Dear Venkatesh Are you calling Mr Habibullah a liar ?
http://www.dailypioneer.com/208486/RTI-Act-to-be-mended.html In an exclusive interview to Nidhi Sharma of the Pioneer he said "Speaking exclusively to The Pioneer on the eve of fourth anniversary of the RTI Act, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said, "I met the Prime Minister over the proposed amendments. I discussed with him in detail the need for consulting Information Commissioners over this move. Now, the Minister of State will have an interaction with the Central Information Commissioners on Wednesday after we are done with the two-day convention." Habibullah clarified that there was no attempt to increase fee or exempt file notings through the proposed amendments. "There was a lot of fear about this and that is why I met the Prime Minister. I have seen the proposed amendments to the Act and there is nothing of this sort. There is absolutely no move to exempt file notings."" Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkat...@...> wrote: > > Dear friends, > Yesterday we sent you an analysis of two issues that are being discussed in > the context of amendments to the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). We > would like to share with you another facet of our analysis of the first > topic namely, "amending the law to exclude 'file notings' now renamed as > 'information about discussion and consultations of officers'". This point > was not brought out in sufficient detail in the original analysis. > > Access to information about discussion and consultations of officers is > crucial in order for citizens to know the basis of all decisions made and > the action taken by a public authority. This arises from a fundamental > principle embedded in Art. 14 of the Constitution - "The State shall not > deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the > laws within the territory of India." In several judgements the Supreme Court > of India has explained the meaning of this principle behind this fundamental > right. Guaranteeing equality means ensuring equal treatment. (Unequals must > be treated unequally if equity is also to be ensured.) For example, if the > government wishes to procure a commodity or service for use it cannot choose > to favour a supplier or service provider at the expense of others. A > competitive and transparent bidding process must be adopted so that the > lowest bidder fulfilling the technical requirements and other qualifications > may be awarded the contract. In fact this principle has been upheld in the > context of people's right to know as well (Secretary, Ministry of > Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others Vs. Cricket > Association of Bengal and Othrs. AIR 1995 SC1236). > > Given this requirment, it is important for all decisions to be based on > reasoning that is legally defensible and meets the equality test. For > decisions to be taken in this manner, consultations within a public > authority are a must. Pros and cons will be weighed - a certain course of > action may be favoured by one officer while a diametrically opposite view > may be recorded by another officer. These inputs are essential for the > decision-making process. The final decision taken at the end of this process > must have an identifiable rationale. This rationale may not always be > conveyed in the text of the decision itself. It is useful to illustrate this > with the help of a couple of examples: > > 1) The minimum support price for common paddy in the year 2006-07 was INR > 580. In 2008-09 the support price has been pegged at INR 850 (+bonus > wherever applicable). These rates would have been fixed on the basis of some > reasoning. 'File notings' now renamed as 'information about discussion and > consultations ' contain this reasoning. The reasoning would have been > supplied not only by officers of the Ministry of Agriculture but also by > those from the Ministry of Finance and even the Prime Minister's office. So > when the concerned Minister signs off on the final figure it would have been > arrived on some rational basis which may not acccompany the text of the > actual decision when publicised. Surely, every paddy selling farmer would > like to know the rationale behind these rates and be able to ascertain for > oneself why INR 850 was chosen but not any other number. This reasoning > would be of interest to the rice consumer as well who would like to know > what effect these rates may have on the retail market where she/he buys food > grains. > > 2) Or take the example of the government commissioning a thermal power > plant. Several decisions are required to be made before the construction can > even begin. Feasibility studies, environmental impact assessment, > cost-benefit analysis, land acquisition, payment of compensation, > rehabilitation plans and many more such steps must be undertaken- all > essential and obligatory processes under the law. Officers involved in the > decision-making process record their opinion on the relevant files at every > stage of the movement of the file. People whose livelihoods are uprooted by > the process of land acquisition have the right to know the reasons behind > the choice of their lands over that of their neighbours. They also have the > right to know whether the extent of land acquired was adequate for or in > excess of the actual requirement of the project. If it was in excess then > the rationale for such acquisition would be recorded on file. The rate and > quantum of compensation determined to be paid to those dispossessed will > also have some rationale behind it. People whose lands are acquired have the > right to know this rationale. Similarly, people living in the area affected > by the power plant have a right to know what objections were raised in the > context of its impact on the environment and whether these matters were > given serious consideration when the final decision was taken. > > These are but a few examples to demonstrate the importance of transparency > in the decision-making process. India is a democracy. RTI Act seeks to > strengthen democracy and accountability in decision-making. For > accountability in decision-making to be strengthened, people should have > access not just to decisions, but also to the basis of such decisions. The > RTI seeks to provide such information even at the highest level of > decision-making, namely the Cabinet. Section 8(1)(i) of the Act states that > after a decision has been taken by the Cabinet and the matter is complete > and over, the decision, the reasons behind those decisions and their > material basis must be disclosed. There is no justifiable reason why a > different standard should apply to the bureaucracy which exists to serve the > people. > > I thank democratic spirited senior officers for encouraging me to highlight > this aspect of transparency in decision-making. I am glad that the first > email despatch on this topic reached them although they wish to remain > anonymous. > > In order to access our previous email alerts please click on: > <BLOCKED::BLOCKED::blocked::BLOCKED::blocked::BLOCKED::http://www.humanright > sinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national.htm> > http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national.htm You > will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to > receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your > refusal to receive email alerts. > > 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...@... >
