Tab Content
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Hour Ago
    Best is to file the traditional way.....by hard copy and follow all the Rules / conditions as specified in the new RTI Rules of 31 July 2012.
    1 replies | 14 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Hour Ago
    CIC directs Delhi Women Commission to disclose rape records New Delhi: Amid outrage over the interview of a December 16 gangrape convict, CIC on Wednesday directed the Delhi Commission of Women to make public records of rapes committed in the national capital with stern conditions to ensure that identities of victims are not disclosed. "The Commission observes that the records relating to rape victims cannot be totally blocked from sharing for research purposes on the ground of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. "When it is possible to separate information that can be given from that cannot be given, the PIO has to invoke doctrine of severability to facilitate the information," The Commission observes that the records relating to rape victims cannot be totally blocked from sharing for research purposes on the ground of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said. The case relates to Baladevan Rangaraju who claimed that he wanted information on rape victims for research purpose and personally requested the Secretary of the Department, who after knowing the purpose, refused to furnish the records. Rangaraju said information sought by him had to be maintained by the Department according to Delhi Commission for Women Act, 1994. The Commission expressed concern over the issue of the protection of privacy of the rape victims and contended that it was not possible to separate the names of the victims from various documents including medico-legal case reports. "Facilitate inspection of the records to the authorised female representative of the appellant with an assurance that they shall not bring any electronic device like video records, mobile, camera etc, block out the names and personal details of the victim and accused by whitener on the photostat copies," Sridhar said setting stern guidelines for disclosure of sensitive information. He said each paper shall be verified by the officials of Delhi Women Commission to ensure that nowhere victims' names and private details are revealed before certifying. "The appellant is directed to enter a non-disclosure agreement with an undertaking that he/his representative will not reveal information about the personal details of the victims and the accused and that they shall be responsible for any such revelation through the documents shared," he said. Acharyulu warned that any such disclosure would not only result in the breach of undertaking but also an offence under the Indian Penal Code. "It shall be responsibility of the respondent authority to secure records, and the appellant shall share the copy of the research report with the Women's Commission and this Commission," the Commissioner said in his order. Read More: CIC directs Delhi Women Commission to disclose rape records - IBNLive
    0 replies | 25 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Hours Ago
    Charges against CMD: FACT files go missing KOCHI: Some of the files regarding the cost of renovating the bungalow of Jaiveer Srivastava, the chairman and managing director (CMD) of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd (FACT), are not traceable, states a reply from FACT following an RTI query. The reply assumes significance as Srivastava is currently facing allegations of fund misappropriation. The company secretary's reply to the RTI query states that expenditure details of only Rs 64 lakh is available with the company. Files regarding further expenditure could not be traced, said the company secretary who is also the information officer. Following allegations that the CMD had spent around Rs 1. 5 crore for renovating his official residence, the CBI has been probing the matter. "Some renovation/repair was made on the quarters of CMD recently and the total expenditure incurred is Rs 64.63 lakh. It may please be noted that the details of previous repair and maintenance done to the official quarters of the CMD is not traceable from the records available with the company," the reply by company secretary K V Balakrishnan stated. After receiving the RTI reply, K Premnath, president of VOICE, an NGO based in Kochi, submitted an application to the appellate authority challenging the reply. "Director (finance) of FACT, who is the appellate authority, gave me the same reply. In his reply, he also informed that I can inspect the files. I will inspect the files soon," Premnath said. "Our organization fights corruption. It was following allegations that the CMD had spent a huge amount on renovating his official residence that we filed the RTI application," he said. "Last year, the central information commissioner had ordered that officials concerned should be held responsible if files in his or her custody go missing," he said. When TOI contacted Balakrishnan over phone, he said that he had forwarded the reply received from officials of the concerned departments. "I don't remember the exact reply I gave. Whatever reply I gave, it must have been what I received from the heads of departments concerned," Balakrishnan said. As per the RTI reply, 97 LED bulbs were bought for the living room at a cost of Rs 1.64 lakh. Another 120 LED bulbs were bought for the remaining rooms. For the kitchen furniture alone, Rs 4,68,466 was spent. The amount excluded home appliances. Last week, CBI inspected the offices of various top officials of FACT. They were also questioned. The CBI first raided the office of CMD on December 21 last year while conducting investigations into an alleged misappropriation of funds. It was alleged that the CMD had spent Rs 1.5 crore for renovating his official residence and another Rs 50 lakh for renovating the office. CBI officials had also said there were nine major charges against Srivastava. Srivastava, however, has denied the charges. Read More: Charges against CMD: FACT files go missing - The Times of India
    0 replies | 23 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Hours Ago
    RTI in private bodies has hit a gridlock: Activists Even as the info commission decides whether Mumbai Metro One Pvt. Ltd. (MMOPL) is a public authority, the larger issue of private companies providing public service being under RTI has hit a gridlock stage, concur activists. Activists blame lack of political will, apart from the conservative approach of the judiciary in emphasising the need to make such private concerns more transparent. Activists say that the roots lay somewhere in the beginning when the sunshine law was coming into existence. As India took inspiration of its Act from the US version of the law, some things did not fall into place despite vociferous demands of those rooting for a strong Act. "The US version of the law has a schedule that covers bodies which provide public service. Out here, they have been left out," said Venkatesh Nayak, programme coordinator at the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, which studies functioning of RTI. Instances where circulars or notifications were issued have not seen the bureaucracy take things to a logical end, even if the courts have not stayed them. For example, a department of personnel and training (DoPT) circular which made it mandatory for PPP models to disclose information covered under section 4 of the RTI Act, has not yet been effective. "Here, the blame should lie squarely on bureaucrats. If they want, the private bodies will not have the gumption to overlook a circular," said Bhaskar Prabhu of Mahiti Adhikar Manch, an NGO that works towards RTI awareness. States like Kerala that went ahead and came out with a notification to push for temple trusts and cooperative societies to come under RTI, saw them being challenged. "While some of them have had a very reasoned order, in other instances that has not been the case. In a number of cases, a stay has been granted," said Nayak. Those that have been termed as public authority and have got reprieve from the courts are MIAL and Reliance Energy. These were declared public authorities but courts gave a stay on such orders. The stays are yet to be lifted. "Definitions (of transparency) have been interpreted fairly restrictively by courts. The moment companies are performing jobs that affect the public, they ought to be transparent," said Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convenor of NCPRI, national platform that work towards RTI and played a pivotal role in the passage and implementation of RTI Act. "At the end of the day, if private companies take government aid, they should be willing to come under RTI," said Vijay Kumbhar, another RTI activist. "It has sort of become a routine session of private sector companies to reject giving any information otherwise," said SK Nangia, another activist. Read More: RTI in private bodies has hit a gridlock: Activists | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis
    0 replies | 25 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Hours Ago
    Members, Please DO NOT believe these figures. They are provided by the public authorities themselves and have not been verified by the CIC. Most of the figures given are figments of peoples imagination.....as I found out and proved to the APSIC. The answer was, "What can we do ? We depend on the PA to provide this information which is incorporated in our report".
    5 replies | 55 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Hours Ago
    Sec 4 suo motu disclosure is a joke. The CIC is making a laughing stock of itself by writing things like this in their report. What more to say, when IC DS (who also went on to become Chief IC and was trying for a Governors post after leaving CIC), wrote to me: "No hearing is required to be held on the complaint re Sec 4 compliance as Sec 4 pertains to suo motu "obligation" of public authorities. This is the view held by the Commission previously as well" I complained to CIC SM in writing and also sent several reminders BUT not a single word in response. Please read: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/98869-death-section-4-a.html ============ In another case of State Bank of Mysore (read post 2 above), one "legal adviser" to IC VS told me: "Mr Karira, if you expect public authorities to comply with Sec 4 completely, they cannot do any other work. You think they have no other work ?" I went to the Secretary of the CIC to complain and was told..."Forget about her. She is mad" ! So I forgot about her and also about Sec 4.
    5 replies | 102 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Hours Ago
    If the matter is "sensitive", applicant will not get information even after the order of CIC.
    5 replies | 55 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 replies | 131 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Hours Ago
    Each vehicle is supposed to have a pollution control check.....but as you know, most of such checks are a big fraud. You pay 50 or 100 and get a PUC certificate even without testing. As a first step you should try to tackle these fraud pollution testings vans / centres.
    3 replies | 54 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    6 Hours Ago
    What a unscientific and lethargic method to come to a conclusion that - if these 667 public authorities have made such affirmative declarations and given link to the website - means that they have complied with Sec 4. EXAMPLE: State Bank of Mysore has a RTI link on its website: Right To Information Act 2005 and this is the suo motu declaration they have : Right To Information Act 2005 Obviously State Bank of Mysore would have provided the link and CIC has counted it as in the 667 entities. ======================= What is most shocking is to know that the rest of the public authorities do not even have a link on their websites !
    5 replies | 102 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    7 Hours Ago
    Only 25% of government bodies making mandatory RTI disclosures: CIC New Delhi: The Central Information Commission on Wednesday questioned government bodies with regard to meeting the requirement of mandatory suo-motu disclosures under the RTI Act and said that there was need for "introspection" as only a little over one-fourth of the 2,276 public authorities have followed statutory guidelines. AFPAFP Under Section IV of the Right to Information Act, a public authority is mandated to publish on its website 17 classes of information about its working and the records held by it so that people need not burden it with RTI applications. The annual report of the CIC, which was released on Wednesday, shows that only 667 of the 2,276 public authorities have fulfilled the mandatory requirement. "This needs introspection by Ministry/Department/Public Authorities as to the reasons why despite having good ICT infrastructure available with them, its usages for strengthening the system of mandatory disclosure norms remains unattended," the report said. The report said that the public authorities with field formations need to assess the quality, citizen friendliness, and the periodicity of dissemination of information so as to institutionalise the disclosure mechanism as mandated under Section IV of the RTI Act, 2005. "Ultimately, it is the creation of robust and dynamic citizen-government interface through sharing of information that should be talisman of our democracy," it said. Giving details of the mechanism through which the figure of 667 for the year 2013-14 had been arrived at, the report said that all public authorities have to submit their returns online in a pro-forma prescribed by the CIC. "In (block V), the Ministries/Departments/Public Authorities have to respond to a query 'Is mandatory disclosure under Section 4(1)(b) posted on the website of public authority?' If the response to the query is yes then Ministry/Department/Public Authorities have to provide detail/URL of webpage where the disclosure is posted," the report said. It said that the pro-forma also provides for other mode of dissemination if a public authority has not posted the disclosure on its website. "Only 667 Ministry/Department/Public Authorities have given response in affirmative. This means that 667 Ministry/Department/Public Authorities have posted their mandatory disclosure norms through their websites," it said. Read More: Only 25% of government bodies making mandatory RTI disclosures: CIC - Firstpost
    5 replies | 102 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    7 Hours Ago
    I gave a cursory glance at the attached Law Panel report and it does not mention any such thing. Can members read it in details and see whether any such recommendation is given ?
    3 replies | 89 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    10 Hours Ago
    Please see: http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2012_001714_M_107838.pdf http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_AD_C_2011_001440_M_85449.pdf http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2013_000542_M_116744.pdf
    13 replies | 91 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    10 Hours Ago
    Law panel to Modi Govt: Bribery for 'good intention' should not be considered a crime New Delhi, Feb 17: Prime Minister Narendra Modi, throughout his electioneering, sought votes to curb widespread corruption and bribery in the government offices, but if reports are to be believed then Law Commission has come up with a recommendation that might promote bribery. Bribery to be legalised in India? As per reports, suggesting amendments in the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Bill, 2013, the Law Commission wants to decriminalisation of bribery 'if taken for a right cause'. That means, the law panel has suggested the government to not to penalise a government employee if he is caught seeking bribe for a good cause. For this, the panel has come up with a justification that Indian employees do not seek bribe only for their personal interests, infact bribe here is taken to get some of the work done on time. If this recommendation is accepted then only those public servants would be punished who misused their office by taking bribe. It must be noted that taking money or favours to get the work done is legal in several countries, there it is termed as 'facilitation fee'. A person is free to pay some extra money to get his/her work done quickly. With India bidding big ticket investments, the Law Commission, last week, recommended mandatory norms by government for commercial organisations to prevent bribery. Recommending amendments to the bill, the law panel proposed introducing a "statutory obligation" on the government to publish guidance about the procedures that commercial organisations can take to put in place "adequate systems" to prevent bribery to public servants. It said in Section 9, a new sub-clause can be added to make it clear that "the central government shall prescribe and publish guidelines about the adequate procedures, which can be put in place by commercial organisations to prevent persons associated with them from bribing any person, being or expecting to be, a public servant". It said the guidelines shall be prescribed and published by the Centre "after following a consultation process in which the views of all the interested stakeholders are obtained". Section 10 of the bill pending in the Rajya Sabha extends the liability of the commercial organisation to every person who is in charge of and is responsible to the organisation for the conduct of its business through a deeming provision. The panel in its latest report submitted to the Law Ministry has also recommended amending Section 10. The revised Section 10 now states that if an offence by a commercial organisation is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the commercial organisation, then such person shall be guilty of the offence and will be liable to be proceeded against and punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years. OneIndia News (With inputs from PTI) Read More: Law panel to Modi Govt: Bribery for good intention should not be considered a crime - Oneindia
    3 replies | 89 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    12 Hours Ago
    This portal is ONLY meant for discussing issues related to the RTI Act 2005. You will not get any help/guidance/answers for all types of requests and general queries.
    4 replies | 60 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    12 Hours Ago
    You are correct - the Act uses the word "copy" and not "photocopy". But you know the Kerala SIC very well. They will never agree and you will have to go all the way to court.
    13 replies | 91 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    FAA has 30 + 15 days (total 45) to pass an order from the date of receipt of your first appeal. Please wait for that time period to pass. If you still do not receive the FAAs order by the expiry of that time limit, then file a second appeal.
    17 replies | 606 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    Unaided schools are not directly under RTI. However, depending on the type of information you want from a private school, you can try to get it through the DEO (District Education Officer).
    7 replies | 103 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    This information is already available on the portals of HPCL/BPCL/IOC. Visit the portals and find out.
    5 replies | 103 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    GICHFL was declared a public authority and under RTI by the CIC. Later it moved the High Court and got a stay on that order. Since the matter is still in court, you will not get any information from them, under RTI.
    3 replies | 67 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    If you share the contents of your RTI application and the PIOs reply, our helpful members will be able to guide you correctly. Please share the details.
    3 replies | 70 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    If it is a public authority, then the electricity bill is part of the "records" and "information" held by the public authority. It has to be disclosed unless it can be exempted/rejected under some sub section of Sec 8.
    11 replies | 226 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    No, it should not. The PIOs position is a statutory position. In case one PIO leaves (or gets arrested , as in this case), then the public authority has to designate a new PIO immediately. As RTI applicants, our concern should be with the PIO and NOT the person/individual occupying the post.
    12 replies | 234 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    If you are in a position to seek "inspection" of the records, then seek inspection and take copies after the inspection. This will also show you whether the PIO/FAA are playing a game or the records are genuinely in a bad condition.
    13 replies | 91 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    After logging in, click on the "settings" link located at the extreme top right of the page. On the "settings" page, on the left hand side menu, you will find a link: "Edit email and password", under "My Account" sub heading.
    2 replies | 44 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    Rules are very objectionable.... Some of them infringe on the basic provisions of the Act
    4 replies | 152 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    The Uttar Pradesh Govt. has released draft RTI Rules covering RTI applications, appeals and complaints. They are attached to this post.
    4 replies | 152 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    Each University has a prescribed procedure for verification or marksheets/degrees. Visit the website of the University and follow the procedure described there. If there is no procedure given, check the procedure from the University.
    2 replies | 55 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    Investors, depositors have right to seek compensation in financial fraud In an historical decision, the NCDRC held that the remedy before a consumer forum is primarily a civil remedy, whereas the prosecution before and conviction by a designated court constituted under MPID Act is a criminal remedy The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), in a significant decision, has held that investors and depositors have a right to seek compensation under the Consumer Protection Act in case of defaults from a financial establishment. In a related case, the apex consumer Commission has asked Nagpur-based Shivaji Estate Livestock And Farms Pvt Ltd to refund money invested along with a 9% interest from filing the complaint. The NCDRC also directed the company to pay 10% of the amount invested as compensation and Rs1,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant. The NCDRC judgement ratifies a financial consumer's right to seek compensation for a fraudulent default on part of a financial establishment. A Bench of Justice VK Jain and Dr BC Gupta, said, "It would be seen from a perusal of the provisions contained in Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act that the designated court has no power to grant compensation to a person who is a victim of the fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the said MPID Act provides an adequate redressal of the grievances of a person who suffers on account of the fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment, where such defaults also constitutes deficiency in the services rendered by a service provider to its consumer. We are also in agreement with the learned counsel for the complainant that the remedy before a consumer forum is primarily a civil remedy, whereas the prosecution before and conviction by a designated court constituted under MPID Act is a criminal remedy available to the victim of a fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment." In this case, the complainants, Pratibha Adelkar and 372 others were represented by Adv Shirish Deshpande of the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. Shivaji Estate Livestock invited investors to invest in its goat farming and allied activities by purchasing units of several schemes floated by it. In its brochure, Shivaji Estate Livestock said it has arranged about 500 goats in each goat shed with 25-50 such shed in each rearing centre, 100% of the livestock would be insured and there would be 100% guarantee of the invested amount. The company also told investors that they would have hypothetical charge on 1,000 sq ft of land of Shivaji Estate Livestock and one time investment would offer consistent benefit for 15 years, experienced vets and professionals would look after livestock. The company also assured minimum expected return on the investment and if targets are achieved, investors were also promised additional bonus. The schemes also provided for pre-mature withdrawals by giving 45 days’ notice. Initially, Shivaji Estate Livestock made payments of some instalments due to the investors under the schemes but later on did not fulfil the terms (for repayment to investors). When the investors applied for pre-mature withdrawals, the company failed to honour its commitment. Alleging deficiency in the services offered by Shivaji Estate Livestock, the complainants filed appeal before the NCDRC. No one except a director of Shivaji Estate Livestock filed any reply. In the reply, the company director took a preliminary objection that in view of the provisions contained in the MPID Act, the NCDRC has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the Act provides complete machinery for recovery of investors' deposits. It also stated that a complaint and FIR was filed against the company. A charge sheet was filed against the Company and nine others, under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 and 4 of the MPID Act and the case was pending before the Designated Court. Shivaji Estate Livestock, however did not deny floating of schemes and accepting deposits from the complainants. The NDCRD Bench, said, "As per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 'consumer' means any person, who either buys goods or hires or avails services for a consideration, but does not include a person, who avails of such services for any commercial purpose. The term 'service' has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act to mean service of any description, which is made available to potential users. The Complainants hired or availed the services of the opposite party for investing their savings in the schemes floated by Shivaji Estate Livestock, and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in goat farming and allied activities. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that the complainants are consumers of Shivaji Estate Livestock within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act." The Bench then decided on whether the jurisdiction of NCDRC is barred under sub-section of Section 6 of the MPID Act. Adv Deshpande contented that since the consumer forum is not a court; the provisions of Section 6(2) of the MPID Act are not applicable to such forum. He also submitted that the remedy provided before a consumer forum is a civil remedy in a case where the fraudulent default, as defined in MPID Act also constitutes deficiency in the services rendered by a service provider, whereas MPID Act provides for criminal prosecution and punishment of the persons indulging in such fraudulent defaults. "...the designated court constituted under the provisions of MPID Act has no power to grant compensation, which a consumer forum can grant in a case of deficiency in the services rendered to a consumer," Adv Deshpande pointed out. Accepting the contention, the Bench said, "Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provisions of the said Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The MPID Act came to be enacted much later than enactment of the Consumer Protection Act. Despite that the Legislation in its wisdom used only the expression 'Court' and not the expression 'Court or any other forum' in sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act. In these circumstances, it would be difficult to say that the legislative intent behind the enactment of sub-Section (2) of the Section 6 was also to exclude the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in a case where fraudulent default on the part of the Financial Establishment also constitutes deficiency in the service rendered to a consumer. Therefore, in our view, for the purpose of the sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the MPID Act, consumer forum cannot be said to be a 'court'." While disposing of the complaint, the apex consumer forum, then directed Shivaji Estate Livestock to refund to investors, money deposited in different schemes along with an interest of 9% from the date of filing complaint. Read More: Investors, depositors have right to seek compensation in financial fraud - Moneylife
    0 replies | 54 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    Make activities, finances public: Ministry to IOA, NSFs NEW DELHI: In a bid to ensure transparency, the Sports Ministry today made it mandatory for the Indian Olympic Association and the national federations to disclose their activities and finances online, failing which their recognition could be reviewed. In a letter to the IOA and NSFs, the Ministry has said these instructions have also been made part of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011. The letter said, "It has been noticed tha .. Read more at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/46428692.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
    0 replies | 103 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    If they think they are "flooded" with RTI applications on these two subjects, they can upload all the information on their website as well as give a media release on the expenses, as soon as possible.
    1 replies | 133 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    The new email policy, referred to in the above news report is available on this portal here: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/7397-guidelines-government-websites-email-useage-management-government-post347506.html#post347506 Please also read: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/7397-guidelines-government-websites-email-useage-management-government.html
    1 replies | 85 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    Haan mil jayega
    14 replies | 268 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    You have to visit the office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Maharashtra. Most probably they will give you the voters list to check in their office.
    3 replies | 56 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    Central RTI form jaisi koi cheez nahin hai. Aap apna RTI plain paper pey type yaan likh saktey hain.
    14 replies | 268 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    Which specific sub section of Sec 8(1) did he specify to reject your request ? Please specify. Please share the exact contents of your RTI application and the PIOs reply. This will enable our helpful members to guide you correctly.
    2 replies | 118 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    Maharashtra govt won’t probe anonymous graft complaints In a severe blow to whistleblowers in Maharashtra, the BJP-led state government has made it clear that anonymous complaints, irrespective of how serious allegations are levelled in them, won’t be probed. The General Administration Department, headed by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, has issued directives to all state departments stating that complaints not carrying the name and the address of the complainant must be closed without any action. It further states that the same rule should be followed in complaints that carry the name of the complainant, but the allegations levelled in them are “vague” in nature. Even in cases where the complainant chooses to identify himself/herself and the allegations are “verifiable”, the approval of the competent authority should be taken for taking cognisance of such a complaint. After which, it must first be referred back to the complainant to ascertain if he/she owns up to filing the complaint. If nothing is heard from the complainant within a month, such complaints must be treated as “pseudonymous” in nature and discarded without any probe, the directive adds. Sources in the government said the move was to arrest policy paralysis in the bureaucracy. But anti-corruption activists said that it would discourage people from becoming whistleblowers and exposing corruption. The government, on the other hand, has argued that whistleblowers who desire to protect their identity were already protected under the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers Resolution, 2004, where the identify of a complainant is kept a secret. Read More: Maharashtra govt won’t probe anonymous graft complaints | The Indian Express
    0 replies | 38 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    Is there any such rule - in centre or state ?
    6 replies | 150 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    If he/she has obtained a passport using fake documents and you have all the evidence, then simply complain to the Passport office which issued that passport and let them act as per the law. RTI will only help you get the information....but it seems you already have the information.
    2 replies | 92 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    karira has just uploaded Information under Sec 4 - no need for PIO to provide or reject application! The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Legislature never intended that applicants file RTI applications under Sec 6 for
    3 replies | 94 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    The full judgment of the Bombay HC, referred to in the above news report, is available on our portal here: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/docs/court-judgements-rti-issues/618-file-fir-files-go-missing-after-rti
    1 replies | 117 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    karira has just uploaded File FIR for files which go missing after RTI application! The Bombay High Court has directed the Urban Development department of Maharashtra Govt. to file a FIR for missing files
    1 replies | 83 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    Angry over missing Govt file, Bombay High Court directs FIR against officers MUMBAI: Observing that information under Right to Information Act (RTI) cannot be denied to a citizen, the Bombay High Court has directed Deputy Secretary of Urban Development Department in Maharashtra to register an FIR against officers responsible for a 'missing' file. A division bench of the HC further directed that after filing the FIR, the investigation must be completed within six months and it should be headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police. Justices Abhay Oka and A S Gadkari imposed costs of Rs 15,000 on the State Government for the lapse on part of officers which led to a UDD file going 'missing' as a result information under RTI Act couldn't be provided to an advocate. "The case in hand is a classic example as to how the Government officers protecting their fellow officers tend to frustrate the basic intention of the legislature behind the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005," said the Judges in their order on Friday. The HC was hearing a petition filed by Sangli-based advocate Vivek Vishnupant Kulkarni, who is also an office- bearer of Swatantraya Veer Savarkar Pratishthan, a voluntary group which runs two schools having 1,600 students on rolls. The 58-year-old petitioner filed an application on September 5, 2008, with the Section and Information Officer of UDD seeking information under RTI in respect of a Government Resolution (GR) dated August 21, 1996. The resolution pertained to release of various lands in and around Sangli city in western Maharashtra which were acquired by the Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. He sought information about the Government notings and other documents on the basis of which the GR was issued. By a communication dated September 22, 2008, the UDD Information Officer told Kulkarni the required information sought by him regarding file ULC/1089/2123//ULC-2 is not available on the Department's record and therefore, the said details cannot be furnished. In the same letter, the petitioner was also informed that some details sought by him is connected with the office of Deputy Collector and his application to that extent had been transferred to the said authority for further action. Being aggrieved by inaction of the Information Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal on November 27, 2008, before the Deputy Secretary of UDD. The Deputy Secretary asked the Information Officer to search the missing file and give the details sought by Kulkarni immediately. Read more at: Angry over missing Govt file, Bombay High Court directs FIR against officers - The Economic Times
    1 replies | 117 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    karira replied to a thread help in Ask for RTI Query
    Ni it is not possible under RTI. If you are really disturbed, then file a police complaint and the police will search for the owner of the number..
    4 replies | 72 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    Sri Lanka’s Right To Information Bill 2015 – Clearing Up Misconceptions And Recommending Revisions Contrary to the popular perception of some therefore, the RTI Bill now in the public domain is not the end product of a new drafting process initiated by this Government in 2015. That exercise still remains to be engaged in, which is presumably why the call for public feedback was issued. by Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena and Venkatesh Nayak Introduction ( February 28, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In giving necessary context to Sri Lanka’s draft Right to Information (RTI) law disseminated by the current Government in order to obtain feedback from citizens, a few matters need to be clarified. In substantial respects, this draft is the 2003/2004 Bill of the United National Front (UNF) administration. This is quite evident by the insertion of the Legislative Draftsman’s Department, LDO Number 23/2003 on the left hand side of the Bill. The 2003/2004 Bill was finalized by a committee headed by then Attorney General, the late Mr KC Kamalasabeyson, PC and including the then Justice Secretary, the Legal Draftsman, senior editors and public interest advocates. It was approved by the UNF Cabinet at that time. However, due to the Parliament being dissolved by President Chandrika Kumaratunga, this draft was not enacted into law. The Bill was further revised in 2010 by then Justice and Legal Reforms Minister of the Peoples’ Alliance, Milinda Moragoda who attempted unsuccessfully to enact an RTI law. Later, then United National Party opposition parliamentarian Karu Jayasuriya also attempted to bring in an RTI law as a private member’s Bill. This attempt was disallowed by the Rajapaksa government in power in a move widely condemned at that time. Contrary to the popular perception of some therefore, the RTI Bill now in the public domain is not the end product of a new drafting process initiated by this Government in 2015. That exercise still remains to be engaged in, which is presumably why the call for public feedback was issued. Learning from comparative experience Some consequent issues arise as a result. Certain aspects of the 2003/2004 draft are salutary, such as the right of disclosure of information in the public interest and the duty imposed on public authorities to conform to RTI protections. In comparison to other RTI drafts, this draft was far more liberal. For example, the RTI draft law of the Law Commission of Sri Lanka was premised on a far more restrictive basis including parliamentary privilege as well as contempt of court among a wider list of grounds on which denial to information may be justified. That said however, more than ten years have passed since that initial drafting process in 2003. The Bill needs to be carefully and thoroughly revised given the development of RTI best practice standards internationally with particular reference to South Asia itself where Sri Lanka’s neighbouring countries have enacted well reasoned laws. There is much that we can learn therefore from comparative experience. This analysis is being written with that objective in mind. It is not proposed to deal with all the revisions that need to be made to the Bill due to space constraints. Rather, a few imperative revisions will be discussed. Relatively uncontestable revisions of the Bill relate to the correction of Clause 12(1)(b) of the Bill. As per the initial framing of this Clause in 2003/2004, this inadvertently specifies appointment of RTI Commissioners to be in the hands of the Minister whereas the actual applicable provision is the (later revised) Clause 12(2) which vests the appointment power in the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. Similarly, Clause 31 which states that ‘the granting of access to any information in consequence of a request made under this Act shall not be taken to constitute an authorization or approval granted by a public authority or the Commission, of the publication of such information by the person to whom the access is granted’ was inserted at the insistence of the government at that time. This may be deleted entirely. This provision amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression of people in Sri Lanka. The purpose of an RTI law is to enable free flow of information from public authorities and private entities to people who may then use them in their debates, discussions or other kinds of legal interventions. An RTI law must not place restrictions on such hard won liberties. Clarifying some misconceptions Putting this aside, a few general misconceptions regarding this 2002/2004 RTI Bill needs to be clarified. First is the claim that the 2003/2004 RTI Bill as revised only applies to institutions of the central government. This is not so. Clause 40 brings in ‘local authorities’ within the ambit of the definition of ‘a public authority.’ A local authority is defined to mean ‘a Municipal Council, Urban Council or a Pradeshiya Sabha and like bodies. It also includes ‘any department or other authority or institution established or created by a Provincial Council.’ Second the Bill’s obligation to provide information is not limited only to government bodies. The Interpretation Clause (Clause 40) specifically defines a ‘public authority’ to include interalia, ‘a company incorporated under the Companies Act, No.17 of 1982 in which the State or a public corporation or the State and a public corporation together hold a majority of the shares.’ It may be suggested however that the rider as to ‘majority’ shares be taken out in this clause so as to further expand the reach of access to information. Further, a private entity or organization rendering any service which is of a ‘public nature’ is included within this definition of a ‘public authority’. A valid concern has been raised as to whether the phrase ‘private entity or organisation’ (subject to the rider of rendering a public service) is a tad widely framed. The argument about extending RTI obligations to political parties is very clear. It is recommended that all organs of the State be covered by the RTI law in keeping with the internationally recognized principle of maximum disclosure. Political parties may be included under the purview of this law in order to make them directly accountable to the people they seek to represent. Political parties are covered by the RTI laws in Poland and Nepal One suggestion may be to reword ‘public service’ as ‘public functions’ which is a clearly defined term in administrative law and constitutional law and has been the subject of several judgments of Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. This issue needs to be examined. It must be said meanwhile that South Africa has taken the lead in bringing even purely private entities within the ambit of a domestic access to information law, with a significant qualification. Access to information from a private entity is available as a matter of right only if it was required for the exercise or protection of any right recognised by law. As it stands, the Interpretation Clause is framed in such a manner as to (arguably) bring in political parties as well as non-governmental organizations registered under the Companies Act within the reach of the duty to disclose information. Expanding the reach of RTI The argument about extending RTI obligations to political parties is very clear. It is recommended that all organs of the State be covered by the RTI law in keeping with the internationally recognized principle of maximum disclosure. Political parties may be included under the purview of this law in order to make them directly accountable to the people they seek to represent. Political parties are covered by the RTI laws in Poland and Nepal. The argument for bringing political parties within the ambit of the RTI law rests on the premise that people should have the right to seek information from such bodies as their due and accountable functioning is essential and fundamental to democratic electoral politics. The travails that Indian RTI activists have had to undergo in this regard are instructive for Sri Lanka. In June 2013, a 3-member bench of the Central Information Commission (CIC) held six national political parties to be covered within the term ‘public authorities’ under the Indian RTI Act. In December 2013, instead of challenging this order in court, the political parties authorised the government to make amendments to the law to keep all political parties (not just the national parties) out of the RTI Act. The Government introduced an amendment Bill in Parliament later that year. Indian civil society launched a major campaign to get the amendment Bill withdrawn or at least have it referred to a Parliamentary Committee. That did happen when the Bharathiya Janatha Party (BJP), then in the Opposition capitalized on the public mood against the amendment. With the dissolution of the Lower House last year, this Bill has lapsed. The current government has not revived it. Currently the CIC is hearing a complaint case about non-compliance with its orders by the six national political parties which it had named. These parties have not deigned to appear before the CIC in manifest contempt. Where non-governmental institutions (NGOs) are concerned, the access laws of Bangladesh and Nepal specifically require any body that receives or utilises foreign funds to be as transparent as public authorities and other private entities that receive government support. Certainly RTI is a good route to make political parties transparent. As a matter of general principle, political parties must be treated as bodies essential and fundamental to the electoral politics of that country. No other non-governmental organisation aspires or claims to represent the people. So people should have the right to seek information from such bodies directly. Poland covers political parties under its Freedom of Information (FOI) law squarely as they are recipients of State funds. Nepal is the only other country in the world which covers political parties under its RTI Act but not for reasons of State funding. The addition to the law was made as a result of revolutionary fervour and has not progressed much beyond this effort. Hardly any instance has come to light where RTI applications have been filed with political parties demanding information directly from them. Where non-governmental institutions (NGOs) are concerned, the access laws of Bangladesh and Nepal specifically require any body that receives or utilises foreign funds to be as transparent as public authorities and other private entities that receive government support. Further important revisions Further substantial revisions relate to the Bill’s exclusions to a general right to ask for information. These were inserted into the draft in 2003 based on experiences in Sri Lanka at that time. Even so, civil society and media groups participating in the drafting committee successfully insisted on the right to a public interest disclosure despite objections by government representatives. That said, there is no doubt that RTI standards have substantively advanced since then. Broad revisions to the exclusion clauses in the Bill are certainly called for now. In addition, the public disclosure rule should apply to all the exemptions rather than only a few. Moreover, Clause 38 of the Bill, as originally drafted, only provided protection in terms of ‘official information which is permitted to be released or disclosed on a request submitted under Act.’ Those protected were also only officers and employees of a public authority. For the purposes of clarification, this clause was a compromise arrived at between government representatives and civil society during the 2003 drafting process as there was considerable resistance to the inclusion of even a limited whistleblower protection. That resistance is no longer evident. Consequently it is recommended that the Bill reflect internationally recognised standards in respect of whistleblower provisions. India’s RTI Act prescribes a variety of methods of disseminating proactively disclosed information such as through Internet websites, notice boards, the print and electronic media or simply making such information available for inspection free of charge at a publicly accessible place in every office. Similar modes of dissemination are recommended and the fee payable for obtaining copies must be subject to Regulations prepared by the concerned Ministry in consultation with the Commission and as approved by Parliament These standards require that persons should be protected from prosecution for disclosing not merely “official information” but “any information”, so long as the whistleblower acted in good faith, and in the reasonable belief that the information was substantially true, and that such information disclosed evidence of wrongdoing or a serious threat to the health or safety of any citizen or to the environment. Other imperative revisions relate to the need to vest the power to sanction for breach of RTI obligations in the RTI Commission as well as granting it civil powers and ensuring swift action when RTI users and activists are attacked. It is meanwhile important that the Bill reflect the principle of voluntary and pro-active disclosure. India’s RTI Act prescribes a variety of methods of disseminating proactively disclosed information such as through Internet websites, notice boards, the print and electronic media or simply making such information available for inspection free of charge at a publicly accessible place in every office. Similar modes of dissemination are recommended and the fee payable for obtaining copies must be subject to Regulations prepared by the concerned Ministry in consultation with the Commission and as approved by Parliament Good implementation, the key The actual worth of Sri Lanka’s RTI law lies in its good implementation and vigorous use by the media and citizens after it is enacted. Sri Lanka has been plagued for too long with good laws that lie inactive in the statue book. As pointed out in the January 2015 (Sage, India) book ‘‘Embattled Media: Democracy, Governance and Reforms in Sri Lanka’ co-edited by one of the authors of this article, it is important that ‘the media itself plays a pro-active role in promoting the right to information’. The culture of secrecy continuing even in this ‘yahapalanaya’ (good governance) age in most state departments and ministries must be unequivocally transformed. About the authors; Kishali Pinto Jayawardena is a Colombo based civil liberties advocate, the editorial (legal) consultant/columnist for the Sunday Times and as legal consultant for the Institute of Commonwealth Studies (ICwS) Sri Lanka media law initiative based at the University of London, co-edited ‘Embattled Media: Democracy, Governance and Reforms in Sri Lanka’ (Sage, January 2015). Mr. Venkatesh Nayak is the Coordinator of the Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), New Delhi and an advisor to the Steering Committee of the Whistleblowers’ International Network. Ms. Saine Paul and Ms. Seema Choudhary of CHRI and Sri Lankan attorney Prameetha Abeywickreme assisted in the writing of this analysis.
    0 replies | 58 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Days Ago
    Two threads by the same poster have been merged.
    8 replies | 221 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Days Ago
    To aap kam saal ki mango .... paanch saal, yaan do saal.
    7 replies | 213 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Days Ago
    Meeting of RTI Activists in Banagalore Dear Friends, A meeting of RTI Activists is arranged on 6th March 2015 at 11.30 AM at the Office Premises of Mahithi Hakku Adhyayana Kendra situated at Hotel Panchavati, No.54, 17th Cross, M C Layout, Vijayanagar Bus Stand, Bangalore. Alarming Pendency before Karnataka Information Commission and poor implementation of Section 4 information by the Public Authorities has resulted in abnormal delay in getting information by the citizen. Please send your suggestions on the above subject for discussion during the meeting. We are happy to inform you that MR. BHASKAR PRABHU, Convener Mahiti Adhikar Manch, Mumbai and Co-Convener, National Campaign for Right to Information will be sharing his experience in implementation of RTI Act in Maharashtra. Please participate and strengthen the RTI Movement in our State. will be joining us for the above meeting. -- B.H. VEERESHA CONVENER KARNATAKA RTI ACTIVISTS STATE COMMITTEE NO.54, 17TH CROSS M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560 040
    1 replies | 77 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Days Ago
    It depends on which zone is your public authority located (the one to whom you filed the RTI petition). The correct SIC bench will be the one which handles second appeals for that zone. https://sic.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Common/Section4View.aspx https://sic.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Downloads/WorkDistribution/work_distribution_at_sic02Jul2014.pdf
    2 replies | 176 view(s)
More Activity
About clout

Basic Information

Personal Information

About the Personal Details.

Location:
Gurgaon
Your Real Name:
Rahul

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1
Posts Per Day
0.00
General Information
Last Activity
10-31-2012
Join Date
07-27-2010
Referrals
0

2 Friends

Showing Friends 1 to 2 of 2

clout's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to show...

Activity Information
  • Total Points:
  • 16
  • Activity Level:
  • 1
  • To Next Level:
  • 4
  • Percent Into Level:
  • 60% Achieved
  • Daily Activity:
  • 0 / 21.31 (0%)
  • Weekly Activity:
  • 0.15 / 149.15 (0.1%)
  • Monthly Activity:
  • 0.2 / 660.52 (0.03%)
Points
  • Points for Attachment:
  • 0
  • Points for Posts:
  • 0
  • Points for Posts (Own Threads):
  • 0
  • Points for Threads:
  • 0
  • Points for Thread Ratings Given:
  • 0
  • Points for Thread Ratings Received:
  • 0
  • Points for Polls Posted:
  • 0
  • Points for Poll Votes:
  • 0
  • Points for Confirmed Friends:
  • 0
  • Points for Reputation (Given):
  • 0
  • Points for Reputation (Received):
  • 0
  • Points for Referrals:
  • 0
  • Points for Days Registered:
  • 0
  • Points for Blogs:
  • 0
  • Points for Blog Comments:
  • 0
  • Points for Mentions Given:
  • 0
  • Points for Mentions Received:
  • 0
  • Points for Tags Given:
  • 0
  • Points for Tags Received:
  • 0
  • Points for Profile Completed:
  • 0
  • Points for Contests Won:
  • 0
  • Points for Registration:
  • 0
  • Points For [DBTech] DragonByte Gallery Uploads:
  • 0
  • Points For Award Bonuses:
  • 0
  • Points For Thanks Given:
  • 0
  • Points For Likes Given:
  • 0
  • Points For Thanks Received:
  • 0
  • Points For Likes Received:
  • 0
  • Points For Problems Posted:
  • 0
  • Points For Problems Solved:
  • 0
  • Points For Solutions Validated:
  • 0
1 Achievements
Achievement Earned on 06-22-2014 09:43 AM
Started off by making 1st Post
Achievement Earned on 06-22-2014 09:43 AM
0 Awards


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