Dear All This is a combined response to many comments on this thread.
1) I think this is an issue which evokes a common empathy across all RTI users frustrated and dissatisfied with the present state of affairs at CIC/SICs. 2) I am located in Delhi, and I restrict myself only to CIC and Central P/As. I believe that what CIC does today trickles down eventually to SICs (who of course are a law unto themselves) 3) Having almost 30 years of SC experience (I entered those hallowed premises at age 17), I tend to be very strict (and ultra conservative) in my interpretation of the RTI Act - and my interpretation is often completely at variance with those of RTI activists (who I oppose as a class). 4) As Mr Jam says, it all hinges around "reasonable cause". There is no point using Oxford Dictionary since this term "although not capable of an exact definition" is fairly well understood "when applied to human action" to mean "That which would constrain a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence". We could start with this LPA Bench judgement of Delhi High Court (having jurisdiction over CIC) http://delhicourts.nic.in/may/17.htm (towards the end) "What would constitute reasonable cause cannot be laid down with precision. It would depend upon factual background and the scope for interference in a reference application, or much less in a writ petition, is extremely limited and unless the conclusions are perverse based on conjectures or surmises and/or have been arrived at without consideration of relevant material and/or taking into account irrelevant material, there is no scope for interference. Reasonable cause, as applied to human action, is that which would constrain a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence. The expression "reasonable" is not susceptible of a clear and precise definition; for an attempt to give a specific meaning to the word "reasonable" is trying to count what is not number and measure what is not space. It can be described as rational according to the dictates of reason and is not excessive or immoderate. The word "reasonable" has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable with regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought to know - Re.A Solicitor [1945] KB 368. Reasonable cause can be reasonably said to be a cause which prevents a man of average intelligence and ordinary prudence, acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bona fides." keywords: *NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES*, *WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE* *INACTION* *WANT OF BONAFIDES* (not always the same as "malafides") 5) Certainly there are strategies to compel the CIC to impose penalty on errant PIOs properly. I oppose those people who insist that penalty is compulsory (it is not) as well as biased IC's who let PIOs escape scot free. There is a golden mean, and an existing legislation to ensure that the letter of the law is complied with. 6) I hope this thread is fully debated, so that our group members can get their Right to Information enforced in practice. We shall evolve these strategies here openly and jointly. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "Krishnaraj Rao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Sarabjit, > > You are spot on!!! Of course it is compulsory... and these johnnies have no > discretinary powers in the matter. > > Some of in Mumbai are taking up precisely this fight. > > Happy that you too are moved to take this up. What are the methods you have > in mind? > > Which city are you in? Let's get together and compare notes. > > Warmly, > Krish > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:15 PM, sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dear Members > > > > One of the biggest stumbling blocks to RTI implementation is the > > non-levy of penalty on errant PIOs by the Information Commissions. > > > > These johnnies labour under the delusion that penalty is a > > discretionary option open to them in case of non-supply of > > information in the time prescribed u/s 7(1). > > > > Is there some problem in the wording of the clause? > > > > No, when a PIO fails to give in information in time he is to > > be penalised at the rate of Rs.250 per day. No IFS no BUTs. > > > > The relevant part of the clause would read as follows > > > > "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information > > Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint > > or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information > > Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, > > has, without any reasonable cause, ... has not furnished information > > within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 ... it > > shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till > > application is received or information is furnished, so however, the > > total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand > > rupees:" > > > > The only defence a PIO has is PROVING there was "reasonable cause" > > > > So the next time any member want penalty imposed on a PIO > > > > 1) Insist on being present at the penalty hearing to "disprove" the > > "reasonable ground/s" of the PIO. Ask for copies of the proof in advance. > > > > 2) Dispute with ICs like Habibullah and Tiwari who insist that > > "allegation of malafides" is an essential ingredient to levy penalty. > > Insist they record your attendance and subimissions in their orders. > > Follow this up with a SPEEDPOST letter to them immediately after they > > pass such biased orders demanding that they review their order > > immediately in light of the above - which as we all know they wont. > > > > 3) Then if you want to fight it out, email me , and we shall sort them > > out. > > > > This link is an example of how the biggest sinners in awarding > > penalties (they were running a racket ripping off PIOs) later became > > saints (briefly) on the side of the angels after we took it up > > (discreetly). Of course since the GoI pays out-station ICs peanuts > > they are back to their little monkey tricks again. > > > > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/OK-18072008-01.pdf > > > > Sarbajit > > > > Full text of section 20(1) > > > > "20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State > > Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding > > any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public > > Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the > > case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an > > application for information or has not furnished information within > > the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely > > denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, > > incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which > > was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in > > furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred > > and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information > > is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not > > exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: > > > > Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State > > Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a > > reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on > > him: > > > > Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably > > and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or > > the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be." > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
