Information Commission M.A. Ansari read out section 2(j) to me and said that a Commissioner can decide to allow inspection in lieu of copies of documents. He also said that since Inspection is mentioned in clause (i) and copies in clause (ii), I should be grateful if he gave me access under the "preferential" clause.
The hearing took place yesterday in a case where Department of Posts had asked me to deposit more than Rs.1,25,000 as "Labour charges". As half expected, he accused me of malafide and said that I cannot expect the government officers to do research for me. All I wanted was the delivery status of all articles sent through speed post across the country on one particular day - chosen at random - in order to assess their performance. My speed post articles were being delivered in 3 to 10 days within the same city and some articles either went missing or were delivered to the wrong address. Mr. Ansari said I should visit their offices across the country and inspect the status for myself; this is when he mentioned the "preferential" clause. I am preparing a writ for Delhi High Court. This is the 3rd such instance with Ansari over the last two years. I have immense respect for other ICs but whilst Padma's knowledge of RTI is elementary, Ansari is an example of how to deliberately and shamelessly kill transparency and accountability. A copy of Premchand's "Panch Parmeshwar" is on the way to Ansari - with a bouquet. Rakesh Agarwal NyayaBhoomi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
