the law enacted to facilitate availability of information.
The activists from across the nation have now come together to oppose the regulations and have demanded several amendments.
Social worker and RTI activist has raised the issue by writing an open letter to the officiating State Chief Information Commissioner, Gyanendra Sharma. Copies of the letter have been sent to the President, besides the Governor and the Chief Minster of Uttar Pradesh.
They allege the rules are meant to make the process so complex that it acts as a deterrent, and forces the applicant to seek legal help.
“The law was passed after a people’s movement. It was drafted by civil societies. Its rules should also be made through public discussions,” she said.
Some of the points in the SIC regulations and the counterpoints of the activists:
* Rule 6 mentions a flexible two to four-week summer break and a two-week winter break. Activists say: This lacks clarity. Besides, this is unjustified when over 10,000 cases are pending with the SIC.
* Rule 8(1) (a) makes it mandatory for the appellant/complainant to furnish his personal details, apart from name and address.
Activists say: Personal details are not specified.
* Rule 11(5) (b) says that the registrar can cancel cases that are not maintainable due to “some” reasons.
Activists say: The word “some” is ambiguous.
* Rule 12 dealing with filing of counter by the public information officer gives a bunch of relaxations to the PIO as it says, “after getting the complaint/appeal, the PIO shall submit his counter (if there is any) along with related documents.
Activists say: Why the words “if there is any” when according to Rule 10, the complainant/appellant has to send a copy of complaint/appeal to the PIO and compulsorily furnish attested copies to the SIC while filing the complaint/appeal
* Rule 12 says during hearing in commission, “generally” the PIO shall present his view.
Activists say: Why is this not mandatory?
* Rule 15(5) says the commission shall pass order on the merits of the case.
Activists say: The term “speaking order” has not been used, which is mandatory as per Section 4(1)d of the Act.
May I request all of you, the selfless RTI Activists and N.G.O’s to kindly pay heed to the above problems of ordinary citizens that they are facing in Uttar Pradesh and forward this Open Letter to Hon’ble Prime Minister, President and Smt. Sonia Gandhi ji to kindly intervene in the matter and ensure that this noble Act do not die prematurely.
Regards.
Dr. NIRAJ KUMAR
M.Com.(Bus.Admin.), Ph..D., Ll.B.,
A.M.S.P.I., F.M.S. P.I., F.A.I.M.C.,
GOLD MEDALIST, National Awardee & Paul Harris Fellow
Advisor: Columbia Holistic University, California, U.S.A.

Former Head & Director

Department of Business Administration
University of Lucknow

C-4/8, RIVER BANK COLONY
LUCKNOW – 226018
Mob.: xxxxxxxxxxx
Email: xxx@yyy.zzz, xxx@yyy.zzz,
[color=black][size=3][font=Times New Roman]
xxx@yyy.zzz

[shan]

Can We draft a memorandum here on behalf of all of us & forward to PM , Sonia Gandhi & other sections of the governace , who matters, highlighting the state of affairs in UP.

[ganpat1956]

Originally Posted by shan

Can We draft a memorandum here on behalf of all of us.

The forum rules prohibit any such form of activism.

[NIRAJ]

Originally Posted by shan

Can We draft a memorandum here on behalf of all of us & forward to PM , Sonia Gandhi & other sections of the governace , who matters, highlighting the state of affairs in UP.

Thanks. You have all liberty to draft the Memorandum.

[ganpat1956]

Originally Posted by NIRAJ

Thanks. You have all liberty to draft the Memorandum.

Of course, in your independent capacity; but not collectively under the name of the forum.

[NIRAJ]

Friends I never meant to send the Memorandum under the banner of the Forum. What all needed that if any member feels independently he may file the memorandum. I in individual capacity has already made the representation. If like minded friends file the Memorandum in individual capacity on the problems then it will get more strength.
I never intended to to use Forum, rather just to apprise the friends about the present condition of U.P. State Information Commission.
Thanks & Dusherra Greetings to all members.
NIRAJ

[shan]

We shall, all abide & respect the forum rules. What actually , was in my mind as well , was that the no. of representation, on the state affairs , might strengthned the issue.

Of-course , in the independent capacity it can be filed as well..