venkatr who have you sent all this to? pl send it to the jharkhand listserv they are quite good. md
2009/6/16 Venkatesh Nayak <[email protected]> > > > Dear friends, > > Yesterday you received a note on the probable amendments to the RTI Act > based on the recommendations of the Second Administrative Reforms > Commission. Readers will remember that the very first report of the Second > Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) focused on strengthening the RTI > Act > describing it as the 'master key to good governance'. GOI has made public > its decisions on all the recommendations made by ARC through the website of > the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances > [ > http://darpg.nic.in/arpg-website/Right%20to%20Information%20-%20Master%20Ke > y%20to%20Good%20Governance.pdf]. > > Given below is a list of important and practical recommendations of the ARC > rejected by GOI: > > Official Secrets Act to stay: The ARC had recommended and rightly so, the > repeal of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) and incorporation of some of its > anti-espionage provisions in the National Security Act. GOI has rejected > this recommendation on the ground that the offences under the OSA are > substantive offences and cannot be placed in what is essentially a > preventive detention law. This argument cannot be flawed but the > anti-espionage provisions may be placed in the Indian Penal Code without > much difficulty. There is no reason for treating OSA as a treasured > heirloom > that must be preserved for posterity. > > Oath of Secrecy to stay: The ARC had recommended that the oath of secrecy > administered to Ministers be replaced with an oath of transparency. GOI has > rejected this recommendation on the ground that Ministers will still be > expected to maintain secrets in the RTI era. So even if Parliament signaled > its will to change the underlying paradigm of governance from secrecy to > openness by passing the RTI Act GOI wants its Ministers to be sworn to > secrecy- the numerous calculated leaks of government information > notwithstanding- praan jaaye par vachan na jaaye. > > Composition of the selection committee for Information Commissions remains > unchanged: The ARC had taken note of the monopoly enjoyed by the government > on the committee mandated with the selection of members of Information > Commissions. It had recommended that the Cabinet Minister on the committee > be replaced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the Central level > and the Chief Justice of the respective High Courts at the level of the > States. GOI has rejected this decision stating that the existing > arrangements have no infirmity. > > Refusal to end the bureaucratic domination of Information Commissions: A > vast majority of Information Commissioners appointed at the Centre and in > the States are officers who retired from senior positions in government. > Individuals who swore by the OSA were made champions of transparency > overnight. Recognising this anomaly, the ARC recommended change in the RTI > Rules to ensure that at least 50% of the Commissioners are drawn from > fields > of expertise outside the bureaucracy. GOI has rejected this recommendation > merely stating that the Act provides for the appointment of eminent persons > from different fields of expertise. Apparently the necessity of giving > detailed reasons for a decision of rejection applies only to the domain of > PIOs and appellate authorities, and not to GOI as a whole. > > Refusal to print suo motu disclosure documents: Recognising the fact that > less than 5% people in India are internet literate, the ARC had recommended > printing of proactive disclosure documents of public authorities > periodically in order to make them easily accessible to people. GOI has > rejected this recommendation on the ground that this would be an expensive > affair to be undertaken periodically. Instead public authorities would > upload their proactive disclosure documents on the RTI portal set up by > GOI. > No mention is made of the fact that the existing disclosures are not > regularly updated on this portal and in any case they are inaccessible to > non-english-speaking and internet-illiterate citizens. > > Shortchanging records management: Recognising the poor state of management > of public records all over India, the ARC had recommended the setting up of > a well networked series of public records offices at the Central and state > level. It had also recommended setting aside 1% of the budget of flagship > programmes of each ministry for this purpose. GOI has rejected the 'public > records office' idea stating that the Public Records Act and the National > Archives would be adequately strengthened for this purpose. The fact that > the Public Records Act does not cover the States has been conveniently > forgotten. GOI has rejected the funding idea also on the ground that no > separate allocation needs to me made for improving records maintenance, the > same could be met under the existing budgetary provisions. Behind this > rejection there is little realisation of the fact that records management > is > an area of least concern in several public authorities. The question that > begs consideration is how many public aurhorities take records management > seriously to make budgetary provisions for this item of expenditure every > year as it is a continuous exercise. The provision about records management > found in the RTI Act has only enthused many public authorities to hasten > the > destruction of records that are past their stipulated lifespan. > > Refusal to set up single window system: Based on the strong backing from > civil society the ARC had recommended that a single window system manned by > Assistant PIOs be set up at the district level for receiving applications > from citizens. The obvious purpose was to create convenience for citizens > who would otherwise have to go through considerable difficulty identifying > the correct PIO. GOI has rejected this recommendation stating that > complaints would pertain to different areas and time would be lost in > distributing them to the relevant offices. The possibility of linking up > with the State Governments for setting up such facilities has been ignored. > The example of Nawanshahr district in Punjab where such a system was > functional has been ignored. > > Refusal to effectively monitor the implementation of the RTI Act: > Recognising that a large number of public authorities function at the > regional, state, district and sub-district level the ARC had recommended > that a nodal officer be appointed by the relevant Information Commission as > a monitoring authority to ensure proper implementation of the RTI Act. GOI > has rejected this recommendation on the pretext that it may lead to > inter-departmental conflict. Surely, making the District Collector/Deputy > Commissioner's office as a monitoring authority at the district level may > not lead to any conflict as they perform a supervisory role on many > accounts > including the maintenance of law and order. Another good suggestion has > been > rejected on incredible grounds. > > Bureaucrats have not accepted most of the important recommendations that > civil society has been advocating for since the inception of the RTI Act. > People have the right to know why. We advocators and activists should > demand > that the entire file on the ARC recommendations along with notings must be > proactively disclosed by GOI. This is indeed the mandate of clauses (c) and > (d) of section 4(1) of the RTI Act: > > "Every public authority shall. > > (c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or > announcing the decisions which affect public; > > (d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to > affected persons." > > People have the right to know the details of why such progressive and > practical recommendations have been rejected. > > What can you do to demand transparency and resist amendments? > > Please send emails demanding your right to know and insisting on the public > authorities to proactively disclose detailed reasons for rejection. Please > also strongly voice your opposition to making any amendments to the RTI > Act. > A sample email is given below which you are free to adapt: > > "Dear----------------------------, > > I would like to exercise my right to know the detailed reasons behind the > acceptance of some and the rejection of various other recommendations made > by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission in its first report- Right > to Information: Master Key to Good Governance. I urge you to place the > entire contents of the file relating to the said report including all file > notings on your website. I would like to remind you that you have an > obligation to proactively disclose all facts relating to the decisions > taken > on the recommendations contained in the said report under clauses (c) and > (d) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Right to Information Act (RTI > Act). > > As a citizen of India I would like to assert that there is no need to amend > anything in the RTI Act which guarantees my fundamental right to seek and > obtain information from public authorities. > > Yours sincerely, > > Name of the sender." > > NO AMENDMENTS - LEAVE OUR RTI ACT ALONE." > > Please send this email along with the slogan to the Minister and > Secretaries > mentioned below: > > 1) Mr. Prithviraj Chavan, Minister of State, Personnel, Public > Grievances and Pensions, Government of India. > > Email: [email protected] <mos-pp%40nic.in> > <BLOCKED::mailto:[email protected]<mos-pp%40nic.in>> > or > [email protected] <chavanprithviraj%40sansad.nic.in> > <BLOCKED::mailto:[email protected]<chavanprithviraj%40sansad.nic.in>> > > > 2) Ms. Rajni Razdan, Secretary, Department of Administrative Reforms, > Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India. > > Email: <BLOCKED::mailto:[email protected] <rajni.razdan%40nic.in>> > [email protected] <rajni.razdan%40nic.in> > > 3) Mr. Rahul Sarin, Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, > Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India. > > > Email: <BLOCKED::mailto:[email protected] <secy_mop%40nic.in>> > [email protected] <secy_mop%40nic.in> > > Please circulate this email within your networks. Please build up pressure > against any attempt to amend the RTI Act. If each email group decided to > send a 1000 mails from its members we could create some impact. > > Our Slogan: NO AMENDMENTS - LEAVE OUR RTI ACT ALONE. > > Thanks > > Venkatesh Nayak > > Programme Coordinator > Access to Information Programme > Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative > B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave > New Delhi- 110 017 > tel: 91-11- 2686 4678/ 2685 0523 > fax: 91-11- 2686 4688 > website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org > alternate email: > <mailto:[email protected]<nayak.venkatesh%40gmail.com> > > > [email protected] <nayak.venkatesh%40gmail.com> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > -- Maja Daruwala Director Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative B-117, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave New Delhi, INDIA, 110017 Tel No 91 11 26864678:26850523 (O) Tel No 91 11 26868961 (H) Fax No 91 11 26864688 (O) email: [email protected] email: [email protected] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
