Dear Venkatesh and group. The *information* in your post is useful. The "opinion" needs debate.
Over the years I have concluded that the vast majority of our readers do not read beyond 4 or 5 (reasonably short) paragraphs. To ensure that the message gets through to the intended audience, perhaps we should consider splitting such long posts into shorter chunks. I for one would strongly suggest that the RTI Act be amended. Important suggestions would be as follows:- 1) Scrap penalty and all other punishment requirements. 2) Eliminate the 2nd Appeal stage before CIC/SIC 3) Require information to be provided in 15 days by the PIO and the departmental First Appeal to be completed in 21 days by a speaking order signed by the Secretary / Addl-Secretary of the concerned Ministry / Department. 4) Role of the CIC to be limited to Complaints and RTI promotion especially section 4 implementation. All these advocacy NGOs and so-called civil society (bleeding heart) people are fooling the public. Implement what I have said above and the TRUE RTI USERS (ie. those who actually make use of information) will benefit tremendously. All the RTI 'haraamis' will get shafted. Sarbajit PS: The group also discourages circulation of contact details using our group resources. --- In [email protected], "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkat...@...> wrote: > > Dear friends, > In addition to making the candid statement about amending the Right to > Information Act (RTI Act) the Minister for Personnel had something more to > say regards its review. Questions raised by two Lok Sabha MPs (Shri Ahir > Bhai Vikrambhai and Shri Arjanbhai Maadam) and the answers provided by the > Minister on the same day, i.e, July 8, 2009, are reproduced below (scanned > copy attached): > > Query a) whether any review has been made to assess the working of the RTI > Act; > > Query b) if so, the details thereof and the outcome thereto; > > The Minister's reply to a) and b):- A study has been conducted through an > independent organisation to assess the key issues and constraints in > implementation of the RTI Act 2005. The study points out that there is > inadequate planning by public authorities in regard supply of information; > awareness about the Act in rural areas is much less than in urban areas; > awareness amongst women is much less than men; the gap in implementation of > the Act is becuse of lack of clear acountability in respect of various > functionaries etc. In this regard, the study recommended measures for > improving awareness on right to information; improving convenience in filing > information requests; improving efficiency of Information Commissions, > enhancing accountability of various stakeholders etc. > > Query c) whether the general public face undue hardships in getting the > information within stipulated time; and > > Query d) if so, the mechanism proposed to be developed by the Government in > this regard? > > The Minister's reply to c) and d):- The Act provides for imposition of > penalty on the public information officer in case of delay in supply of > information in time. It ensures timley supply of information. The Government > has issued various guidelines for different stakeholders which have enabled > the information seekers to get information as per provisions of the Act. > > > Where is the necessity of amending the RTI Act?: > Readers will remember that the Department of Personnel and Training had > commissioned PriceWaterhouseCoopers to review the implementation of the RTI > Act. It must be pointed out that the findings of the study referred to by > the Minister have not been placed in the public domain. All problem areas > highlighted by the Minister relate to the implementation of existing > provisions. The findings about inadequate planning, lack of accountability > of public authorities, poor levels of efficiency in Information Commissions > only reiterate what RTI activists and users have been saying since 2006. > Inadequate levels of awareness about the RTI Act is a direct result of > non-compliance with the obligations under section 26. Awareness is poor in > rural areas and amongst women in particular because governments have not > even allocated adequate resources for public education in their budgets even > though the section 26 says disadvantaged communities must be the focus of > the government's public education efforts. Inadequate performance of > Information Commissions is due to several reasons. Individuals who are not > wedded to the philosophy of open and transparent government are appointed as > Commissioners through flawed and secretive processes. People in general and > RTI advocators do not have any say in the selection process. Information > Commissions are not given adequate staff and resources to function > effectively. Every finding from the government sponsored study points to the > poor state of implementation. The RTI Act is not the problem. Absence of > political will and commitment to faithfully implement the Act is the main > problem. Amending the RTI Act will not solve this problem. > > Dodgy attitude towards improving implementation: > The Minister's response to queries c) and d) are dodgy to say the least. The > query was specific about mechanisms that were being contemplated to end the > hardships faced by information requestors. The reply states that penalties > will take care of this problem and that guidelines have been issued. The > fact that guidelines have been issued cannot be denied. However the > assertion that such guidelines have enabled people to get information as per > the provisions of the Act is unjustified in light of the reply given to > queries a) and b). If guidelines alone were adequate, the government > sponsored study should have come up with a more positive picture regards > implementation. Nevertheless the findings point to the contrary. The most > important demand of RTI users is that penalties are rarely imposed even in > the most deserving of cases. Accountability of various stakeholders cannot > be achieved by adding more intelligence and security organisations to the > list contained in the Second Schedule. Nor can accountability be enforced > solely by the threat of penalties. Along with adequate political will proper > planning, resource allocation and regular monitoring mechanisms must be put > in place. However some of the useful suggestions of the Second > Administrative Reforms Commission (SARC) in this regard have been rejected > by the Government. > > Given below is a list of important and practical recommendations of SARC > 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. > > > How then will implementation improve? Amending the RTI Act is not the > answer. > > "The worth of the Constitution would depend on the worth of the men who work > it. Good governance transcending to the level of humane governance is the > vision of Constitution of India -policies with country's interest as > paramount and their implementation with honesty and integrity lead to good > governance. Public service is a public trust requiring in public men to > place nation first and above personal gain". > > (Dr. Rajendra Prasad speaking at the Constituent Assembly session after the > Constitution was drafted in 1949) > > Replace the term 'Constitution' with 'RTI Act' and Dr. Rajendra Prasad's > prophetic words remain as relevant as they were six decades ago. > > 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:nayak.venkat...@...> > nayak.venkat...@... > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
