Lets start with his conclusion: "If you filed an appeal with an RTI Information Commission, there is a 27% chance that you will get the information. And if you got a favorable order from the Commission, there is still only a 39% chance that you would get the information!"
How does he get here ? "The study found that in 34,980 cases (i.e. 70% cases), orders were passed in favor of disclosure – either observing that complete information had already been provided or directing the government to provide information. The National RTI Awards Secretariat wrote letters to these 34,980 people asking them whether they finally received satisfactory information after Commission’s orders. To this, nearly 6,000 people responded out of which only 39% reported having received information, despite the Information Commission’s order in their favor." The PCRF's own figures reveal it is possible that only 3,600 people out of 34,980 applicants did not get information after a favourable CIC decision. This means that 90% of the successful applicants actually did get information after approaching CIC. Ashish >This is what Arvind Kejriwal's survey claims http://rtiawards.org/release.html >"Effectiveness >The next metric is the effectiveness of the Commissions in getting its own orders implemented. It was found that 39% of the pro-disclosure orders were complied with on a national level. This means that despite a favorable order, 61% people still do not get satisfactory information. Unfortunately, these people made several rounds of the Commissions, wrote many letters and made repeated phone calls but do not receive information as the case was closed after the order is passed. RTI Act gives powers of summons, penalties, arrests, production of documents etc. Barring penalties, these powers were never invoked by any commissioner. However, some Commissions like those in Punjab and Karnataka follow an interesting practice. They do not close a case and keep having repeated hearings till the appellant reports satisfaction, which perhaps is one of the reasons for their high rankings on this parameter." >He has then gone on to find that IC (M L Sharma) of CIC has the worst ranking >in terms of non-compliance and follow up. >My Observations: This is sheer nonsense. I have been going through the CIC's website and find that IC (M L Sharma) is the only IC at CIC who is ensuring that information reaches (deserving) applicants by holding repeated hearings till the information is delivered. He also does not tolerate non-compliance of his orders, and uses language like this >"The matter is adjourned to XX.XX.2009 at 1200 hrs for further hearing on the issue of compliance of above directions." >For Arvind's information here are a few such orders >http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-16062009-01.pdf http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-17072009-09.pdf http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-23042009-01.pdf ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
