Our colleagues from Gujarat are fighting a court battle that will affect RTI users all over the country.
Please support their battle. After all it is your own battle.
-----------------
Prakash kardaley wrote on june 06 on hum janenge board
the guj decision recd ad interim stay from a vacation judge of the the ahmedabad h c on may 25th. the matter is coming up on the first day after the vacation, i e, june 18th. some of the aggrieved reqisitioners, supported by our friends rti crusaders from ahmedabad, are gearing themselves up for the defence.
if they fail to get the ad interim stay vacated before the matter is
admitted, there is a danger of the interim stay becoming permanent until the final disposal of the matter.
-----------------------
BACKGROUND
Disposing of 28 complaints and appeals, the state chief information
commissioner of gujarat mr r n das on may 15, 2005, gave a decision/order that all cooperative societies are public authorities under the rti act (irrespective of whether substantially aided or not):
quoting the decision:
quote
Decision/Order.
(i) All co-operative societies registered under the Gujarat State Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 are bodies controlled falling within the ambit of the definition of "public authority" given at section 2(h)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and, therefore, are public authorities.
(ii) All Co-operative banks since all such banks are registered as co-operative societies are also bodies controlled falling within the ambit of the definition of "public authority" given at section 2(h)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and, therefore, are public authorities.
(iii) In view of the above decision, all co-operative societies and co-operative banks are required to abide by the relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 particularly, Chapter II thereof, dealing with obligations of public authorities, including providing information to the citizen subject to the provisions contained in section 8 (1), 9 and 10 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
unquote
----
full text of the 43-page order has been uploaded by vishal kudchadkar on
http://www.mediamax.com/humjanenge/Hosted/decision/GIC_Coop_Banks_Socieites_15052007.pdf
-----
in para 8 of its decision, the info commission examines at length if the cooperatives fall under the definition of pubic authority given in s 2 (h) (i) with the opening remark:
``8. To determine "functional realism" and "substance" one needs to examine if the functions of the co-operative societies/banks are of public importance or the nature of their functions is public, if the said functions are " tied or entwined with Government" and to what extent their functions are controlled by the Government. In short whether they are bodies controlled.''
it is difficult to reproduce here the elaborate argument advanced by the info commission to conclude that this definition applies to all cooperatives.
i urge all of you to access the full text through the link given and go through the details in 17 sub-paras of para 8 of the decision.
----
Ten days later, on may 25, 2007, the vacation bench of the gujarat high court, in response to three civil applications, granted ad interim stay to the info commission order.
full text of the high court order is quoted below
quote
SCA/13457/2007 3/3 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13457 of 2007
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13458 OF 2007
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13459 OF 2007
=========================================================
GUJARAT URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK FEDRATION & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT INFORMATION COMMISSION
BUREAU OF ECONOMICS & STATIS-
& 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR TUSHAR MEHTA for Petitioner
None for Respondent(s) : 1, 3,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 2,
=========================================================
CORAM :
HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date : 25/05/2007
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Advocate Mr.Tushar Mehta for the petitioners in each of these petitions.
The learned Advocate has drawn attention of the Court to the definition of public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which reads as under :
S2(h) ``public authority'' means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted -
[a] by or under the Constitution;
[b] by any other law made by Parliament;
[c] by any other law made by the State Legislature;
[d] by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any -
[i] body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
[ii] non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or
indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;âý
It is pointed out that, insofar as the Cooperative Societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act are concerned, the same do not fall within any of the categories enumerated thereunder. However, insofar as the impugned order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar is concerned, the relevant category would be [c] i.e. any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by any other law made by the State Legislature. Referring to para 7 of the impugned order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, it was pointed out that the authority has held that it is immaterial whether the cooperative society is established or constituted by or under the statute. It is submitted that the basic reasoning of the authority is fallacious. Learned advocate has submitted that a body or institution of self-government established or constituted by any other law made by the State Legislature can never be construed to mean as having been established by or under such law.
In view of the above discussion, Rule returnable on 18th June, 2007. Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 6(D) till then. Direct service is permitted today.
The Registry is directed to keep a copy of this order in each matter.
[HARSHA DEVANI, J.]
unquote
-------------------------------
the matter is coming up on june 18th - the first day after the vacation. i have been insisting that RTI crusaders from ahmedabad seek the support of a senior counsel to defend at least one of the respondents from among the original (and aggrieved) requisitioners of information, who have been impleaded by the petitioners in the high court, as the court matter stands to affect all RTI users in the country.
the high court stay will surely be quoted by all info commissions in the country in most probably upholding second appeals against denial of information to citizens from cooperatives.
ahmedabad-based RTI crusaders led by harineshbhai and the respondents in the matter, accordingly have approached a senior counsel who has agreed to take up the matter.
as i said, details are awaited from rahul in ahmedabad.
---
rahul and self will get back with details, in individual mails, to all friends who respond to this appeal.
regards
Prakash kardaley wrote on june 12 on hum janenge board
shri harineshbhai and rahul mangaonkar from ahmedabad informed me this evening that they have succeeded in getting the support of a senior counsel to take up the matter on behalf of aggrieved requisitioners. however, the total cost of taking up the litigation is expected to be rs 100 k. (that is what i had expected, anyway).
this is an appeal to everyone. look at this as your own case. let us try to raise as much funds as possible to cover, as far as possible, the entire cost, so that our gujrat friends can have spare capacity to take the legal battle further, if circumstances force.
the funds generated by us ideally should go to them directly. i am awaiting detailed advice from ahmedabad on formalities.in the meantime, pl treat this as an alert. those offering any contributing may pl write immediately to rahul on mail4rahul@gmail.com
with a copy to me: prakash.kardaley@gmail.com
regards
Rahul mangaonkar wrote on june 15
Dear Fellow RTI Crusaders,
To begin with on behalf of MAGP, its member organizations, individuals and institutions thank you for the offer of support to fight to fight the legal battles in the Gujarat High Court on RTI issues. These are well appreciated, and accepted humbly, on both counts of, moral as well as the financial resources offered.
Financial assistance may please be made out by way of demand draft in favor of, 'Janpath', (payable in Ahmedabad)...and to be sent to;
Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel
C/o Janpath
B/3, Sahjanand Towers
Jivraj Park
Ahmedabad 380 051
Gujarat, India
Prakash kardaley wrote on june 29:
contributions are trickling in. three have sent. pl forgive me if i have missed out any name. rahul may please give us an update. contributions sent by: Sandeep Jalan, Mumbai, Anil Heble, Delhi, sridhar chakravarthy, Bangalore, i am sending mine tomorrow.
Rahul mangaonkar wrote on june 30 on hum janenge board
Ajay Marathe and Pravin Dali also have sent mails that they are sending drafts...
Rahul
------------------
UPDATE:
A senior counsel from Ahmedabad is representing a respondent cooperative society backed by RTI crusaders.
The cousel on June 18 sought further time to study the matter and come forth with his defence.
---
Saturday, 30 June 2007
Friday, 29 June 2007
UP SIC clerk caught taking bribe
29 Jun, 2007 l 0323 hrs ISTlTIMES NEWS NETWORK
LUCKNOW: This is one incident that brings the state of affairs in the Uttar
Pradesh State Information Commission to fore.
While the SIC is supposed to be the institution which the common person would
approach for redressal of complaint against corrupt government servants, a clerk
of the commission was nabbed for taking bribe. The Anti-Corruption Organisation
(ACO) had laid a trap after getting repeated complaints against the clerk.
Go to
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/SIC_clerk_caught
_taking_bribe/rssarticleshow/2159206.cms
for full story
29 Jun, 2007 l 0323 hrs ISTlTIMES NEWS NETWORK
LUCKNOW: This is one incident that brings the state of affairs in the Uttar
Pradesh State Information Commission to fore.
While the SIC is supposed to be the institution which the common person would
approach for redressal of complaint against corrupt government servants, a clerk
of the commission was nabbed for taking bribe. The Anti-Corruption Organisation
(ACO) had laid a trap after getting repeated complaints against the clerk.
Go to
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/SIC_clerk_caught
_taking_bribe/rssarticleshow/2159206.cms
for full story
Wednesday, 27 June 2007
your comments invited
your comments on the regulations clamped by the central information commission are welcome here
CHRI's clause by clause analysis of CIC regulations
Message No 17186
Of June 27, 2007
Post by Rashmi Mitra
Dear all ,
Please find below CHRI's Submission regarding the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007.
Reshmi Mitra
Submission regarding the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007
Submitted by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative June 2007
For more information, please contact:
Mrs Maja Daruwala, Director OR Mr Venkatesh Nayak Coordinator, Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, B-117, I Floor
Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi – 110 017
Ph: +91-11-2685 0523 / Fax +91-11-2686 4788
Email: director@humanrightsinitiative.org . . .
venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org
Introduction
1. The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative is an international, independent, non-profit NGO working for the practical realisation of human rights of people living in the Commonwealth. Access to Information and Access to Justice are the core areas of our programmatic activity.
Public education and policy advocacy are the core approaches that inform CHRI’s work. CHRI is headquartered in New Delhi with offices in Gujarat and Chhattisgarh in India and London in the UK and Ghana in Africa.
2. CHRI was part of the civil society legislative drafting process that preceded the enactment of The Right to Information Act, (RTI Act) 2005. CHRI made specific submissions before the Standing Committee of Parliament related to the Department of Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice for improving the RTI Bill that was tabled in the Rajya Sabha in December 2004. Subsequently the Parliamentary Committee invited CHRI to make a second representation based on international best practices with regard to information access legislation. After Parliament passed the RTI Bill, CHRI organised a national level conference in May 2005 to discuss implementation strategies. Senior level officers from government, civil society advocates for RTI and international experts discussed the modalities of implementing this all-important law over two days.
3. Since July 2005, CHRI has been conducting sensitisation and capacity building programmes for senior and middle level officers of government and senior managers of public sector enterprises. Till date we have trained more than 3,700 government officers the Central Government and State Governments in more than 15 states. We have trained
more than 600 senior managers and executives of Central and State level public sector enterprises for implementing this law within their jurisdictions. We also conduct capacity building programmes for civil society organisations and the media with a view to orientate them to make use of this law in the larger public interest in a responsible
manner.
The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007
4. CHRI welcomes the notification of the CIC (Management) Regulations, 2007 (referred to as the Regulations below) which coincides with the second anniversary of Presidential consent to the primary legislation. While the Government of India notified the Central
Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 more than 20 months ago, the need for laying down clear cut procedures and systems that would inform the functioning of the CIC cannot be overemphasised. The CIC has publicised on its website minutes of its internal meetings where decisions were made to allocate work and regulate the procedure for processing and deciding upon appeals and complaints. However these
are contained in different documents as well as in several decisions given by the CIC ever since its constitution. The notification of the Regulations is a step in the right direction towards codifying these procedures as a single document that would serve as a guide to the officials of the CIC and the people of India. CHRI also welcomes the decision of the CIC to make these Regulations available to people in Hindi as well.
Primary Concerns with the Regulations
Lack of Public Consultation:
5. The CIC has notified these Regulations unilaterally without any public consultation. The notification, dated 21st June, issued by the Additional Registrar of the CIC indicates that the Regulations have come into force with immediate effect. Section 29(1) and (2) require that all Rules made by the Central and the State Governments be placed before
Parliament or the relevant State Legislature respectively. This provision has been included the Act in order to enable the respective Parliamentary/Legislative Committees on subordinate legislation to discuss the Rules in detail and ensure that they are not in violation of the letter and spirit of the Act. Parliament and the State legislatures have the power to make changes to the Rules if necessary. This is a significant statutory limitation on the power of the executive to issue subordinate legislation which if unchecked may lay down procedures and systems that are contrarian to the letter and spirit of the principal
Act.
6. However Section 12(4) under which the Regulations have been issued does not require the Chief Information Commissioner to place them before Parliament. The same section also grants functional autonomy to the Chief Information Commissioner in matters relating to the superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Central
Commission and further states that the Chief Information Commissioner may exercise all such powers and things which may be exercised or done without being subject to directions by any other authority under this Act.
7. Having regard for the autonomy granted to the Chief Information Commissioner under Section 12(4) it must be said that the move of unilaterally notifying the Regulations without public consultation is contrary to the spirit of the Act. The preamble of the RTI Act states that democracy requires an ‘informed citizenry’ and ‘transparency of
information’ as the twain are vital to its functioning. An analysis of the Regulations, as will be shown below, indicates that some of its provisions are in excess of the powers conferred upon the Central Information Commission by the principal Act. The Commission would have been better advised to put the draft regulations in the public domain for ascertaining people’s opinion on all matters contained in it before notifying it formally. The RTI Act itself is the culmination of a decade long process of public education and consultation. Civil society has played a very important role in drafting this law and preventing harmful amendments from achieving fruition. Had the Commission taken recourse to public consultation, the feedback would have convinced it that some of
the Regulations are not people-friendly and changes could have been incorporated before formally notifying them. However the Commission has denied itself the benefit of people’s input and in the process conveyed a picture of decision-making within the Commission that is not in tune with its statutory role as a champion of transparency. Even though the principal Act does not place a statutory duty of public consultation on the Commission, seeking people’s inputs on the Regulations would have gone a long way in re-establishing people’s confidence in its functioning. Indeed the Commission has denied itself a valuable opportunity to refurbish its image that has suffered somewhat on account
of the piling backlog of appeals and complaints and its reluctance to penalise erring officials even in deserving cases.
8. The preambular para should clearly specify all the enabling provisions under which these regulations have been made.
Retrospective application of the Regulations:
Clause 1(iii)
Appeals and Complaints which have already been filed before the date of commencement of these Regulations and have been found in order and are already registered before this date will be proceeded with as before and shall not abate for any infirmity therein but these regulations will be applicable for any prospective action even in regard to such pending appeals and complaints.
9. Clause 1(iii) of the Regulations states that they would be applicable in respect of all those appeals and complaints submitted before the notification. This is in principle bad law. The Courts in India have frowned upon laws that applicable with retrospective effect.
A wealth of jurisprudence has developed on the subject since the celebrated case of Kesavananda Bharati [1] and the Courts have tolerated retrospective application of laws only in exceptional circumstances. No such pressing need is made out in the present context. Hence it would be patently unfair to apply the provisions of the Regulations to appeals and complaints received prior to the date of notification which have not been registered, those in transit and those sent in ignorance of the regulations. The absence of consultation prior to issue of these regulations and making them
applicable with immediate effect goes against the principles of natural justice and due process standards to make citizens suffer for actions that were taken during a period when the Regulations were themselves absent.
Recommendation:
Clause 1(iii) may be suitably amended by deleting the phrase- “…but these regulations will be applicable for any prospective action even” Provisions relating to intervener to a proceeding:
Clause 2(n)
Clause 2(o)
Clause 18(v)
“Representative” means a person duly authorized by or on behalf of any of the parties to the proceedings or interveners and may include a Legal Practitioner.
“Respondent” includes an intervener or a third party or a party impleaded by the Commission.
Examine or hear or receive evidence on affidavit from a third party, or an intervener or any other person or persons, whose evidence is considered necessary or relevant.
10. The Regulations introduce the ‘intervener’ as a new category of persons who could be party to an appeal or complaint proceedings of the Commission. The principal Act does not envisage such an entity as having rights to interfere in any proceeding under the Act. It appears that this category of persons is being recognised by the Commission
subsequent to directions from courts to hear parties whose interests may be affected by the information requests and related appeals/complaints filed by citizens. While it may be necessary to make such persons party to the relevant proceedings before the Commission, the current phrasing of the Clauses gives the impression that anybody could implead
themselves before the Commission in any case. Under the scheme of the principal Act only third parties whose interests may be directly affected by the disclosure of information have locus standi in any application process or appeals/complaints proceeding. The only other instance where an unrelated party may be present before the Commission is when a person is ‘duly authorised person’ by the
appellant/complainant to appear on his/her behalf or assist him/her during such proceeding. [2] No other person has a role to play in any of these processes or proceedings under the principal Act. Therefore the Commission does not have the power to introduce a new category of persons who can intervene in the appeals/complaints proceedings. Any person whose interests are affected by disclosure of information within the sense of Section 11 of the principal Act should be treated as third party. No other person should
be allowed to interfere with any process or proceeding under the RTI Act. This will ensure that the appeals/complaints proceedings are not delayed unduly.
Recommendation:
The reference to ‘intervener’ should be omitted from Clause 2(n) and Clause 18(v). Clause 2(o) should be amended to read- ““Respondent” includes a third party;”
Include Rules notified by competent authorities:
Clause 2(p)
“Rules” mean the Rules framed by the Central Government under Section 27
of the Act;
11. Clause 2(p) makes reference only to the Rules framed by the Central Government. Section 28 of the principal Act empowers the Competent Authorities to make rules for implementing the Act within their jurisdictions. The Central Information Commission has jurisdiction over appeals and complaints arising form the actions of PIOs and Appellate
Authorities designated by the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha, the Supreme Court of India and the Administrators of Union Territories. In deciding all such matters cognizance will have to taken of the Rules framed by them. Therefore the Regulations should specifically include a reference to the Rules framed under Section 28.
Recommendation:
Clause 2(p) should be amended as follows- ““Rules” mean the Rules framed by the Central Government under Section 27 and under Section 28 by the Speaker of the House of the People, the Chairman of the council of States, the Chief Justice of India and the Administrator appointed under Article 239 of the Constitution;”
Powers and Duties of the Registrar:
Confusion about applications to the Commission:
Clause 4(vii)
The office of the Registrar shall receive all applications, appeals, counter statements, replies and other documents.
12. The Regulations make the Registrar the point person for receiving all applications, appeals, counter statement and replies. While it is laudable to fix responsibility for one person to receive all documents the current wording of the clause is likely to lead to confusion. The CIC is also a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h)(b) of
the principal Act and has responsibilities for giving information to people about its functioning on request. PIOs have been designated by the CIC for this purpose. Similarly an appellate Authority has also been designated to deal with first appeals. The phrasing of Clause 4(vii) of the Regulations is likely to confuse people because it contains a
reference to applications which may be misconstrued with RTI applications. Similarly the Registrar is competent to receive only second appeals because the first appeals fall within the domain of the Appellate Authority already designated by the Commission. Therefore it is necessary to amend the clause as recommended below.
Recommendation:
Clause 4(vii) should be amended as follows- “The office of the Registrar shall receive all second appeals, complaints, counter statements, replies and other documents.”
Duty of transparency with regard to cause list:
Clause 4(x)
The Registrar shall fix the date of hearing of appeal, complaint or other proceedings and may prepare and notify in advance a cause list in respect of the cases listed for hearing.
13. The regulations place a discretionary duty on the Registrar to prepare and notify in advance a cause list of cases slated to come up for hearing. The Regulations should be suitably amended to make this a bounden duty of the Registrar to prepare a cause list and upload it on the website at regular intervals.
Recommendation:
Clause 4(x) should be amended as follows- “The Registrar shall fix the date of hearing of appeal, complaint or other proceedings and shall prepare and notify in advance a cause list in respect of the cases listed for hearing.”
Inspection Fees under the Regulations:
Clause 4(xii)
The Registrar may, on payment of a fee prescribed for the purpose, grant leave to a party to the proceedings to inspect the record of the Commission under supervision and in presence of an officer of the Commission.
14. Clause 4(xii) of the Regulations empowers the Registrar to grant leave to a party to appeal/complaint proceeding to inspect the record of the Commission. While the grant of rights of inspection to parties to proceedings to inspect their files is commendable there is no reason why the CIC should charge any fees for inspection. There is no provision in
the Section 18 or 19 of the principal Act that deal with complaints and appeals procedures to charge any fee on any party to such proceedings.
Neither the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 nor the Central Information Commission (Appeals Procedure) Rules, 2005 empower the CIC to charge any fees for the exercise of any right during the appeals/complaints proceedings. Therefore this clause is in excess of the powers of the CIC granted under Section 12(4) and must be amended to remove the reference to any fees payable by the parties. The
CIC should not look to derive pecuniary gain from the information needs of the parties involved. CHRI strongly recommends that no fees be charged for parties to a proceeding to inspect the relevant files.
However if any person who is not related to the case wishes to inspect the file then it may be treated as an information request under Section 6(1) and all rules and procedures developed for processing such requests should be made applicable.
Recommendation:
Clause 4(xii) should be amended as follows- “The Registrar may, upon request, grant leave to a party to the proceedings to inspect the record of the Commission under supervision and in presence of an officer of the Commission.
Access to documents from the Registrar:
Clause 4(xiii)
Copies of documents authenticated or certified shall be provided to the parties to the proceedings only under the authority of the Registrar.
15. This provision states that copies of certified documents shall be provided to the parties of the proceedings by the Registrar. While it is commendable to make the Registrar the point person for issuing authenticated copies of documents it may lead to some confusion in actual practice. If a party to a proceeding applies under Section 6(1)
for copies of documents relating to his/her case several months after a decision has been announced then the PIO of the CIC is competent person to deal with such a request. Therefore the clause should be amended to allow for such access procedures.
Recommendation:
The word ‘only’ should be omitted from Clause 4(xiii).
Working hours, sitting and vacation:
Clauses 5 & 6
Subject to any order by the Chief Information Commission, the office of the Commission will be open on all working days from 9.30 AM to 5.30 PM with a lunch break of an hour from 1.00 PM to 2.00 PM.
The Commission may have Summer vacation of 2 to 4 weeks during June-July and a winter vacation of two weeks during December-January, as notified by the Chief Information Commission. The office of the Commission will, however, remain open during vacation except on gazetted holidays. The Chief Information Commissioner may make appropriate arrangements to deal with matters of urgent nature during vacations.
16. Clause 5 indicates the working hours of the CIC. However the clause does not make it clear as to whether the CIC will follow a 5-day week or 6-day week. The Regulations should be amended to clarify this matter.
17. Clause 6 authorises the Chief Information Commissioner discretionary power to declare vacation in summer and winter. The Commissioners no doubt need rest and relaxation from time to time in order to maintain efficiency at work. However it is rather perplexing that the CIC has chosen to follow the model of the High Courts and the
Supreme Court in this matter. The practice of taking summer and winter breaks is of colonial origin and is being discarded slowly. Courts have recognised that taking long breaks from work is not helpful in reducing pendency of cases. Criminal Courts at the district level work without any break save the annual leave and entitlements of judges and staff.
While it is nobody’s case that the Commissioners should not have time for rest and relaxation there appears to be no rationale for taking week-long breaks when pendency at the CIC is assuming worrisome proportions.
18. Furthermore Section 13(5) of the principal Act states that the salaries and allowances payable and the terms and conditions of service of the Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Election Commissioner and the entitlements of the Information Commissioners will be the same as that of an Election Commissioner.
Leave of absence and vacation entitlements are clearly part of the terms and conditions of service of the incumbent of any post. The Election Commission does not declare vacation for its Commissioners like the courts. There is no reason why the members of the CIC should give themselves entitlements in excess of the provisions of the principal Act. However there is no objection for allowing the Commissioners leave entitlements that are permissible under law for the Election Commissioners.
Recommendation:
Clauses 5 and 6 should be suitably amended to provide the members of the CIC adequate leave of absence that is comparable to the members of the Election Commission of India.
Registration, abatement and or Return of Appeal:
Clause 7
Clause 11(iii)(a)
Every appeal, complaint, application, statement, rejoinder, reply or any other document filed before the Commission shall be typed, printed or written neatly and legibly and in double line spacing and the language used therein shall be formal and civilised and should not be in any way indecent or abusive. The appeal, complaint or an application shall be presented in at least two sets in a paper-book form.
The Registrar shall scrutinize every appeal/complaint received and will ensure — that the appeal or the complaint petition is duly verified and required number of copies are submitted;
19. Clause 7 requires appellants/complainants to submit appeals/complaints in two sets and in paper book form. This is no doubt an improvement over the existing procedure which requires an appellant/complainant to submit five sets of all documents. However it
is submitted that even this requirement is unnecessarily cumbersome for the appellant/complainant. In order to cause minimum inconvenience to the person approaching the CIC the Regulations should be amended to allow submission of only one set of documents. The Regulations should not insist upon submission of appeals/complaints in paper-book form as many appellants may not have access to such facilities. The CIC should make arrangements for making multiple copies of the appeal/complaint and the accompanying documents and binding them into a paper book form. The CIC may calculate the estimated expenditure on making multiple copies of
all appeals/complaints and binding them and include it in their budgetary demand placed before Parliament. This would go a long way in making the submission of appeals and complaints an easy process rather than the cumbersome procedure followed in courts.
Recommendation:
Clauses 7 should be suitably amended to omit references to the requirement of submissions of appeals/complaints/rejoinders and other documents in multiple copies. Clause 11(iii)(a) should suitably amended to reflect this changed position.
Documents to accompany appeal or complaint:
Clause 9(vi)
Clause 9(vii)
Clause 9(viii)
A certificate stating that the matters under appeal or complaint have not been previously filed, or are pending, with any court or tribunal or with any other authority;
An index of the documents referred to in the appeal or complaint; and a list of dates briefly indicating in chronological order the progress of the matter up to the date of filing the appeal or complaint to be placed at the top of all the documents filed.
20. Clause 9(vi) of the Regulations is superfluous. The principal Act has clearly delineated the jurisdiction of the Central and State Information Commissions. Section 23 bars any court from interfering with any process or proceeding under the Act except by way of an appeal. This immunity applies to the proceedings of the Central Information
Commission as well. Given this clarity in the principal Act there is no reason why an appellant/complainant should be required to give a certificate about the freshness of the case in the Regulations. It is not possible that there could be any proceedings filed or pending with any court or tribunal on any matter under the RTI Act since that is a
matter within the jurisdiction of the CIC. Therefore the appellant/complainant should not be compelled to give any certificate save a verification of the truth of the facts mentioned in the appeal.
21. Clause 9(vii) places an unnecessary burden on the appellant/complainant. The CIC no doubt has the powers of a civil court but it is a quasi-judicial body that has been set up to settle disputes relating to access to information between the applicant and the public
authority. The applicant who already would have experienced the hassles of bureaucracy and red tape in obtaining information at the stage of application and first appeal should not be subjected to more bureaucratic procedures when he/she approaches the CIC. An index can easily be prepared by the Registrar or any other officer authorised to
receive appeals/complaints by using a pre-printed check sheet. This process could be completed while checking the completeness of the appeal/complaint itself. There is no need to burden the appellant/complainant with this clerical requirement.
22. Clause 9(viii) also places an unnecessary burden on the complainant. The dates indicating the chronological order of the progress of the matter could also be mentioned on the check sheet by the receiving officer at the CIC at the time of submission itself. There is no need to burden the appellant/complainant with this clerical requirement.
Recommendation:
Clause 9(vi), (vii) and (viii) should be deleted.
Service of copies of Appeal/Complaint:
Clause 10
Before submitting an appeal or complaint to the Commission, the appellant or the complainant shall cause a copy of the appeal or complaint, as the case may be, to be served on the CPIO/PIO and the Appellate Authorities and shall submit a proof of such service to the Commission.
Provided that if a complainant does not know the name, address and other particulars of the CPIO or of the First Appellate Authority and if he approaches the Commission under Section 18 of the Act, he shall cause a copy of his complaint petition to be served on the concerned Public Authority or the Head of the Office and proof of such service shall be
annexed along with the complaint petition.
23. Clause 10 imposes an unnecessary burden on the appellant/complainant by requiring him/her to serve a copy of the appeal/complaint on the PIO/Appellate Authority and inform the CIC about the same. This is contrary to the very scheme of appeals and complaints provided for in Sections 18 and 19 of the principal Act. The citizen
approaches the CIC only when he/she is dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO or the Appellate Authority. It is highly improper for the CIC to insist upon the appellant/complainant to serve copies of his/her appeal/complaint on the concerned officers of the public authority. This is essentially the job of the CIC which is duty bound to initiate the appeal/complaint proceedings. This includes serving a notice of the
complaint/appeal received on the concerned officers. This notice can be accompanied with a copy of the appeal/complaint and all accompanying documents. The CIC cannot transfer to the appellant/complainant what is essentially its mandated duty. This provision is in excess of the powers conferred on the CIC by Section 19 and 25 of the principal Act.
Recommendation:
Clause 10 should be deleted entirely.
Return of an appeal/complaint by the Registrar for technical defects:
Clause 11(ix)
If any appeal or complaint is found to be defective and the defect noticed is formal in nature, the Registrar may allow the appellant or complainant to rectify the same in his presence or may allow two weeks time to rectify the defect. If the appeal or complaint has been received by post and found to be defective, the Registrar may communicate the
defect(s) to the appellant or complainant and allow him two weeks time from the date of receipt of communication from the Registrar to rectify the defects.
24. Clause 11(xi) allows only two weeks to the appellant/complainant for rectifying any technical/formal defects in the appeal/complaint and resubmitting it. This period is too short given the size of the country and the unreliability of guaranteed delivery on time by the postal and courier services. The appellant/complainant should not suffer due to the
deficiency of these services. The complainant should be allowed at least one month’s time to rectify the defects in the appeal/complaint and resubmit it.
Recommendation:
The phrase ‘two weeks’ should be replaced with ‘one month’ in Clause 11(ix).
Rejection of an appeal/complaint by the Registrar
Clause 11(xi)
An appeal or complaint which is not in order and is found to be defective or is not as per prescribed format is liable to be rejected.
Provided that the Registrar may, at his discretion, allow an appellant or complainant to file a fresh appeal or complaint in proper form.
25. The Regulations empower the Registrar to reject an appeal found to be technically defective. This clause is contrary to Section 18(1) and 19 (3) of the principal Act which places a duty on the CIC to inquire into all complaints and appeals received by it. Rejection of an appeal/complaint on technical grounds is highhanded. While the
sub-clauses of Clause 11 do provide the appellant/complainant an opportunity of being heard before a decision of rejection is made by the Registrar sub-clause 11(5) confers the character of finality on the decision of the Registrar. Discretionary power is placed in the hands of the Registrar to allow the appellant/complainant to file a fresh/appeal or complaint in proper form. This regulation is contrary to the position taken by the CIC in its own decisions with regard to rejection of information requests by PIOs on grounds of technical defects in the application. [3] The requirement contained in section 5(3) of the principal Act that the PIO provide reasonable assistance is not replicated in the context of appeals proceedings in the principal Act. Nevertheless the spirit of the Act requires that the CIC’s office provide all reasonable assistance to
appellants/complainants to rectify any technical defects in their appeals/complaints. Rejection of appeals/complaints on technical grounds does not amount to providing such assistance. This provision is in excess of the powers conferred upon the CIC by the principal Act.
Recommendation:
Clause 11(xi) should be deleted.
Adjournment of hearings:
Clause 17
The appellant or the complainant or any of the respondents may, for just and sufficient reasons, make an application for adjournment of the hearing. The Commission may consider the said application and pass such orders as it deems fit.
26. The provision of granting adjournments is a positive one. However experience of similar procedures in the courts indicates that adjournments are a way of prolonging the case which ultimately frustrates the citizen. Appeals proceedings under the RTI Act should not be allowed to go the way of courts. Clause 17 should indicate a maximum
number of adjournments permissible in a case for any party. If a numerical limit is prescribed all parties to a case would use their right to seek adjournment by exercising due caution. At the very least the CIC should issue guidelines to be followed while granting requests for adjournments filed by either party.
Recommendation:
Clause 17 should be amended to include a maximum numerical limit of adjournment requests allowable for any party to a case pending before the CIC. At the very least guidelines should be issued for the benefit of all Information Commissioners while granting adjournment requests.
Award of costs by the Commission:
Clause 21
The Commission may award such costs or compensation to the parties as it deems fit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
27. Clause 21 empowers the CIC to award costs or compensation to the parties. This provision gives the impression that public authorities which are parties to any case through their CPIOs, deemed PIOs and Appellate Authorities or any other officers can also move the Commission to order costs on the appellant/complainant. Alternately the same officers can also move the CIC seeking compensation from the appellant/complainant. First, there is no provision in the Act that empowers the CIC to order costs to any party. Second, the clause relating to compensation is completely contrary to the provision relating to the award of compensation mentioned in the principal Act.
Section 19(8)(vi) of the RTI Act gives the CIC the power to order a public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss of detriment suffered. The CIC does not have the power to order a complainant/appellant to pay compensation to the public authority. If
this provision were allowed to operate many public authorities would misuse it to demand compensation from citizens for seeking even the most innocuous bits of information. The scheme of the Act does not allow such a right to any officer or public authority. Clause 21 is therefore in excess of the powers granted to the CIC by the principal Act.
Recommendation:
Clause 21 should be amended as follows- “ The Commission may award compensation to the appellant/complainant or a third party that is not a public authority within the meaning of the term as defined in Section 2(n) of the Act as it deems fit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Communication of decisions and orders:
Clause 22(ii)
Every decision/order of the Commission may either be pronounced in one of the sittings of the Commission, or may be placed on its web site, or may be communicated to the parties under authentication by the Registrar or any other officer authorized by the Commission in this regard.
28. Over the last two years the CIC has conducted a majority of its hearings in public. Decisions are also often pronounced at the hearings itself. In a few cases where the Commissioners found it necessary to confer with each other in camera on complex matters they have pronounced their final decision in a public sitting. This practice should become mandatory. All decisions of the CIC should be announced in public sittings before they are uploaded on the website. This ensures complete transparency and will go a long way in establishing people’s confidence in the working of the CIC. Therefore the CIC should not give itself the choice between announcing its decisions in public and putting it up on its website on a date later than that of the final hearing in that case.
The same clause also makes it discretionary for the Registrar to communicate an authenticated copy of the order to the parties. This is contrary to established practice in judicial circles where all parties to a case are entitled to authenticated copies of the order of the court. In fact no appeals against any decision of the CIC can be filed without authenticated copies. The Registrar should have a mandatory duty to communicate authenticated copies of the decisions/orders of the CIC to all parties to the case within a period of two weeks. Prescribing a time limit will ensure that the parties to the case receive copies of the order without delay.
Recommendation:
Clause 22(ii) should be amended as follows:- “Every decision/order of the Commission shall be pronounced in one of the public sittings of the Commission; be placed on its website and be communicated to the parties within a period of two weeks from the date of such decision/order under authentication by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the Commission in this regard.
Allowing review of a decision:
Clause 23(2)
Clause 23(3)
An appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, however, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request;
The Chief Information Commissioner, on receipt of such a request, may consider and decide the matter as he thinks fit.
29. The CIC has established the good practice of reviewing its own decision upon an application by the aggrieved appellant/complainant even though there is no such provision in the principal Act requiring the CIC to do so. It is highly gratifying to note that this practice has been provided for in the Regulations. However the Regulations should also spell out the circumstances under which review shall be allowed. The CIC
has maintained that where an error of law or fact in the decision of the CIC is pleaded by the aggrieved appellant/complainant review is permitted. The Regulations should be amended to include the grounds on which review of the CIC’s decision will be allowed. Similarly there should be clear indication as to whether the same bench will be required
to hear the review application or the matter will be heard by larger bench of the Commission.
Recommendation:
Clause 23(3) should be amended as follows:- “The Chief Information Commissioner, on receipt of such a request may grant leave in cases where an error of law or fact is pleaded by the appellant/complainant/third party and shall refer the matter to such bench of the Commission as he/she deems fit.”
Absence of a time limit for deciding appeals and complaints:
29. It is surprising to note the absence of any reference to time limits that should inform the disposal of appeals and complaints by the CIC. The principal Act does not prescribe a time limit for the CIC to give decisions on appeals and complaints. Time and again civil society advocates have strongly recommended to the CIC that it prescribe time limits of its own. The Regulations provided the right opportunity for fixing time limits for the disposal of cases. This would have ensured that appeals and complaints would not pile up into a huge backlog thereby eroding people’s faith in securing speedy settlement of their
cases and quick access to information. The Commission has committed a significant lapse by not prescribing a time limit for the completion of appeals and complaints proceedings.
Recommendation:
The Regulations should be amended to include a clause that prescribes specific time limits for the disposal of appeals and complaints. The time limits may be fixed after due consultation with all stakeholders.
Conclusion:
CHRI urges the CIC to post all responses and submissions it receives regarding these Regulations on its website and invite comments of the general public giving them a grace period of at least 30 days. Upon receiving the submissions of people, the CIC should collate them and incorporate changes to those provisions that are in excess of the powers
conferred on it by the principal Act.
**********
_____
[1] Sri Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala
AIR 1973, SC 1461.
[2] Section 7(2), Central Information Commission (Appeals Procedure) Rules, 2005.
[3] Central Information Commission Decision
No.CIC/AT/C/2006/00052, dated 4 September 2006, Dr. Reeta Jayasankar Vs
Deputy Secretary (P) & PIO, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New
Delhi.
Of June 27, 2007
Post by Rashmi Mitra
Dear all ,
Please find below CHRI's Submission regarding the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007.
Reshmi Mitra
Submission regarding the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007
Submitted by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative June 2007
For more information, please contact:
Mrs Maja Daruwala, Director OR Mr Venkatesh Nayak Coordinator, Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, B-117, I Floor
Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi – 110 017
Ph: +91-11-2685 0523 / Fax +91-11-2686 4788
Email: director@humanrightsinitiative.org . . .
venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org
Introduction
1. The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative is an international, independent, non-profit NGO working for the practical realisation of human rights of people living in the Commonwealth. Access to Information and Access to Justice are the core areas of our programmatic activity.
Public education and policy advocacy are the core approaches that inform CHRI’s work. CHRI is headquartered in New Delhi with offices in Gujarat and Chhattisgarh in India and London in the UK and Ghana in Africa.
2. CHRI was part of the civil society legislative drafting process that preceded the enactment of The Right to Information Act, (RTI Act) 2005. CHRI made specific submissions before the Standing Committee of Parliament related to the Department of Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice for improving the RTI Bill that was tabled in the Rajya Sabha in December 2004. Subsequently the Parliamentary Committee invited CHRI to make a second representation based on international best practices with regard to information access legislation. After Parliament passed the RTI Bill, CHRI organised a national level conference in May 2005 to discuss implementation strategies. Senior level officers from government, civil society advocates for RTI and international experts discussed the modalities of implementing this all-important law over two days.
3. Since July 2005, CHRI has been conducting sensitisation and capacity building programmes for senior and middle level officers of government and senior managers of public sector enterprises. Till date we have trained more than 3,700 government officers the Central Government and State Governments in more than 15 states. We have trained
more than 600 senior managers and executives of Central and State level public sector enterprises for implementing this law within their jurisdictions. We also conduct capacity building programmes for civil society organisations and the media with a view to orientate them to make use of this law in the larger public interest in a responsible
manner.
The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007
4. CHRI welcomes the notification of the CIC (Management) Regulations, 2007 (referred to as the Regulations below) which coincides with the second anniversary of Presidential consent to the primary legislation. While the Government of India notified the Central
Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 more than 20 months ago, the need for laying down clear cut procedures and systems that would inform the functioning of the CIC cannot be overemphasised. The CIC has publicised on its website minutes of its internal meetings where decisions were made to allocate work and regulate the procedure for processing and deciding upon appeals and complaints. However these
are contained in different documents as well as in several decisions given by the CIC ever since its constitution. The notification of the Regulations is a step in the right direction towards codifying these procedures as a single document that would serve as a guide to the officials of the CIC and the people of India. CHRI also welcomes the decision of the CIC to make these Regulations available to people in Hindi as well.
Primary Concerns with the Regulations
Lack of Public Consultation:
5. The CIC has notified these Regulations unilaterally without any public consultation. The notification, dated 21st June, issued by the Additional Registrar of the CIC indicates that the Regulations have come into force with immediate effect. Section 29(1) and (2) require that all Rules made by the Central and the State Governments be placed before
Parliament or the relevant State Legislature respectively. This provision has been included the Act in order to enable the respective Parliamentary/Legislative Committees on subordinate legislation to discuss the Rules in detail and ensure that they are not in violation of the letter and spirit of the Act. Parliament and the State legislatures have the power to make changes to the Rules if necessary. This is a significant statutory limitation on the power of the executive to issue subordinate legislation which if unchecked may lay down procedures and systems that are contrarian to the letter and spirit of the principal
Act.
6. However Section 12(4) under which the Regulations have been issued does not require the Chief Information Commissioner to place them before Parliament. The same section also grants functional autonomy to the Chief Information Commissioner in matters relating to the superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Central
Commission and further states that the Chief Information Commissioner may exercise all such powers and things which may be exercised or done without being subject to directions by any other authority under this Act.
7. Having regard for the autonomy granted to the Chief Information Commissioner under Section 12(4) it must be said that the move of unilaterally notifying the Regulations without public consultation is contrary to the spirit of the Act. The preamble of the RTI Act states that democracy requires an ‘informed citizenry’ and ‘transparency of
information’ as the twain are vital to its functioning. An analysis of the Regulations, as will be shown below, indicates that some of its provisions are in excess of the powers conferred upon the Central Information Commission by the principal Act. The Commission would have been better advised to put the draft regulations in the public domain for ascertaining people’s opinion on all matters contained in it before notifying it formally. The RTI Act itself is the culmination of a decade long process of public education and consultation. Civil society has played a very important role in drafting this law and preventing harmful amendments from achieving fruition. Had the Commission taken recourse to public consultation, the feedback would have convinced it that some of
the Regulations are not people-friendly and changes could have been incorporated before formally notifying them. However the Commission has denied itself the benefit of people’s input and in the process conveyed a picture of decision-making within the Commission that is not in tune with its statutory role as a champion of transparency. Even though the principal Act does not place a statutory duty of public consultation on the Commission, seeking people’s inputs on the Regulations would have gone a long way in re-establishing people’s confidence in its functioning. Indeed the Commission has denied itself a valuable opportunity to refurbish its image that has suffered somewhat on account
of the piling backlog of appeals and complaints and its reluctance to penalise erring officials even in deserving cases.
8. The preambular para should clearly specify all the enabling provisions under which these regulations have been made.
Retrospective application of the Regulations:
Clause 1(iii)
Appeals and Complaints which have already been filed before the date of commencement of these Regulations and have been found in order and are already registered before this date will be proceeded with as before and shall not abate for any infirmity therein but these regulations will be applicable for any prospective action even in regard to such pending appeals and complaints.
9. Clause 1(iii) of the Regulations states that they would be applicable in respect of all those appeals and complaints submitted before the notification. This is in principle bad law. The Courts in India have frowned upon laws that applicable with retrospective effect.
A wealth of jurisprudence has developed on the subject since the celebrated case of Kesavananda Bharati
applicable with immediate effect goes against the principles of natural justice and due process standards to make citizens suffer for actions that were taken during a period when the Regulations were themselves absent.
Recommendation:
Clause 1(iii) may be suitably amended by deleting the phrase- “…but these regulations will be applicable for any prospective action even” Provisions relating to intervener to a proceeding:
Clause 2(n)
Clause 2(o)
Clause 18(v)
“Representative” means a person duly authorized by or on behalf of any of the parties to the proceedings or interveners and may include a Legal Practitioner.
“Respondent” includes an intervener or a third party or a party impleaded by the Commission.
Examine or hear or receive evidence on affidavit from a third party, or an intervener or any other person or persons, whose evidence is considered necessary or relevant.
10. The Regulations introduce the ‘intervener’ as a new category of persons who could be party to an appeal or complaint proceedings of the Commission. The principal Act does not envisage such an entity as having rights to interfere in any proceeding under the Act. It appears that this category of persons is being recognised by the Commission
subsequent to directions from courts to hear parties whose interests may be affected by the information requests and related appeals/complaints filed by citizens. While it may be necessary to make such persons party to the relevant proceedings before the Commission, the current phrasing of the Clauses gives the impression that anybody could implead
themselves before the Commission in any case. Under the scheme of the principal Act only third parties whose interests may be directly affected by the disclosure of information have locus standi in any application process or appeals/complaints proceeding. The only other instance where an unrelated party may be present before the Commission is when a person is ‘duly authorised person’ by the
appellant/complainant to appear on his/her behalf or assist him/her during such proceeding.
be allowed to interfere with any process or proceeding under the RTI Act. This will ensure that the appeals/complaints proceedings are not delayed unduly.
Recommendation:
The reference to ‘intervener’ should be omitted from Clause 2(n) and Clause 18(v). Clause 2(o) should be amended to read- ““Respondent” includes a third party;”
Include Rules notified by competent authorities:
Clause 2(p)
“Rules” mean the Rules framed by the Central Government under Section 27
of the Act;
11. Clause 2(p) makes reference only to the Rules framed by the Central Government. Section 28 of the principal Act empowers the Competent Authorities to make rules for implementing the Act within their jurisdictions. The Central Information Commission has jurisdiction over appeals and complaints arising form the actions of PIOs and Appellate
Authorities designated by the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha, the Supreme Court of India and the Administrators of Union Territories. In deciding all such matters cognizance will have to taken of the Rules framed by them. Therefore the Regulations should specifically include a reference to the Rules framed under Section 28.
Recommendation:
Clause 2(p) should be amended as follows- ““Rules” mean the Rules framed by the Central Government under Section 27 and under Section 28 by the Speaker of the House of the People, the Chairman of the council of States, the Chief Justice of India and the Administrator appointed under Article 239 of the Constitution;”
Powers and Duties of the Registrar:
Confusion about applications to the Commission:
Clause 4(vii)
The office of the Registrar shall receive all applications, appeals, counter statements, replies and other documents.
12. The Regulations make the Registrar the point person for receiving all applications, appeals, counter statement and replies. While it is laudable to fix responsibility for one person to receive all documents the current wording of the clause is likely to lead to confusion. The CIC is also a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h)(b) of
the principal Act and has responsibilities for giving information to people about its functioning on request. PIOs have been designated by the CIC for this purpose. Similarly an appellate Authority has also been designated to deal with first appeals. The phrasing of Clause 4(vii) of the Regulations is likely to confuse people because it contains a
reference to applications which may be misconstrued with RTI applications. Similarly the Registrar is competent to receive only second appeals because the first appeals fall within the domain of the Appellate Authority already designated by the Commission. Therefore it is necessary to amend the clause as recommended below.
Recommendation:
Clause 4(vii) should be amended as follows- “The office of the Registrar shall receive all second appeals, complaints, counter statements, replies and other documents.”
Duty of transparency with regard to cause list:
Clause 4(x)
The Registrar shall fix the date of hearing of appeal, complaint or other proceedings and may prepare and notify in advance a cause list in respect of the cases listed for hearing.
13. The regulations place a discretionary duty on the Registrar to prepare and notify in advance a cause list of cases slated to come up for hearing. The Regulations should be suitably amended to make this a bounden duty of the Registrar to prepare a cause list and upload it on the website at regular intervals.
Recommendation:
Clause 4(x) should be amended as follows- “The Registrar shall fix the date of hearing of appeal, complaint or other proceedings and shall prepare and notify in advance a cause list in respect of the cases listed for hearing.”
Inspection Fees under the Regulations:
Clause 4(xii)
The Registrar may, on payment of a fee prescribed for the purpose, grant leave to a party to the proceedings to inspect the record of the Commission under supervision and in presence of an officer of the Commission.
14. Clause 4(xii) of the Regulations empowers the Registrar to grant leave to a party to appeal/complaint proceeding to inspect the record of the Commission. While the grant of rights of inspection to parties to proceedings to inspect their files is commendable there is no reason why the CIC should charge any fees for inspection. There is no provision in
the Section 18 or 19 of the principal Act that deal with complaints and appeals procedures to charge any fee on any party to such proceedings.
Neither the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 nor the Central Information Commission (Appeals Procedure) Rules, 2005 empower the CIC to charge any fees for the exercise of any right during the appeals/complaints proceedings. Therefore this clause is in excess of the powers of the CIC granted under Section 12(4) and must be amended to remove the reference to any fees payable by the parties. The
CIC should not look to derive pecuniary gain from the information needs of the parties involved. CHRI strongly recommends that no fees be charged for parties to a proceeding to inspect the relevant files.
However if any person who is not related to the case wishes to inspect the file then it may be treated as an information request under Section 6(1) and all rules and procedures developed for processing such requests should be made applicable.
Recommendation:
Clause 4(xii) should be amended as follows- “The Registrar may, upon request, grant leave to a party to the proceedings to inspect the record of the Commission under supervision and in presence of an officer of the Commission.
Access to documents from the Registrar:
Clause 4(xiii)
Copies of documents authenticated or certified shall be provided to the parties to the proceedings only under the authority of the Registrar.
15. This provision states that copies of certified documents shall be provided to the parties of the proceedings by the Registrar. While it is commendable to make the Registrar the point person for issuing authenticated copies of documents it may lead to some confusion in actual practice. If a party to a proceeding applies under Section 6(1)
for copies of documents relating to his/her case several months after a decision has been announced then the PIO of the CIC is competent person to deal with such a request. Therefore the clause should be amended to allow for such access procedures.
Recommendation:
The word ‘only’ should be omitted from Clause 4(xiii).
Working hours, sitting and vacation:
Clauses 5 & 6
Subject to any order by the Chief Information Commission, the office of the Commission will be open on all working days from 9.30 AM to 5.30 PM with a lunch break of an hour from 1.00 PM to 2.00 PM.
The Commission may have Summer vacation of 2 to 4 weeks during June-July and a winter vacation of two weeks during December-January, as notified by the Chief Information Commission. The office of the Commission will, however, remain open during vacation except on gazetted holidays. The Chief Information Commissioner may make appropriate arrangements to deal with matters of urgent nature during vacations.
16. Clause 5 indicates the working hours of the CIC. However the clause does not make it clear as to whether the CIC will follow a 5-day week or 6-day week. The Regulations should be amended to clarify this matter.
17. Clause 6 authorises the Chief Information Commissioner discretionary power to declare vacation in summer and winter. The Commissioners no doubt need rest and relaxation from time to time in order to maintain efficiency at work. However it is rather perplexing that the CIC has chosen to follow the model of the High Courts and the
Supreme Court in this matter. The practice of taking summer and winter breaks is of colonial origin and is being discarded slowly. Courts have recognised that taking long breaks from work is not helpful in reducing pendency of cases. Criminal Courts at the district level work without any break save the annual leave and entitlements of judges and staff.
While it is nobody’s case that the Commissioners should not have time for rest and relaxation there appears to be no rationale for taking week-long breaks when pendency at the CIC is assuming worrisome proportions.
18. Furthermore Section 13(5) of the principal Act states that the salaries and allowances payable and the terms and conditions of service of the Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Election Commissioner and the entitlements of the Information Commissioners will be the same as that of an Election Commissioner.
Leave of absence and vacation entitlements are clearly part of the terms and conditions of service of the incumbent of any post. The Election Commission does not declare vacation for its Commissioners like the courts. There is no reason why the members of the CIC should give themselves entitlements in excess of the provisions of the principal Act. However there is no objection for allowing the Commissioners leave entitlements that are permissible under law for the Election Commissioners.
Recommendation:
Clauses 5 and 6 should be suitably amended to provide the members of the CIC adequate leave of absence that is comparable to the members of the Election Commission of India.
Registration, abatement and or Return of Appeal:
Clause 7
Clause 11(iii)(a)
Every appeal, complaint, application, statement, rejoinder, reply or any other document filed before the Commission shall be typed, printed or written neatly and legibly and in double line spacing and the language used therein shall be formal and civilised and should not be in any way indecent or abusive. The appeal, complaint or an application shall be presented in at least two sets in a paper-book form.
The Registrar shall scrutinize every appeal/complaint received and will ensure — that the appeal or the complaint petition is duly verified and required number of copies are submitted;
19. Clause 7 requires appellants/complainants to submit appeals/complaints in two sets and in paper book form. This is no doubt an improvement over the existing procedure which requires an appellant/complainant to submit five sets of all documents. However it
is submitted that even this requirement is unnecessarily cumbersome for the appellant/complainant. In order to cause minimum inconvenience to the person approaching the CIC the Regulations should be amended to allow submission of only one set of documents. The Regulations should not insist upon submission of appeals/complaints in paper-book form as many appellants may not have access to such facilities. The CIC should make arrangements for making multiple copies of the appeal/complaint and the accompanying documents and binding them into a paper book form. The CIC may calculate the estimated expenditure on making multiple copies of
all appeals/complaints and binding them and include it in their budgetary demand placed before Parliament. This would go a long way in making the submission of appeals and complaints an easy process rather than the cumbersome procedure followed in courts.
Recommendation:
Clauses 7 should be suitably amended to omit references to the requirement of submissions of appeals/complaints/rejoinders and other documents in multiple copies. Clause 11(iii)(a) should suitably amended to reflect this changed position.
Documents to accompany appeal or complaint:
Clause 9(vi)
Clause 9(vii)
Clause 9(viii)
A certificate stating that the matters under appeal or complaint have not been previously filed, or are pending, with any court or tribunal or with any other authority;
An index of the documents referred to in the appeal or complaint; and a list of dates briefly indicating in chronological order the progress of the matter up to the date of filing the appeal or complaint to be placed at the top of all the documents filed.
20. Clause 9(vi) of the Regulations is superfluous. The principal Act has clearly delineated the jurisdiction of the Central and State Information Commissions. Section 23 bars any court from interfering with any process or proceeding under the Act except by way of an appeal. This immunity applies to the proceedings of the Central Information
Commission as well. Given this clarity in the principal Act there is no reason why an appellant/complainant should be required to give a certificate about the freshness of the case in the Regulations. It is not possible that there could be any proceedings filed or pending with any court or tribunal on any matter under the RTI Act since that is a
matter within the jurisdiction of the CIC. Therefore the appellant/complainant should not be compelled to give any certificate save a verification of the truth of the facts mentioned in the appeal.
21. Clause 9(vii) places an unnecessary burden on the appellant/complainant. The CIC no doubt has the powers of a civil court but it is a quasi-judicial body that has been set up to settle disputes relating to access to information between the applicant and the public
authority. The applicant who already would have experienced the hassles of bureaucracy and red tape in obtaining information at the stage of application and first appeal should not be subjected to more bureaucratic procedures when he/she approaches the CIC. An index can easily be prepared by the Registrar or any other officer authorised to
receive appeals/complaints by using a pre-printed check sheet. This process could be completed while checking the completeness of the appeal/complaint itself. There is no need to burden the appellant/complainant with this clerical requirement.
22. Clause 9(viii) also places an unnecessary burden on the complainant. The dates indicating the chronological order of the progress of the matter could also be mentioned on the check sheet by the receiving officer at the CIC at the time of submission itself. There is no need to burden the appellant/complainant with this clerical requirement.
Recommendation:
Clause 9(vi), (vii) and (viii) should be deleted.
Service of copies of Appeal/Complaint:
Clause 10
Before submitting an appeal or complaint to the Commission, the appellant or the complainant shall cause a copy of the appeal or complaint, as the case may be, to be served on the CPIO/PIO and the Appellate Authorities and shall submit a proof of such service to the Commission.
Provided that if a complainant does not know the name, address and other particulars of the CPIO or of the First Appellate Authority and if he approaches the Commission under Section 18 of the Act, he shall cause a copy of his complaint petition to be served on the concerned Public Authority or the Head of the Office and proof of such service shall be
annexed along with the complaint petition.
23. Clause 10 imposes an unnecessary burden on the appellant/complainant by requiring him/her to serve a copy of the appeal/complaint on the PIO/Appellate Authority and inform the CIC about the same. This is contrary to the very scheme of appeals and complaints provided for in Sections 18 and 19 of the principal Act. The citizen
approaches the CIC only when he/she is dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO or the Appellate Authority. It is highly improper for the CIC to insist upon the appellant/complainant to serve copies of his/her appeal/complaint on the concerned officers of the public authority. This is essentially the job of the CIC which is duty bound to initiate the appeal/complaint proceedings. This includes serving a notice of the
complaint/appeal received on the concerned officers. This notice can be accompanied with a copy of the appeal/complaint and all accompanying documents. The CIC cannot transfer to the appellant/complainant what is essentially its mandated duty. This provision is in excess of the powers conferred on the CIC by Section 19 and 25 of the principal Act.
Recommendation:
Clause 10 should be deleted entirely.
Return of an appeal/complaint by the Registrar for technical defects:
Clause 11(ix)
If any appeal or complaint is found to be defective and the defect noticed is formal in nature, the Registrar may allow the appellant or complainant to rectify the same in his presence or may allow two weeks time to rectify the defect. If the appeal or complaint has been received by post and found to be defective, the Registrar may communicate the
defect(s) to the appellant or complainant and allow him two weeks time from the date of receipt of communication from the Registrar to rectify the defects.
24. Clause 11(xi) allows only two weeks to the appellant/complainant for rectifying any technical/formal defects in the appeal/complaint and resubmitting it. This period is too short given the size of the country and the unreliability of guaranteed delivery on time by the postal and courier services. The appellant/complainant should not suffer due to the
deficiency of these services. The complainant should be allowed at least one month’s time to rectify the defects in the appeal/complaint and resubmit it.
Recommendation:
The phrase ‘two weeks’ should be replaced with ‘one month’ in Clause 11(ix).
Rejection of an appeal/complaint by the Registrar
Clause 11(xi)
An appeal or complaint which is not in order and is found to be defective or is not as per prescribed format is liable to be rejected.
Provided that the Registrar may, at his discretion, allow an appellant or complainant to file a fresh appeal or complaint in proper form.
25. The Regulations empower the Registrar to reject an appeal found to be technically defective. This clause is contrary to Section 18(1) and 19 (3) of the principal Act which places a duty on the CIC to inquire into all complaints and appeals received by it. Rejection of an appeal/complaint on technical grounds is highhanded. While the
sub-clauses of Clause 11 do provide the appellant/complainant an opportunity of being heard before a decision of rejection is made by the Registrar sub-clause 11(5) confers the character of finality on the decision of the Registrar. Discretionary power is placed in the hands of the Registrar to allow the appellant/complainant to file a fresh/appeal or complaint in proper form. This regulation is contrary to the position taken by the CIC in its own decisions with regard to rejection of information requests by PIOs on grounds of technical defects in the application.
appellants/complainants to rectify any technical defects in their appeals/complaints. Rejection of appeals/complaints on technical grounds does not amount to providing such assistance. This provision is in excess of the powers conferred upon the CIC by the principal Act.
Recommendation:
Clause 11(xi) should be deleted.
Adjournment of hearings:
Clause 17
The appellant or the complainant or any of the respondents may, for just and sufficient reasons, make an application for adjournment of the hearing. The Commission may consider the said application and pass such orders as it deems fit.
26. The provision of granting adjournments is a positive one. However experience of similar procedures in the courts indicates that adjournments are a way of prolonging the case which ultimately frustrates the citizen. Appeals proceedings under the RTI Act should not be allowed to go the way of courts. Clause 17 should indicate a maximum
number of adjournments permissible in a case for any party. If a numerical limit is prescribed all parties to a case would use their right to seek adjournment by exercising due caution. At the very least the CIC should issue guidelines to be followed while granting requests for adjournments filed by either party.
Recommendation:
Clause 17 should be amended to include a maximum numerical limit of adjournment requests allowable for any party to a case pending before the CIC. At the very least guidelines should be issued for the benefit of all Information Commissioners while granting adjournment requests.
Award of costs by the Commission:
Clause 21
The Commission may award such costs or compensation to the parties as it deems fit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
27. Clause 21 empowers the CIC to award costs or compensation to the parties. This provision gives the impression that public authorities which are parties to any case through their CPIOs, deemed PIOs and Appellate Authorities or any other officers can also move the Commission to order costs on the appellant/complainant. Alternately the same officers can also move the CIC seeking compensation from the appellant/complainant. First, there is no provision in the Act that empowers the CIC to order costs to any party. Second, the clause relating to compensation is completely contrary to the provision relating to the award of compensation mentioned in the principal Act.
Section 19(8)(vi) of the RTI Act gives the CIC the power to order a public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss of detriment suffered. The CIC does not have the power to order a complainant/appellant to pay compensation to the public authority. If
this provision were allowed to operate many public authorities would misuse it to demand compensation from citizens for seeking even the most innocuous bits of information. The scheme of the Act does not allow such a right to any officer or public authority. Clause 21 is therefore in excess of the powers granted to the CIC by the principal Act.
Recommendation:
Clause 21 should be amended as follows- “ The Commission may award compensation to the appellant/complainant or a third party that is not a public authority within the meaning of the term as defined in Section 2(n) of the Act as it deems fit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Communication of decisions and orders:
Clause 22(ii)
Every decision/order of the Commission may either be pronounced in one of the sittings of the Commission, or may be placed on its web site, or may be communicated to the parties under authentication by the Registrar or any other officer authorized by the Commission in this regard.
28. Over the last two years the CIC has conducted a majority of its hearings in public. Decisions are also often pronounced at the hearings itself. In a few cases where the Commissioners found it necessary to confer with each other in camera on complex matters they have pronounced their final decision in a public sitting. This practice should become mandatory. All decisions of the CIC should be announced in public sittings before they are uploaded on the website. This ensures complete transparency and will go a long way in establishing people’s confidence in the working of the CIC. Therefore the CIC should not give itself the choice between announcing its decisions in public and putting it up on its website on a date later than that of the final hearing in that case.
The same clause also makes it discretionary for the Registrar to communicate an authenticated copy of the order to the parties. This is contrary to established practice in judicial circles where all parties to a case are entitled to authenticated copies of the order of the court. In fact no appeals against any decision of the CIC can be filed without authenticated copies. The Registrar should have a mandatory duty to communicate authenticated copies of the decisions/orders of the CIC to all parties to the case within a period of two weeks. Prescribing a time limit will ensure that the parties to the case receive copies of the order without delay.
Recommendation:
Clause 22(ii) should be amended as follows:- “Every decision/order of the Commission shall be pronounced in one of the public sittings of the Commission; be placed on its website and be communicated to the parties within a period of two weeks from the date of such decision/order under authentication by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the Commission in this regard.
Allowing review of a decision:
Clause 23(2)
Clause 23(3)
An appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, however, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request;
The Chief Information Commissioner, on receipt of such a request, may consider and decide the matter as he thinks fit.
29. The CIC has established the good practice of reviewing its own decision upon an application by the aggrieved appellant/complainant even though there is no such provision in the principal Act requiring the CIC to do so. It is highly gratifying to note that this practice has been provided for in the Regulations. However the Regulations should also spell out the circumstances under which review shall be allowed. The CIC
has maintained that where an error of law or fact in the decision of the CIC is pleaded by the aggrieved appellant/complainant review is permitted. The Regulations should be amended to include the grounds on which review of the CIC’s decision will be allowed. Similarly there should be clear indication as to whether the same bench will be required
to hear the review application or the matter will be heard by larger bench of the Commission.
Recommendation:
Clause 23(3) should be amended as follows:- “The Chief Information Commissioner, on receipt of such a request may grant leave in cases where an error of law or fact is pleaded by the appellant/complainant/third party and shall refer the matter to such bench of the Commission as he/she deems fit.”
Absence of a time limit for deciding appeals and complaints:
29. It is surprising to note the absence of any reference to time limits that should inform the disposal of appeals and complaints by the CIC. The principal Act does not prescribe a time limit for the CIC to give decisions on appeals and complaints. Time and again civil society advocates have strongly recommended to the CIC that it prescribe time limits of its own. The Regulations provided the right opportunity for fixing time limits for the disposal of cases. This would have ensured that appeals and complaints would not pile up into a huge backlog thereby eroding people’s faith in securing speedy settlement of their
cases and quick access to information. The Commission has committed a significant lapse by not prescribing a time limit for the completion of appeals and complaints proceedings.
Recommendation:
The Regulations should be amended to include a clause that prescribes specific time limits for the disposal of appeals and complaints. The time limits may be fixed after due consultation with all stakeholders.
Conclusion:
CHRI urges the CIC to post all responses and submissions it receives regarding these Regulations on its website and invite comments of the general public giving them a grace period of at least 30 days. Upon receiving the submissions of people, the CIC should collate them and incorporate changes to those provisions that are in excess of the powers
conferred on it by the principal Act.
**********
_____
AIR 1973, SC 1461.
No.CIC/AT/C/2006/00052, dated 4 September 2006, Dr. Reeta Jayasankar Vs
Deputy Secretary (P) & PIO, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New
Delhi.
NCPRI chief differs with CCIC on regulations
Wanted to share my email on this subject:
Dear Wajahat,
It was a pleasure talking to you as always, and I have gone through the regulations, and would readily concede that there are some very good parts, where things that were implied have been spelt out clearly.
From the Citizen's perspective, I am giving below my personal view of what I find as problematic. However, I will again reiterate that my fundamental premise that any changes in RTI should be made after giving sufficient time for discussion and subsequent education of Citizens. I shall also consult my colleagues about their views on these regulations and inform you as soon as possible. I would once again request you to make the provisions applying to appellants to be considered as guidelines, instead of rules, for the present.
My comments are given:
6. The Commission may have Summer vacation of 2 to 4 weeks during June-July and a winter vacation of two weeks during December-January, as notified by the Chief Information Commission. The office of the Commission will, however, remain open
during vacation except on gazetted holidays. The Chief Information Commissioner
may make appropriate arrangements to deal with matters of urgent nature during
vacations.
Comment: A clearly retrograde step unless a commitment is made about no
pendency.
8 ii) name and address of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or the
Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO) against whom a complaint is
made under Section 18 of the Act, and the name and address of the First Appellate Authority before whom the first appeal was preferred under Section 19(1) of the Act.
Comment: If no reply was received from PIO and AA, how will the appellant know
the names? Even when orders are issued, quite often the name is not given and only designations are given. Citizens have been filing RTI applications with just the designation and address, without names.
9(i) The RTI application submitted before the CPIO along with documentary proof
as regards payment of fee under the RTI Act;
Comment: A lot of Citizens are presently not keeping any copies of the payment;
Eg. If a payment is made by IPO or DD, they have no photocopy and are only
stating this in the Application. Even where the fee is paid in cash, most do not
preserve the receipt once a reply is received from a PIO. However, if this
considered necessary, it should be declared that this would be enforced after a
year.
9 (vi) A certificate stating that the matters under appeal or complaint have not
been previously filed, or are pending, with any court or tribunal or with any
other authority;
Comment: I feel this is illegal. Sub-judice matters are not exempt under RTI. Hence asking such a declaration creates an exemption which does not exist in the law.
9 (viii) A list of dates briefly indicating in chronological order the progress of the matter up to the date of filing the appeal or complaint to be placed at the top of all the documents filed.
Comment: This has not been a requirement so far. For all Citizens to know that
this is a requirement will take atleast a year. Until then it could be
recommended and an announcement made that it would be implemented a year later.
10. Service of copies of Appeal/Complaint
Before submitting an appeal or complaint to the Commission, the appellant or the
complainant shall cause a copy of the appeal or complaint, as the case may be,
to be served on the CPIO/PIO and the Appellate Authorities and shall submit a
proof of such service to the Commission. Provided that if a complainant does not
know the name, address and other particulars of the CPIO or of the First Appellate Authority and if he approaches the Commission under Section 18 of the Act, he shall cause a copy of his complaint petition to be served on the concerned Public Authority or the Head of the Office and proof of such service shall be annexed along with the complaint petition.
Comment: The Commision’s job should not pushed onto the Citizens. This would
impose a burden on Citizens, and will pose problems.
a) Citizens who go personally to these places, might have to travel long distances and may also be subjected to pressures, harassments etc., apart from losing their daily wage.
b) Appellants who use the postal system, will have to send everything by Registered AD or Speedpost, and get into further hassles of trying to improve the postal system. (eg. I send all my communications by Speedpost AD. And receive only about 20% acknowledgements).
The financial burden of doing this is likely to be upwards of Rs. 100/ even for a BPL Citizen.
Apart from this it will further delay the lodging of the appeal, since the appellant must first get proof of receipt of the Appeal.
17. Adjournment of Hearing:-
The appellant or the complainant or any of the respondents may, for just and sufficient reasons, make an application for adjournment of the hearing. The Commission may consider the said application and pass such orders as it deems fit.
Comment: It would be preferable not to allow any adjournments. Most of the papers and arguments are already with the Commission, and a decision should be pronounced based on the material before the Commission. If an appellant has traveled from a long distance, and the hearing is adjourned for any reason, it could be a very big burden on him. Similarly if the PIO is present, an adjournment would mean an unnecessary burden on the Government. It would be better not to exercise discretion in this matter, and insist on on no adjournments. Once these are allowed, it is a self-propogating virus. Endless
meaningless orders have been passed sanctimoniously saying adjournments show be
rare, but in reality they are the rule.
(ii) Every decision/order of the Commission may either be pronounced in one of the sittings of the Commission, or may be placed on its web site, or may be communicated to the parties under authentication by the Registrar or any other officer authorized by the Commission in this regard.
Comment: The decision must be sent to the parties, since a large number of Citizens and Public servants presently do not have web access.
Love
shailesh
shaileshgan@gmail.com
Dear Wajahat,
It was a pleasure talking to you as always, and I have gone through the regulations, and would readily concede that there are some very good parts, where things that were implied have been spelt out clearly.
From the Citizen's perspective, I am giving below my personal view of what I find as problematic. However, I will again reiterate that my fundamental premise that any changes in RTI should be made after giving sufficient time for discussion and subsequent education of Citizens. I shall also consult my colleagues about their views on these regulations and inform you as soon as possible. I would once again request you to make the provisions applying to appellants to be considered as guidelines, instead of rules, for the present.
My comments are given:
6. The Commission may have Summer vacation of 2 to 4 weeks during June-July and a winter vacation of two weeks during December-January, as notified by the Chief Information Commission. The office of the Commission will, however, remain open
during vacation except on gazetted holidays. The Chief Information Commissioner
may make appropriate arrangements to deal with matters of urgent nature during
vacations.
Comment: A clearly retrograde step unless a commitment is made about no
pendency.
8 ii) name and address of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or the
Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO) against whom a complaint is
made under Section 18 of the Act, and the name and address of the First Appellate Authority before whom the first appeal was preferred under Section 19(1) of the Act.
Comment: If no reply was received from PIO and AA, how will the appellant know
the names? Even when orders are issued, quite often the name is not given and only designations are given. Citizens have been filing RTI applications with just the designation and address, without names.
9(i) The RTI application submitted before the CPIO along with documentary proof
as regards payment of fee under the RTI Act;
Comment: A lot of Citizens are presently not keeping any copies of the payment;
Eg. If a payment is made by IPO or DD, they have no photocopy and are only
stating this in the Application. Even where the fee is paid in cash, most do not
preserve the receipt once a reply is received from a PIO. However, if this
considered necessary, it should be declared that this would be enforced after a
year.
9 (vi) A certificate stating that the matters under appeal or complaint have not
been previously filed, or are pending, with any court or tribunal or with any
other authority;
Comment: I feel this is illegal. Sub-judice matters are not exempt under RTI. Hence asking such a declaration creates an exemption which does not exist in the law.
9 (viii) A list of dates briefly indicating in chronological order the progress of the matter up to the date of filing the appeal or complaint to be placed at the top of all the documents filed.
Comment: This has not been a requirement so far. For all Citizens to know that
this is a requirement will take atleast a year. Until then it could be
recommended and an announcement made that it would be implemented a year later.
10. Service of copies of Appeal/Complaint
Before submitting an appeal or complaint to the Commission, the appellant or the
complainant shall cause a copy of the appeal or complaint, as the case may be,
to be served on the CPIO/PIO and the Appellate Authorities and shall submit a
proof of such service to the Commission. Provided that if a complainant does not
know the name, address and other particulars of the CPIO or of the First Appellate Authority and if he approaches the Commission under Section 18 of the Act, he shall cause a copy of his complaint petition to be served on the concerned Public Authority or the Head of the Office and proof of such service shall be annexed along with the complaint petition.
Comment: The Commision’s job should not pushed onto the Citizens. This would
impose a burden on Citizens, and will pose problems.
a) Citizens who go personally to these places, might have to travel long distances and may also be subjected to pressures, harassments etc., apart from losing their daily wage.
b) Appellants who use the postal system, will have to send everything by Registered AD or Speedpost, and get into further hassles of trying to improve the postal system. (eg. I send all my communications by Speedpost AD. And receive only about 20% acknowledgements).
The financial burden of doing this is likely to be upwards of Rs. 100/ even for a BPL Citizen.
Apart from this it will further delay the lodging of the appeal, since the appellant must first get proof of receipt of the Appeal.
17. Adjournment of Hearing:-
The appellant or the complainant or any of the respondents may, for just and sufficient reasons, make an application for adjournment of the hearing. The Commission may consider the said application and pass such orders as it deems fit.
Comment: It would be preferable not to allow any adjournments. Most of the papers and arguments are already with the Commission, and a decision should be pronounced based on the material before the Commission. If an appellant has traveled from a long distance, and the hearing is adjourned for any reason, it could be a very big burden on him. Similarly if the PIO is present, an adjournment would mean an unnecessary burden on the Government. It would be better not to exercise discretion in this matter, and insist on on no adjournments. Once these are allowed, it is a self-propogating virus. Endless
meaningless orders have been passed sanctimoniously saying adjournments show be
rare, but in reality they are the rule.
(ii) Every decision/order of the Commission may either be pronounced in one of the sittings of the Commission, or may be placed on its web site, or may be communicated to the parties under authentication by the Registrar or any other officer authorized by the Commission in this regard.
Comment: The decision must be sent to the parties, since a large number of Citizens and Public servants presently do not have web access.
Love
shailesh
shaileshgan@gmail.com
CIC regulations are not maintainable
Message No 17188
Of June 27, 2007
Post by col n r kurup
I had no comment against the CIC exercising his powers vested under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act nor his superintendence, direction and MANAGEMENT OF HIS AFFAIRS . My observation was on the CIC making "RULES (REGULATION)" under the guise of "MANAGEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF CIC" which give an impression that it is made to
overcome the public outcry against amendments of the Act and to by-pass the requirement of laying it before each Houses of Parliament if made under Section 27.This is more so when this Regulation varies the definitions of terms given in the RTI Act 2005 and changes its basic people-friendly, character and accountability which is even beyond the powers given in Section 27.
The plea that this Regulation amount to Management of the affairs of the CIC does not appear hold as the entire provisions of the RTI Act can be interpreted as falling under the "management of the CIC/SIC" which does not mean that the CIC/SIC has the power to varie the provisions or amend the RTI Act.
CIC is not a COURT OF RECORDS and naturally its previous judgments cannot be quoted as Authority, the way High Courts and Supreme Court judgements are quoted. The CIC's plea that his previous orders No.CIC /OK/A/2006/00154 dated 2-1-2007 remain unchallenged and quoting it as an authority does not provide him any protection That judgement is allowed to remain so just because of the limited effectiveness of the parties. In para 31 of that orders the CIC had implied that " the CIC can ignore the directions of the government" when he is duty-bound to abide by the Rules made by government under Section 27. No one challenged this doesn't mean that his above view is correct.
This case involve mainly 4 issues"
1. Does 'Regulation means Rules ?
Regulation means Rules.As per dictionaries and wikipedia,Regulation means Principle,Rule or law designed to control or govern conduct; A governmental order having the force of law. It does not indicate as management. Hence it mean "Rule" in every respect.
2. Is the CIC vested with powers to make Rules ?
Rule12(4) andRule27 is very specific. He has absolutely no powers to make Rules under Section 12(4) under the guise of management. Mr.Prakash Kardaley in his comments has posted specific example as to the out come of these Management Rules when the Central Government makes its own Rules. under Section 27. Even now Central government can nullify these Regulations under Section 27 if there is a strong opposition or court give direction to do so. The CIC's Orders at para 32 of his old orders that Central Government has no power to do so will not stand. If the CIC does not realise this, nothing forbid us from seeking a writ nullifying this Regulation.As per Section 30, if any difficulty arise in giving effect to the provisions of this Act,the Central Government may, by order published in the Central Gazete make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removal of the difficulty. This answers the CIC's plea that the appropriate government has no power as implied
inpara32 of his orders of 2-1-2007.
3.Can a delegatee delegate.?
As per "Delegation of Powers Orders" I think the CIC is a delegatee. He cannot delegate his powers to the Registrars. Section 12(4) itself amplified that "the CIC who shall be assisted by the Information Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the CIC autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act" In his regulation the CIC has delegated some of his powers like rejection of an appeal etc to the Registrar.
Even Rule 12(4) does not permit it whereas the Regulation has done sounder Section 12(4). How can this be maintainable?
4. Has the CIC powers to amend the definition and change the basic character of the RTI Act?
All action whether management or direction or superintendence by the CIC has to be confined to the basic provisions of the RT I Act 2005. This truth is explained at various sections of the Act. The CIC cannot under any circumstances alter the basic character of the RTI Act 2005
In view of the above I personally feel that the new Regulation of the CIC is not at all maintainable.
Of June 27, 2007
Post by col n r kurup
I had no comment against the CIC exercising his powers vested under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act nor his superintendence, direction and MANAGEMENT OF HIS AFFAIRS . My observation was on the CIC making "RULES (REGULATION)" under the guise of "MANAGEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF CIC" which give an impression that it is made to
overcome the public outcry against amendments of the Act and to by-pass the requirement of laying it before each Houses of Parliament if made under Section 27.This is more so when this Regulation varies the definitions of terms given in the RTI Act 2005 and changes its basic people-friendly, character and accountability which is even beyond the powers given in Section 27.
The plea that this Regulation amount to Management of the affairs of the CIC does not appear hold as the entire provisions of the RTI Act can be interpreted as falling under the "management of the CIC/SIC" which does not mean that the CIC/SIC has the power to varie the provisions or amend the RTI Act.
CIC is not a COURT OF RECORDS and naturally its previous judgments cannot be quoted as Authority, the way High Courts and Supreme Court judgements are quoted. The CIC's plea that his previous orders No.CIC /OK/A/2006/00154 dated 2-1-2007 remain unchallenged and quoting it as an authority does not provide him any protection That judgement is allowed to remain so just because of the limited effectiveness of the parties. In para 31 of that orders the CIC had implied that " the CIC can ignore the directions of the government" when he is duty-bound to abide by the Rules made by government under Section 27. No one challenged this doesn't mean that his above view is correct.
This case involve mainly 4 issues"
1. Does 'Regulation means Rules ?
Regulation means Rules.As per dictionaries and wikipedia,Regulation means Principle,Rule or law designed to control or govern conduct; A governmental order having the force of law. It does not indicate as management. Hence it mean "Rule" in every respect.
2. Is the CIC vested with powers to make Rules ?
Rule12(4) andRule27 is very specific. He has absolutely no powers to make Rules under Section 12(4) under the guise of management. Mr.Prakash Kardaley in his comments has posted specific example as to the out come of these Management Rules when the Central Government makes its own Rules. under Section 27. Even now Central government can nullify these Regulations under Section 27 if there is a strong opposition or court give direction to do so. The CIC's Orders at para 32 of his old orders that Central Government has no power to do so will not stand. If the CIC does not realise this, nothing forbid us from seeking a writ nullifying this Regulation.As per Section 30, if any difficulty arise in giving effect to the provisions of this Act,the Central Government may, by order published in the Central Gazete make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removal of the difficulty. This answers the CIC's plea that the appropriate government has no power as implied
inpara32 of his orders of 2-1-2007.
3.Can a delegatee delegate.?
As per "Delegation of Powers Orders" I think the CIC is a delegatee. He cannot delegate his powers to the Registrars. Section 12(4) itself amplified that "the CIC who shall be assisted by the Information Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the CIC autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act" In his regulation the CIC has delegated some of his powers like rejection of an appeal etc to the Registrar.
Even Rule 12(4) does not permit it whereas the Regulation has done sounder Section 12(4). How can this be maintainable?
4. Has the CIC powers to amend the definition and change the basic character of the RTI Act?
All action whether management or direction or superintendence by the CIC has to be confined to the basic provisions of the RT I Act 2005. This truth is explained at various sections of the Act. The CIC cannot under any circumstances alter the basic character of the RTI Act 2005
In view of the above I personally feel that the new Regulation of the CIC is not at all maintainable.
Tuesday, 26 June 2007
CIC-DoPT conflict on `rules' and `regulations'
Post 17160, June 26, 2007
Prakash Kardaley wrote:
We are discussing here Col Kurup's contention that the CIC has exceeded its
powers in notifying the `regulations' on June 21, 2007:
CCIC Mr Wajahat Havibullah is referring to CIC decision in Appeal
No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00154, Dated January 2, 2007, Pyare Lal Verma of Aligarh Vs
Ministry of Railways and Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions:
It is a brilliant and forceful decision confirming 1) its earlier decision
asking the DoPT of the Ministry of Personnel etc to remove from its web site its
so-called opinion that file noting cannot be disclosed under the RTI act and
that 2) DoPT cannot direct the information commission and each of its decision
should be pronounced by a full bench.
I urge members to go to the CIC web site and read the entire text of the
decision.
Four paras 30, 31, 32 and 33 are relevant to our present discussion and are
reproduced full at the end of this post.
I now quote the parts most relevant to the present discussion:
quote
part para 32:
``Although the rule-making power has been conferred on the appropriate
Government under Section 27 of the Act, insofar as internal management is
concerned, the Chief Information Commissioner is fully competent to frame
Regulations or to lay down guidelines or issue directions as and when so
required or considered necessary for management of the affairs of the Central
Information Commission and with a view to ensuring that it is in a position to
function autonomously without being subjected to any direction by any other
authority. The constitution of the Bench is not a part of the appeal procedure
but it is a matter more connected with the internal management of the Commission
and as such the rule making power conferred on the appropriate government does
not in any way limit the authority of the Chief Information Commissioner to
delegate powers of the Commission on an individual Information Commissioner or
to a group of Information Commissioners as he thinks fit and proper for the
proper performance of the functions of the Commission autonomously. ''
After emphasising that the constitution of the Bench is not a part of the appeal
procedure but it is a matter more connected with the internal management of the
Commission which the Commission is empowered under S 12(4) autonomously and that
the appropriate government has no power to give direction in the internal
management of the commission, the commission says:
``33. The very fact that the Government has already framed the rules and that
these rules did not provide for constitution of the Benches makes it very clear
that these matters concerning the constitution of Benches and internal
management affairs of the Commission were left to be decided by the Chief
Information Commissioner…''
There appears to be a direct conflict between the provisions of S 12 (4) and
Section 27 particularly on what constitutes the `internal management' of the
commission.
quoting parts of the provisions relevant to the present discussion:
S 12 (4) The general superintendence, direction and management of the
affairs of the Central Information Commission shall vest in the Chief
Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by the Information
Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things
which may be exercised or done by the Central Information Commission
autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under
this act.
S 27. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters,
namely:-
(e) the procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the appeals under
sub-section (10) of section 19; and…
unquote
I repeat that there is a clear provision in the Act under 27 (2) (e) that
empowers the Central Government to notify rules on `` (e) the procedure to be
adopted by the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission,
as the case may be, in deciding the appeals under sub-section (10) of section
19''.
The Commission, as in the dispute over the DoPT view that EVERY decision has to
be pronounced by the full bench, may argue: ``The very fact that the Government
has already framed the rules and that these rules did not provide for
constitution of the Benches makes it very clear that these matters concerning
the constitution of Benches and internal management affairs of the Commission
were left to be decided by the Chief Information Commissioner…''
With my very limited knowledge of the law, I tend to concede the point.
the Commission has notified `Regulations' ONLY in absence of rules from the
Government of India.
What worries me, however, is: what happens if the DoPT of the Ministry of
Personnel etc on behalf of the Government of India choses to frame rules on
``the procedure to be adopted'' by the information commissions in the country
``in deciding the appeals'' under S 19?
Will the present `regulation' enforced by CIC (without circulating these for
suggestions and objections - that is another matter) on June 21 stand
superseded?
Seeking views of informed members particularly the legal experts.
regards.
PS: full text of paras 30,31,32 and 33 from the above decision:
quote
30. Thus, the constitution of the Central Information Commission is
central to the Act of 2005 and the Commission has been constituted to
exercise the powers conferred on and to perform the functions assigned to it
under this Act. The Act intends to secure complete autonomy to the Commission
while exercising its powers and performing its functions assigned to it under
the Act. It will be pertinent to quote the provisions contained in Section 12(4)
of the Act which reads as under:
"The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the
Central Information Commission shall vest in the Chief Information Commissioner
who shall be assisted by the Information Commissioners and may exercise all such
powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the
Central Information Commission autonomously without being subjected to
directions by any other authority under this Act."
31. The Central Information Commission is, therefore, expected to work without
being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act and it is
needless to say that any other authority would implicitly include the Government
and any public authority. It is also clear that the general superintendence,
direction and management of the affairs of the Commission vests in the Chief
Information Commissioner and he may exercise all such powers and do all such
acts and things which may be exercised or done by the Central Information
Commission autonomously. The autonomy granted to the Commission would implicitly
mean and include that the Commission has the freedom and powers to act
independently and effectively
for ensuring better management of its affairs. The constitution of the Benches
is an integral part of internal management of the affairs of the Commission. If
the Commission is of the view that the disposal of cases or discharging of the
duties can be better managed by constitution of single or division Benches under
these provisions, the Chief Information Commissioner is fully empowered to do so
under Section 12(4) of the Act. The comparison with the powers assigned under
the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is misplaced since there is no clause
comparative to Sec 12(4) in that Act.
32. On behalf of the DoPT, it has been submitted that the rule making
power is not with the Commission but it is with the appropriate Government under
Section 27 of the said Act and such rule-making power includes prescribing the
procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commissions, as the case may be in deciding appeals under subsection
(10) of Section 19. Although the rule-making power has been conferred on the
appropriate Government under Section 27 of the Act, insofar as internal
management is concerned, the Chief Information Commissioner is fully competent
to frame Regulations or to lay down guidelines or issue directions as and when
so required or considered necessary for management of the affairs of the Central
Information Commission and with a view to ensuring that it is in a position to
function autonomously without being subjected to any direction by any other
authority. The constitution of the Bench is not a part of the appeal
procedure but it is a matter more connected with the internal management of the
Commission and as such the rule making power conferred on the appropriate
government does not in any way limit the authority of the Chief Information
Commissioner to delegate powers of the Commission on an individual Information
Commissioner or to a group of Information Commissioners as he thinks fit and
proper for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission
autonomously.
33. The very fact that the Government has already framed the rules and that
these rules did not provide for constitution of the Benches makes it very clear
that these matters concerning the constitution of Benches and internal
management affairs of the Commission were left to be decided by the Chief
Information Commissioner and the Commission has been deciding these matters
normally in its Weekly Meetings, the minutes of which are displayed on its web
site for the information of the general public. In this context, it may be
pertinent to mention that the Commission has so far received more
than 4,000 Appeals/complaints and if the contention of the DoPT that the
Commission should hear and decide all Appeals and complaints sitting only in
full Bench is accepted, it would be amount to rendering the whole enactment
meaningless negating the very first words of the Prelude to the Act, "for
setting out the practical regime of right to information". No such
interpretation can ever be accepted which will make the Act, which confers the
right on a citizen to access information totally unworkable.
The issue is decided accordingly.
On 6/25/07, whabibullah@nic.in < whabibullah@nic.in > wrote:
I suggest that you read the attachment, since Col Kurup seems not to have done
so thus far although its been on the site since January.The Decision has
remained unchallenged. Referral to Prof Nigam is only because he is the officer
of the CIC who deals with our legal work.
Wajahat
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: colnrkurup
Date: Jun 25, 2007 8:35 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (AMENDMENT)
REGULATION-2007 - REG
To: HumJanenge@yahoogroups.co.in
It appears to be an open and shut case. The above is a Regulation viz.,"Rule "
made by the CIC specifically declaring it as made under Section 12(4) of the RTI
Act 2005. Section 12(4)does not vest the CIC any power to make "RULES". Power to
make Rules is in Sctions 27 and 28 only. The CIC endorcing its copy for
notification in the Official gazette does not mean anything.
It is only " the appropriate government may by notification in the
official gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this act" No one has
delegaed the CIC the powers of appropriate Government. The very fact that the
CIC has responded to it immediately and referred it to Prof KK Nigam confirm
that my plea had merrit. Let us wait and see the result.
Prakash Kardaley wrote:
We are discussing here Col Kurup's contention that the CIC has exceeded its
powers in notifying the `regulations' on June 21, 2007:
CCIC Mr Wajahat Havibullah is referring to CIC decision in Appeal
No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00154, Dated January 2, 2007, Pyare Lal Verma of Aligarh Vs
Ministry of Railways and Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions:
It is a brilliant and forceful decision confirming 1) its earlier decision
asking the DoPT of the Ministry of Personnel etc to remove from its web site its
so-called opinion that file noting cannot be disclosed under the RTI act and
that 2) DoPT cannot direct the information commission and each of its decision
should be pronounced by a full bench.
I urge members to go to the CIC web site and read the entire text of the
decision.
Four paras 30, 31, 32 and 33 are relevant to our present discussion and are
reproduced full at the end of this post.
I now quote the parts most relevant to the present discussion:
quote
part para 32:
``Although the rule-making power has been conferred on the appropriate
Government under Section 27 of the Act, insofar as internal management is
concerned, the Chief Information Commissioner is fully competent to frame
Regulations or to lay down guidelines or issue directions as and when so
required or considered necessary for management of the affairs of the Central
Information Commission and with a view to ensuring that it is in a position to
function autonomously without being subjected to any direction by any other
authority. The constitution of the Bench is not a part of the appeal procedure
but it is a matter more connected with the internal management of the Commission
and as such the rule making power conferred on the appropriate government does
not in any way limit the authority of the Chief Information Commissioner to
delegate powers of the Commission on an individual Information Commissioner or
to a group of Information Commissioners as he thinks fit and proper for the
proper performance of the functions of the Commission autonomously. ''
After emphasising that the constitution of the Bench is not a part of the appeal
procedure but it is a matter more connected with the internal management of the
Commission which the Commission is empowered under S 12(4) autonomously and that
the appropriate government has no power to give direction in the internal
management of the commission, the commission says:
``33. The very fact that the Government has already framed the rules and that
these rules did not provide for constitution of the Benches makes it very clear
that these matters concerning the constitution of Benches and internal
management affairs of the Commission were left to be decided by the Chief
Information Commissioner…''
There appears to be a direct conflict between the provisions of S 12 (4) and
Section 27 particularly on what constitutes the `internal management' of the
commission.
quoting parts of the provisions relevant to the present discussion:
S 12 (4) The general superintendence, direction and management of the
affairs of the Central Information Commission shall vest in the Chief
Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by the Information
Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things
which may be exercised or done by the Central Information Commission
autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under
this act.
S 27. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters,
namely:-
(e) the procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the appeals under
sub-section (10) of section 19; and…
unquote
I repeat that there is a clear provision in the Act under 27 (2) (e) that
empowers the Central Government to notify rules on `` (e) the procedure to be
adopted by the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission,
as the case may be, in deciding the appeals under sub-section (10) of section
19''.
The Commission, as in the dispute over the DoPT view that EVERY decision has to
be pronounced by the full bench, may argue: ``The very fact that the Government
has already framed the rules and that these rules did not provide for
constitution of the Benches makes it very clear that these matters concerning
the constitution of Benches and internal management affairs of the Commission
were left to be decided by the Chief Information Commissioner…''
With my very limited knowledge of the law, I tend to concede the point.
the Commission has notified `Regulations' ONLY in absence of rules from the
Government of India.
What worries me, however, is: what happens if the DoPT of the Ministry of
Personnel etc on behalf of the Government of India choses to frame rules on
``the procedure to be adopted'' by the information commissions in the country
``in deciding the appeals'' under S 19?
Will the present `regulation' enforced by CIC (without circulating these for
suggestions and objections - that is another matter) on June 21 stand
superseded?
Seeking views of informed members particularly the legal experts.
regards.
PS: full text of paras 30,31,32 and 33 from the above decision:
quote
30. Thus, the constitution of the Central Information Commission is
central to the Act of 2005 and the Commission has been constituted to
exercise the powers conferred on and to perform the functions assigned to it
under this Act. The Act intends to secure complete autonomy to the Commission
while exercising its powers and performing its functions assigned to it under
the Act. It will be pertinent to quote the provisions contained in Section 12(4)
of the Act which reads as under:
"The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the
Central Information Commission shall vest in the Chief Information Commissioner
who shall be assisted by the Information Commissioners and may exercise all such
powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the
Central Information Commission autonomously without being subjected to
directions by any other authority under this Act."
31. The Central Information Commission is, therefore, expected to work without
being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act and it is
needless to say that any other authority would implicitly include the Government
and any public authority. It is also clear that the general superintendence,
direction and management of the affairs of the Commission vests in the Chief
Information Commissioner and he may exercise all such powers and do all such
acts and things which may be exercised or done by the Central Information
Commission autonomously. The autonomy granted to the Commission would implicitly
mean and include that the Commission has the freedom and powers to act
independently and effectively
for ensuring better management of its affairs. The constitution of the Benches
is an integral part of internal management of the affairs of the Commission. If
the Commission is of the view that the disposal of cases or discharging of the
duties can be better managed by constitution of single or division Benches under
these provisions, the Chief Information Commissioner is fully empowered to do so
under Section 12(4) of the Act. The comparison with the powers assigned under
the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is misplaced since there is no clause
comparative to Sec 12(4) in that Act.
32. On behalf of the DoPT, it has been submitted that the rule making
power is not with the Commission but it is with the appropriate Government under
Section 27 of the said Act and such rule-making power includes prescribing the
procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commissions, as the case may be in deciding appeals under subsection
(10) of Section 19. Although the rule-making power has been conferred on the
appropriate Government under Section 27 of the Act, insofar as internal
management is concerned, the Chief Information Commissioner is fully competent
to frame Regulations or to lay down guidelines or issue directions as and when
so required or considered necessary for management of the affairs of the Central
Information Commission and with a view to ensuring that it is in a position to
function autonomously without being subjected to any direction by any other
authority. The constitution of the Bench is not a part of the appeal
procedure but it is a matter more connected with the internal management of the
Commission and as such the rule making power conferred on the appropriate
government does not in any way limit the authority of the Chief Information
Commissioner to delegate powers of the Commission on an individual Information
Commissioner or to a group of Information Commissioners as he thinks fit and
proper for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission
autonomously.
33. The very fact that the Government has already framed the rules and that
these rules did not provide for constitution of the Benches makes it very clear
that these matters concerning the constitution of Benches and internal
management affairs of the Commission were left to be decided by the Chief
Information Commissioner and the Commission has been deciding these matters
normally in its Weekly Meetings, the minutes of which are displayed on its web
site for the information of the general public. In this context, it may be
pertinent to mention that the Commission has so far received more
than 4,000 Appeals/complaints and if the contention of the DoPT that the
Commission should hear and decide all Appeals and complaints sitting only in
full Bench is accepted, it would be amount to rendering the whole enactment
meaningless negating the very first words of the Prelude to the Act, "for
setting out the practical regime of right to information". No such
interpretation can ever be accepted which will make the Act, which confers the
right on a citizen to access information totally unworkable.
The issue is decided accordingly.
On 6/25/07, whabibullah@nic.in < whabibullah@nic.in > wrote:
I suggest that you read the attachment, since Col Kurup seems not to have done
so thus far although its been on the site since January.The Decision has
remained unchallenged. Referral to Prof Nigam is only because he is the officer
of the CIC who deals with our legal work.
Wajahat
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: colnrkurup
Date: Jun 25, 2007 8:35 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (AMENDMENT)
REGULATION-2007 - REG
To: HumJanenge@yahoogroups.co.in
It appears to be an open and shut case. The above is a Regulation viz.,"Rule "
made by the CIC specifically declaring it as made under Section 12(4) of the RTI
Act 2005. Section 12(4)does not vest the CIC any power to make "RULES". Power to
make Rules is in Sctions 27 and 28 only. The CIC endorcing its copy for
notification in the Official gazette does not mean anything.
It is only " the appropriate government may by notification in the
official gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this act" No one has
delegaed the CIC the powers of appropriate Government. The very fact that the
CIC has responded to it immediately and referred it to Prof KK Nigam confirm
that my plea had merrit. Let us wait and see the result.
Monday, 25 June 2007
Does CIC have authority to issue management regulation
Message 17140
I am afraid, you did not catch Col Kurup's point
The CIC has issued the regulations under 12(4) which merely talk of
``general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs''
whereas 27(1) empowers the central government to make rules on ``the
procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission...''
Col Kurup says that these regulations issued by rules under disguise and the CIC
has exceeded its brief in issuing these.
quote
12 (4) The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of
the Central Information Commission shall vest in the Chief Information
Commissioner who shall be assisted by the Information Commissioners and may
exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised
or done by the Central Information Commission autonomously without being
subjected to directions by any other authority under this act.
27. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(e) the procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the appeals under
sub-section (10) of section 19; and…
unquote
by the way, the cic has spelt out Do's and don'ts for requisitioners but has
said nothing about its own Do's and Don'ts which actually fall under ``general
superintendence, direction and management of the affairs''.
For example:
a) Permanent positioning of (central) information commissioners in different
parts of the country, to be closer to the people
b) Norms for camps in different parts of the country for conducting bulk hearing
from that region
c) Norms for distribution of work. (The CCIC did not need an elaborate
``regulation'' to declare this when the commission began function. the
distribution was done by a simple note.
d) Norms for expeditious disposal of pending matters
and so on
On 6/24/07, Manoj Pai wrote:
Col NR Kurup (Retd),
I am afraid, however strongly I may feel against some of the provisions of the
newly promulgated regulations, I admit, the power to regulate the working of the
Commission lies with the Commission. We have no locus standi in this regard.
We should appreciate that atleast they have responded to your mail. Lets see,
how things work out.
Best wishes
Manoj Pai
Ahmedabad
--- Col colnrkurup wrote:
Reply received from the CIC on the above issue is given below: I defenitly feel
that the above Regulation is not maintainable under the RTI Act 2005 Col NR
Kurup (Retd)
I am afraid, you did not catch Col Kurup's point
The CIC has issued the regulations under 12(4) which merely talk of
``general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs''
whereas 27(1) empowers the central government to make rules on ``the
procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission...''
Col Kurup says that these regulations issued by rules under disguise and the CIC
has exceeded its brief in issuing these.
quote
12 (4) The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of
the Central Information Commission shall vest in the Chief Information
Commissioner who shall be assisted by the Information Commissioners and may
exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised
or done by the Central Information Commission autonomously without being
subjected to directions by any other authority under this act.
27. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(e) the procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the appeals under
sub-section (10) of section 19; and…
unquote
by the way, the cic has spelt out Do's and don'ts for requisitioners but has
said nothing about its own Do's and Don'ts which actually fall under ``general
superintendence, direction and management of the affairs''.
For example:
a) Permanent positioning of (central) information commissioners in different
parts of the country, to be closer to the people
b) Norms for camps in different parts of the country for conducting bulk hearing
from that region
c) Norms for distribution of work. (The CCIC did not need an elaborate
``regulation'' to declare this when the commission began function. the
distribution was done by a simple note.
d) Norms for expeditious disposal of pending matters
and so on
On 6/24/07, Manoj Pai
Col NR Kurup (Retd),
I am afraid, however strongly I may feel against some of the provisions of the
newly promulgated regulations, I admit, the power to regulate the working of the
Commission lies with the Commission. We have no locus standi in this regard.
We should appreciate that atleast they have responded to your mail. Lets see,
how things work out.
Best wishes
Manoj Pai
Ahmedabad
--- Col colnrkurup
Reply received from the CIC on the above issue is given below: I defenitly feel
that the above Regulation is not maintainable under the RTI Act 2005 Col NR
Kurup (Retd)
Sunday, 24 June 2007
The magic word `RTI"
Message 17133
Magic word "RTI"
Like every body else, I come across errant Rikshaw or Taxi driver eitherrefusing to ply short distance or parking in front of BEST bus stop making itdifficult for BEST buses to stop properly in front of the stops & in turn makingit difficult for passengers to get in the buses. I make sure to complain about each & every such case with the traffic police either personally or thru email.
Last month I found a taxi driver parking his taxi in front of a bus stop at Wadala Mumbai.I requested him to move away from the bus stop. He did not even look at me. I told him I will have no choice but to complain about him, he told me to go ahead & complain to whomever I want. Although I had a very pressing matter ahead, I spent time to take down all his details including his photo on my mobile camera.
I lodged a complaint to Traffic police via email.(attached) All normal stuff till this point.I added a sentence at the end, stating I would follow up on the complaint later,with an RTI query.I was surprised to receive a letter by Registered AD last week from Bhoi Wada Police station telling me they have acted on my complaint & taken action against the errant taxi driver (although they missed mentioning what was the action)I would like to highlight here that without putting an RTI query Police aresending Reg AD to a common citizen, giving feedback on his complaint, thanks to RTI.
Isn't it great for RTI? Just mention in your complaint letter about yr intentionof following on the complaint using RTI & you get feedback on your complaint!
Thanks & Rgds
Ajay Marathe
Here is my e mail to traffic police
From: ajay marathe
Date: May 5, 2007 6:11 PM
Subject: Taxi Parked in front of the Bus Stop disrupting smooth flow of traffic
To: jcptraffic@trafficpolicemumbai.org
Respected Sir,I found taxi no MH- 03-F-5285 parked opposite Wadala station bus stop.on May 2,2007 at 1900 hrs. In spite of requesting him to move so that buses can stop atthe bus stop & passengers are not inconvenienced, he refused to move & told meto complain to whomsoever I want!Request you to take action on the taxi driver / owner. I would follow it up withan RTI ( Right To Information) query on the steps taken on this email.
Thanks & Rgds
Ajay Marathe
504, New Sarvodaya CHS.
Sector 4, Plot 29-B, vashi,
Navi Mumbai 400703
Message: 17135
Thats a brainwave Ajay, I seek your permission in forwarding your idea/mail tofolks I know. This is one way to keep these people on their toes.Keep it up and continue with such post in this list.
Manoj Pai
Ahmedabad
Magic word "RTI"
Like every body else, I come across errant Rikshaw or Taxi driver eitherrefusing to ply short distance or parking in front of BEST bus stop making itdifficult for BEST buses to stop properly in front of the stops & in turn makingit difficult for passengers to get in the buses. I make sure to complain about each & every such case with the traffic police either personally or thru email.
Last month I found a taxi driver parking his taxi in front of a bus stop at Wadala Mumbai.I requested him to move away from the bus stop. He did not even look at me. I told him I will have no choice but to complain about him, he told me to go ahead & complain to whomever I want. Although I had a very pressing matter ahead, I spent time to take down all his details including his photo on my mobile camera.
I lodged a complaint to Traffic police via email.(attached) All normal stuff till this point.I added a sentence at the end, stating I would follow up on the complaint later,with an RTI query.I was surprised to receive a letter by Registered AD last week from Bhoi Wada Police station telling me they have acted on my complaint & taken action against the errant taxi driver (although they missed mentioning what was the action)I would like to highlight here that without putting an RTI query Police aresending Reg AD to a common citizen, giving feedback on his complaint, thanks to RTI.
Isn't it great for RTI? Just mention in your complaint letter about yr intentionof following on the complaint using RTI & you get feedback on your complaint!
Thanks & Rgds
Ajay Marathe
Here is my e mail to traffic police
From: ajay marathe
Date: May 5, 2007 6:11 PM
Subject: Taxi Parked in front of the Bus Stop disrupting smooth flow of traffic
To: jcptraffic@trafficpolicemumbai.org
Respected Sir,I found taxi no MH- 03-F-5285 parked opposite Wadala station bus stop.on May 2,2007 at 1900 hrs. In spite of requesting him to move so that buses can stop atthe bus stop & passengers are not inconvenienced, he refused to move & told meto complain to whomsoever I want!Request you to take action on the taxi driver / owner. I would follow it up withan RTI ( Right To Information) query on the steps taken on this email.
Thanks & Rgds
Ajay Marathe
504, New Sarvodaya CHS.
Sector 4, Plot 29-B, vashi,
Navi Mumbai 400703
Message: 17135
Thats a brainwave Ajay, I seek your permission in forwarding your idea/mail tofolks I know. This is one way to keep these people on their toes.Keep it up and continue with such post in this list.
Manoj Pai
Ahmedabad
The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Block No. IV (5th Floor), Old JNU CampusNew Delhi-110067
NOTIFICATIONNo.CIC/Legal/2007/006 Dated: 21st June, 2007
It is notified for general information that the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 framed under Section 12(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 shall come into force with immediate effect.
( L.C. Singhi )Joint Secretary (Law) andAdditional Registrar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007
New Delhi dated June 13, 2007
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 12(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act 22 of 2005) and all other provisions in the Act enabling in this behalf, the Chief Information Commissioner hereby makes the following Regulations for management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission so as to enable it to function effectively.
Chapter-1:
Short Title and Commencement:-
(i) These Regulations may be called "the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007.
(ii) They shall come into force with effect from such date as the Chief Information Commissioner may by order specify.
(iii) Appeals and Complaints which have already been filed before the date of commencement of these Regulations and have been found in order and are already registered before this date will be proceeded with as before and shall not abate for any infirmity therein but these regulations will be applicable for any prospective action even in regard to such pending appeals and complaints.
2. Definitions:-
In these Regulations unless the context otherwise requires, -
(a) "Act" means the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act 22 of 2005);
(b) "Appellant" includes a complainant.
(c) "Commission" means the Central Information Commission;
(d) "Chief Information Commissioner" means the Chief Information Commissioner appointed under the Act.
(e) "CPIO" ("PIO" in case of the Union Territories and the State of Delhi) means an officer designated by a public authority under Section 5(1) of the Act and includes an Assistant CPIO/PIO so designated or notified under Section 5(2) of the Act and it also includes —
(i) an officer to whom an application submitted under the Right to Information Act seeking certain information is transferred under Section 5(4) of the Act; and
(ii) any officer to whom the request for information from an applicant is submitted by the CPIO/PIO either for approval or for orders or for disposal; and
(iii) the Head of the public authority in case no CPIO/PIO is appointed or notified;
(f) "Decision" includes an order, direction or determination of an issue.
(g) "First Appellate Authority" means an authority so appointed or notified by the public authority under the Act and includes a head of the office or the head of the public authority if no first appellate authority is appointed or notified.
(h) "Information Commissioner" means an Information Commissioner appointed under the Act and a "Designated Commissioner" means an Information Commissioner designated by the Chief Information Commissioner to deal with appeals or complaints assigned to him by a general or special order.
(i) "Prescribed" means prescribed by or under the Act or under the Rules or Regulations.
(j) "Records" mean the aggregate of papers relating to an appeal or complaint including pleadings, rejoinders, comments, proceedings, documentary or oral evidence, decision, orders and all other documents filed with or annexed to an appeal or complaint or submitted subsequently in connection with such appeal or complaint.
(k) "Registry" means the Registry of the Commission comprising the Registrar(s), Additional Registrar(s), Joint Registrar(s), Deputy Registrar(s) or Assistant Registrar(s).
(l) "Registrar" means the Registrar of the Commission and unless the context otherwise requires includes an Additional Registrar, a Joint Registrar, a Deputy Registrar or an Assistant Registrar.
(m) "Regulation" means Regulation framed herein;
(n) "Representative" means a person duly authorized by or on behalf of any of the parties to the proceedings or interveners and may include a Legal Practitioner.
(o) "Respondent" includes an intervener or a third party or a party impleaded by the Commission.
(p) "Rules" mean the Rules framed by the Central Government under Section 27 of the Act;
(r) "Section" means section of the Act;
(s) Words and expressions used herein but not defined shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Act or in the Rules.
CHAPTER-II: Officers of the Commission and their functions
3. Appointment of Registrar:-
The Commission may designate one or more of its officers in the Commission to function as Registrar(s) of the Commission. It may also designate other officers of the Commission to act as Additional Registrar(s), Joint Registrar(s), Deputy Registrar(s) or Assistant Registrar(s) and provide other staff that may be necessary to assist the Registrars in the performance of their duties and responsibilities.
4. Powers and functions of the Registrar:-
(i) The Registrar shall be the Chief Executive of the Commission on the judicial side. Any communication addressed to him will be deemed to be addressed to the Commission and the Commission will be represented by him in all judicial matters.
(ii) The Registrar shall discharge his functions under the control and superintendence of the Chief Information Commissioner.
(iii) All records of the Commission shall be in the custody of the Registrar.
(iv) The Official Seal of the Commission shall be kept in the custody of the Registrar.
(v) Subject to any general or special directions of the Chief Information Commissioner, the Official Seal of the Commission shall be affixed to any order, summons or other process under the authority of the Registrar.
(vi) The Official Seal of the Commission shall not be affixed to any certified copy issued by the Commission save under the authority of the Registrar.
(vii) The office of the Registrar shall receive all applications, appeals, counter statements, replies and other documents.
(viii) The Registrar shall decide all questions arising out of the scrutiny of the appeals and complaints before these are registered.
(ix) The Registrar may require any application, appeal, counter statement, replies presented to the Commission to be amended in accordance with these Regulations and direct any formal amendment of such records.
(x) The Registrar shall fix the date of hearing of appeal, complaint or other proceedings and may prepare and notify in advance a cause list in respect of the cases listed for hearing.
(xi) The Registrar will decide questions relating to extension of time in respect of filing of counter statement, reply, rejoinder, etc.
(xii) The Registrar may, on payment of a fee prescribed for the purpose, grant leave to a party to the proceedings to inspect the record of the Commission under supervision and in presence of an officer of the Commission.
(xiii) Copies of documents authenticated or certified shall be provided to the parties to the proceedings only under the authority of the Registrar.
(xiv) The Registrar shall communicate the decisions, orders or directions of the Commission to the concerned person/persons, and all such communications signed or authenticated by the Registrar or under his authority shall be deemed to be the communication from the Commission.
(xv) The Registrar shall be responsible for ensuring compliance of the orders, directions or decisions passed by the Commission and to take all necessary steps in this regard.
(xvi) The Registrar shall ensure that decency, decorum and order is maintained during hearing of an appeal, complaint or any other proceedings maintained and shall take all necessary steps in this regard.
(xviii) The Registrar shall exercise all such powers and discharge all such functions as are assigned to him by these Regulations or by the Chief Information Commissioner from time to time.
(xix) The Registrar shall assist all Information Commissioners in discharge of their functions. (xx) The Additional Registrar shall have all the powers conferred on a Registrar and will exercise all the functions of the Registrar under his guidance.
(xxi) The Registrar may with the approval of the Chief Information Commissioner delegate to a Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar any function required to be performed under these Regulations.
Chapter III: Working Hours, sittings and vacations etc.
5. Subject to any order by the Chief Information Commission, the office of the Commission will be open on all working days from 9.30 AM to 5.30 PM with a lunch break of an hour from 1.00 PM to 2.00 PM.
6. The Commission may have Summer vacation of 2 to 4 weeks during June-July and a winter vacation of two weeks during December-January, as notified by the Chief Information Commission. The office of the Commission will, however, remain open during vacation except on gazetted holidays. The Chief Information Commissioner may make appropriate arrangements to deal with matters of urgent nature during vacations.
CHAPTER – IV:
Registration, Abatement or Return of Appeal.
7. Appeal or complaint etc. to be in writing:-
Every appeal, complaint, application, statement, rejoinder, reply or any other document filed before the Commission shall be typed, printed or written neatly and legibly and in double line spacing and the language used therein shall be formal and civilised and should not be in any way indecent or abusive. The appeal, complaint or an application shall be presented in at least two sets in a paper-book form
8. Contents of appeal or complaint:-
(1) An appeal or a complaint to the Commission shall contain the following information, namely:-
(i) name, address and other particulars of the appellant or complainant, as the case may be;
(ii) name and address of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or the Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO) against whom a complaint is made under Section 18 of the Act, and the name and address of the First Appellate Authority before whom the first appeal was preferred under Section 19(1) of the Act.
(iii) particulars of the decision or order, if any, including its number and the date it was pronounced, against which the appeal is preferred;
(iv) brief facts leading to the appeal or the complaint;
(v) if the appeal or complaint is preferred against refusal or deemed refusal of the information, the particulars of the application, including number and date and name and address of the Central Public Information Officer to whom the application was made and name and address of the First Appellate Authority before whom the appeal was filed;
(vi) prayer or relief sought;
(vii) grounds for the prayer or relief;
(viii) verification by the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be; and
(ix) any other information which may be deemed as necessary and helpful for the Commission to decide the appeal or complaint.
(2) The contents of the complaint shall be in the same form as prescribed for the appeal with such changes as may be deemed necessary or appropriate.
9. Documents to accompany appeal or complaint:-
Every appeal or complaint made to the Commission shall be accompanied by self attested copies/photo copies of the following documents, namely:-
(i) The RTI application submitted before the CPIO along with documentary proof as regards payment of fee under the RTI Act;
(ii) The order, or decision or response, if any, from the CPIO to whom the application under the RTI Act was submitted.
(iii) The First appeal submitted before the First Appellate Authority with documentary proof of fling the First Appeal.
(iv) The Orders or decision or response, if any, from the First Appellate Authority against which the appeal or complaint is being preferred;
(v) The documents relied upon and referred to in the appeal or complaint;
(vi) A certificate stating that the matters under appeal or complaint have not been previously filed, or are pending, with any court or tribunal or with any other authority;
(vii) An index of the documents referred to in the appeal or complaint; and
(viii) A list of dates briefly indicating in chronological order the progress of the matter up to the date of filing the appeal or complaint to be placed at the top of all the documents filed.
10. Service of copies of Appeal/Complaint: -
Before submitting an appeal or complaint to the Commission, the appellant or the complainant shall cause a copy of the appeal or complaint, as the case may be, to be served on the CPIO/PIO and the Appellate Authorities and shall submit a proof of such service to the Commission. Provided that if a complainant does not know the name, address and other particulars of the CPIO or of the First Appellate Authority and if he approaches the Commission under Section 18 of the Act, he shall cause a copy of his complaint petition to be served on the concerned Public Authority or the Head of the Office and proof of such service shall be annexed along with the complaint petition.
11. Presentation and scrutiny of appeal or complaint:-
(i) The Registrar shall receive any appeal or complaint petition addressed to the Commission and ensure that
(a) the appeal or the complaint, as the case may be, is submitted in prescribed format;
(b) that all its contents are duly verified by the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be;
(c) that the appeal or the complaint is in accordance with the Regulations.
(ii) The Registrar shall also ensure that the appeal or the complaint petition contains copies of all required documents such as (i) RTI application (ii) Receipt of the RTI Application (iii) Proof in regard to payment of fee/cost, if any; (iv) Decision/reply etc. from the CPIO, if any; (v) Appeal to the 1st Appellate Authority; (vi) Decision of the 1st Appellate Authority, if any.
(iii) The Registrar shall scrutinize every appeal/complaint received and will ensure —
(a) that the appeal or the complaint petition is duly verified and required number of copies are submitted;
(b) That all the documents annexed are duly paginated and attested by the appellant or the complainant.
(c) That the copies of the documents filed and submitted are clear, distinct and legible;
(iv) That the Registrar will return any such appeal or the complaint if it does not meet the requirement or conform to the standard as set out above and permit its resubmission in proper form.
(v) The Registrar may reject any such appeal or complaint petition —
(a) if it is time-barred; or
(b) if it is otherwise inadmissible; or
(c) if it is not in accordance with these Regulations. Provided that no such appeal or complaint petition shall be rejected by the Registry unless the concerned appellant or the complainant is given an opportunity of being heard.The decision of the Registrar in regard to the issue of maintainability of an appeal or a complaint shall be final.
(vi) All appeals and Complaints not rejected or returned as above and found in order shall be registered and a specific number will be allocated.
(vii) The Registrar or any other officer authorized by the Commission shall endorse on every appeal or complaint the date on which it is presented.
(viii) The appeals and complaints shall bear separate serial numbers so that they can be easily identified under separate heads.
(ix) If any appeal or complaint is found to be defective and the defect noticed is formal in nature, the Registrar may allow the appellant or complainant to rectify the same in his presence or may allow two weeks time to rectify the defect. If the appeal or complaint has been received by post and found to be defective, the Registrar may communicate the defect(s) to the appellant or complainant and allow him two weeks time from the date of receipt of communication from the Registrar to rectify the defects.
(x) If the appellant or complainant fails to rectify the defects within the time allowed in clause
(xi) above, the appeal or complaint shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.(xi) An appeal or complaint which is not in order and is found to be defective or is not as per prescribed format is liable to be rejected. Provided that the Registrar may, at his discretion, allow an appellant or complainant to file a fresh appeal or complaint in proper form.
12. Filing of Counter Statement by the Central Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority:-
After receipt of a copy of the appeal or complaint, the Central Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority or the Public Authority shall file counter statement along with documents, if any, pertaining to the case. A copy of the counter statement(s) so filed shall be served to the appellant or complainant by the CPIO, the First Appellate Authority or the Public Authority, as the case may be.
13. Posting of appeal or complaint before the Information Commissioner:-
(i) An appeal or a complaint, or a class or categories of appeals or complaints, shall be heard either by a Single Information Commissioner or a Division Bench of two Information Commissioners, or a Full Bench of three or more Information Commissioners, as decided by the Chief Information Commissioner by a special or general order issued for this purpose from time to time.
(ii) Where in the course of the hearing of an appeal or complaint or other proceeding before a Single Information Commissioner, the Commissioner considers that the matter should be dealt with by a Division or Full Bench, he shall refer the matter to the Chief Information Commissioner who may thereupon constitute such a Bench for the hearing and disposal of the matter.
(iii) Similarly, where during the course of the hearing of a matter before a Division Bench, the Bench considers that the matter should be dealt with by a Full Bench, or where a Full Bench considers that a matter should be dealt with by a larger Bench, it shall refer the matter to the Chief Information Commissioner who may thereupon constitute such a Bench for the hearing and disposal of the matter.
14. Amendment or withdrawal of an Appeal or Complaint:
The Commission may in its discretion allow a prayer for any amendment or withdrawal of an appeal or complaint during the course of its hearing if such a prayer is made by the appellant or complainant on an application made in writing. However, no such prayer may be entertained by the Commission after the matter has been finally heard or a decision or order has been pronounced by the Commission. 15. Personal presence of the appellant or complainant:-
(i) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be informed of the date of hearing at lest seven clear days before that date.
(ii) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may at his discretion be present in person or through his duly authorized representative at the time of hearing of the appeal or complaint by the Commission, or may opt not to be present.
(iii) Where the Commission is satisfied that circumstances exist due to which the appellant or the complainant is being prevented from attending the hearing of the Commission, the Commission may afford the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, another opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken or take any other appropriate action as it may deem fit.
(iv) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person while presenting his case before the Commission and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner.
(v) If an appellant or complainant at his discretion decides not to be present either personally or through his duly authorized representative during the hearing of an appeal or complaint before the Commission, the Commission may pronounce its decision or order in the matter ex parte, 16. Date of hearing to be notified:- The Commission shall notify the parties the date and place of hearing of the appeal or complaint in such manner as the Chief Information Commissioner may by general or special order direct.
17. Adjournment of Hearing:-
The appellant or the complainant or any of the respondents may, for just and sufficient reasons, make an application for adjournment of the hearing. The Commission may consider the said application and pass such orders as it deems fit.
18. Evidence before the Commission:-
In deciding an appeal or a complaint, the Commission may:-
(i) receive oral or written evidence on oath or on affidavit from concerned person or persons;
(ii) peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof;
(iii) inquire through authorized officer further details or facts;
(iv) examine or hear in person or receive evidence on affidavit from Central Public Information Officer, Central assistant Public Information Officer or such Senior Officer who decided the first appeal or such person or persons against whom the complaint is made as the case may be; or
(v) examine or hear or receive evidence on affidavit from a third party, or an intervener or any other person or persons, whose evidence is considered necessary or relevant.
19. Issue of summons: -
Summons to the parties or to the witnesses for appearance or for production of documents or records or things shall be issued by the Registrar under the authority of the Commission, and it shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Commission.
20. Conduct of an enquiry: -
The Commission may entrust an enquiry in connection with any appeal or complaint pending before it to the Registrar or any other officer for the purpose and the Registrar or such other officer while conducting the enquiry shall have all the necessary powers including power to —
(i) summon and enforce attendance of persons;
(ii) compel production of documents or things;
(iii) administer oath and to take oral evidence or to receive affidavits or written evidence on solemn affirmation;
(iv) inspect documents and require discovery of documents; and
(v) requisition any public record or documents from any public authority.
21. Award of costs by the Commission:-
The Commission may award such costs or compensation to the parties as it deems fit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
22. Communication of decisions and Orders:-
(i) Every decision or order of the Commission shall be signed and dated by the Commissioner or Commissioners who have heard the appeal or the complaint or have decided the matter.
(ii) Every decision/order of the Commission may either be pronounced in one of the sittings of the Commission, or may be placed on its web site, or may be communicated to the parties under authentication by the Registrar or any other officer authorized by the Commission in this regard.
(iii) Every such decision or order, whenever pronounced by a Single Information Commissioner or by a Division Bench or by a Full Bench of three or more Information Commissioners, shall be deemed to be the decision or order by the Commission under the Act.
23. Finality of Decision:-
(1) A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final
(2) An appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, however, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request;
(3) The Chief Information Commissioner, on receipt of such a request, may consider and decide the matter as he thinks fit. 24. Abatement of an Appeal/Complaint:The proceedings pending before the Commission shall abate on the death of the appellant or complainant.
CHAPTER-V:
MISCELLANEOUS
25. Seal and Emblem:-
The Official Seal and Emblem of the Commission shall be such as the Commission may specify.
26. Language of the Commission:-
(i) An appeal or a complaint may be filed in English or in Hindi and all the documents or copies thereof shall also be filed in English or in Hindi. Where a document, in original, is in a language other than English or in Hindi, a certified authenticated copy of its translated version in English or in Hindi shall also be filed along with the original. This shall also apply in the case of a counter statement, rejoinder, reply or any other document or documents filed before the Commission.
(ii) The proceedings of the Commission shall be conducted in English or in Hindi.
===============================================================
Comments on Hum Janenge
Rajesh Darak (Mumbai):
Regarding The CIC (Mgt.) Regulations, 2007, the following clauses are of particular concern :
CHAPTER – IV: Registration, Abatement or Return of Appeal.7. Appeal or complaint etc. to be in writing:- Every appeal, complaint, application, statement, rejoinder, reply or any other document filed before the Commission shall be typed, printed or written neatly and legibly and in double line spacing and the language used therein shall be formal and civilised and should not be in any way indecent or abusive. The appeal, complaint or an application shall be presented in at least two sets in a paper-book form
Comment - Even simple communications such as inability to attend hearings or unwillingness to file rejoinders will have to be sent by post or hand delivery and not by EMAIL. This is a retrogressive step meant to cause unnecessary burden on appellants.
9. Documents to accompany appeal or complaint:-Every appeal or complaint made to the Commission shall be accompanied by self attested copies/photo copies of the following documents, namely:-
(vi) A certificate stating that the matters under appeal or complaint have not been previously filed, or are pending, with any court or tribunal or with any other authority;
Comments - I wonder what purpose this will serve? How will an appellant come to know whether matters have been previously filed by someone else or are pending with any court or tribunal, etc. Even if these are pending with the court, wherein the appellant is one of the parties, what purpose will it serve apart from creating a bias in the minds of the CIC towards exemption under section 8 (h)
15. Personal presence of the appellant or complainant:-(i) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be informed of the date of hearing at lest seven clear days before that date.
Comments - 7 days are insufficient. At least 15 days advance notice must be given.
22. Communication of decisions and Orders:-
(ii) Every decision/order of the Commission may either be pronounced in one of the sittings of the Commission, or may be placed on its web site, or may be communicated to the parties under authentication by the Registrar or any other officer authorized by the Commission in this regard.
Comments - This is retrograde. The CIC is not bound to communicate its decision / order to the parties but may simply pronounce it or place it on website. From the appellants / complainants the CIC wants everything in writing but the CIC itself is free not to send its orders at all or simply send them by email. What if someone aggrieved by the order wishes to go to court? How will he prove the verbal pronouncement?
24. Abatement of an Appeal/Complaint: The proceedings pending before the Commission shall abate on the death of the appellant or complainant.
Comments - Since CIC has recognised non-individuals such as trusts, ngos, corporates, firms, etc. as bona fide applicants, death in such cases should imply winding up of company, dissolution of firm, etc.RD--Rajesh Darak {+91-(0)-98206-83005}
----------
Veeresh Malik (Delhi-Pune) :
a) This definition is well overdue:- "CPIO = (iii) the Head of the public authority in case no CPIO/PIO is appointed or notified. "Also:-""and includes a head of the office or the head of the public authority if no first appellate authority is appointed or notified."
"b) "Designated Commissioner" has now been defined too. Check it out!! I can see some people going "yum-yum" already.
c) Respondent includes a 3rd party as well as intervenor and can also include a party impleaded by the CIC. Which does mean that the CIC can try and force/compel anybody to attend? And legal practitioners have been included as "representatives".
d) This is not in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act'05:- "Appeal or complaint etc. to be in writing:- Every appeal, complaint, application, statement, rejoinder, reply or any other document filed before the Commission shall be typed, printed or written neatly and legibly and in double line spacing and the language used therein shall be formal and civilised and should not be in any way indecent or abusive. The appeal, complaint or an application shall be presented in at least two sets in a paper-book form."
In this day and age, even the correspondence from the President of India is not in "double spacing". And paper book form? There go the binding expenses, through the roof.
e) A Section 18 complaint just became even more complicated - applicants will have to provide proof and a copy of the complaint served to the Public Authority. This is Catch-22 at its best - if I could serve an RTI Application in the first case, why would I come to CIC under Section 18 to complaint?
f) A "defective complaint" can be deemed to be withdrawn under yet another complicated clause. Brilliant!!! Kafka rides again here.
g) Proceedings pending before the Commission shall abate on the death of the appellant or complainant, clause 24.. This is very dangerous and I can not understand why the CIC would have included this clause, it is against all natural justice and also gives a motive to a variety of people to cause the death of the complainant/appellant. CIC must be approached to change this clause, before any RTI applicants get killed. Furthermore, in many cases, the consequential effects of an RTI Application will survive post-demise, so what is the logic for this one?
h) The language clause, English or Hindi only, has also been introduced. A provision for translations is there, but again it is at the cost of the applicant. Anti poor, certainly, and anti most of India, by definition.
----------
Manoj Kamra: (Bikaner)
Dear Sh.Veeresh Malik,As per your detailed analysis,Induction of Clause 24 will result in criminalisation of RTI by govt deptts and this should be strongly resisted.They(govt officials) will prefer "SUPAARI" to avoid facing commission to terminate the appeal.As society can not file RTI application and only single citizen can file it in one decision of cic.
For example-It may be against me to avoid revealation of scam by RTI.
u/s 18,I donot find any difficulty,if we file application by speedpost.If CPIO return it,copy of returned envelope will be sufficient proof.I have been using this method successfully(so far 7- 8 returned envelopes collected and sent as complaint). regardsManoj Kamra
----------
Shailesh Gandhi (Mumbai):
Dear Wajahat,
I Was distressed at the announcement of rules which are to come into effect immediately. I am sure you will appreciate that it would take a minimum of three months or more before most Citizens can even know about these. It would be fair to issue them as guidelines for some months, and also allow suggestions before they are finalised.
A sudden announcement of rules with immediate effect will harm the interests of the Citizens and RTI. Also, inspired by this, perhaps other Commissions will also start announcing such initaitives which could certainly make most second appeals and complaints defective. I agree this could silence the issue of pendencies.
I have had a hurried look at the rules, and feel they seem to be aspiring to make the Commission like Courts- the crematoriums of the law they are suppposed to safeguard. A number of additinal conditions have been imposed on submissions of second appeals which will make it a number second appeals and complaints defective. This is supposed to be a law where the Citzens have een promised, " Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing. " If the Commissions adopt such a rigid formats and rules, it will make it very difficult for common people to appeal.
I beg of you, please consider this plea and transparently work out a solution, which could make the work of the Commission easy as also be simple to follow.
Secondly, please accept that if any changes are to be made in your procedures, at least six months should be given for Citizens to get educated. Various Commissions, have allowed major lapses on the part of PIOs and Appellate Authorities' on the plea that the Act was new. You will certainly appreciate that Citizens will also need time to understand and get educated on any changes.
----------
Col N R Kurup (Tellicherry) :
I doubt that the Central Information Commission (Amendment) Regulation 2007 is not in the good interest of RTI. Following are my observations:
1. The powers vested with CIC in Section 12(4) of the Act is "general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of CIC" whereas the above orders is a Regulation means "a Rule" or "Order" prescribed for management. Power to make Rules is not in Section 12(4) but in Section 27, 28 and 29 for which the CIC has no powers. Naturally the above Regulation is not maintainable under RTI Act 2005.
2. The above Regulation is not commensurate with the principles of the RTI Act. It is in the lines
of old British Raj Acts and Rules and appear to be the first step to make the RTI at par with other Acts
3. The glory of the RTI Act is its shifting of accountability to the respondent from the appellant whereas the above Regulation tries to shift the responsibility to the appellant. Eg., Sn.10 & 12 of the above Regulation. Section 10 stipulate that the Appellant cause to serve copies of his Appeal to the CPIO and AA and shall submit a PROOF OF SUCH SERVICE to the Commission whereas no such stipulation is made in Section 12 when the CPIO/AA where they are required to sent copy of their counter to the Appellant.
4. The definition of various terms given in the "Regulation" varies from that given in the Act. I doubt whether the CIC is vested with any power to amend the definition the way he desire and enforce it. Whatever the definition the CIC give should be the same as given in the Act
5.In Section 2(n)of the CIC's Regulation, "Representative " is defined as a person duly authorised by or on behalf of any of the parties to the proceedings and may INCLUDE A LEGAL PRACTITIONER, whereas in Section 15(iv) it says that the person representing him may not be a LEGAL PRACTITIONER
6. One of the dangerous clause introduced by the CIC is in Section 9(vi) that the appeal should have a "certificate stating that the MATTER under appeal or comnplaint have not been previously filed or are pending with ANY COURT or TRIBUNAL or WITH ANY OTHER AUTHORITY.An appellant seek copy of a particular document or information to help him in MATTERS PENDING WITH ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL OR WITH ANYT OTHER AUTHORITY. Forbiding such such information will defeat the aim of the RTI Act and the CPIOs or AAs will get away on this plea.
7. Section 11(v)(a) of the Regulation states that "The Registrar may reject any such appeal or complaint petetion if it is time-barred. This is in contravention to proviso to Section 19(3) of the Act which stipulate that " the CIC may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of 90 days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing he appeal in time.
8. As p[er the CIC'sregulation there is requirement for the Appellant to come to CIC's office many times. It become impossible for an appellant coming from far away places like Kerala to avail the privilege of the Act.
9. Presently the Appellant is given an opportunity to file a Rejoinder and even Notes of arguments. That find no place in the new Regulation 10. It is worthwhile to compare the simplicity of the Act envisaged in Section 6 of the Act with the complexity of CIC's regulation which cannot be pursued without assistance of competent persons thus defeating the very aim of the RTI Act.I feel that this is the first step to take the RTI Act to the grave.
-------------
Col N R Kurup ((Tellicherry) :
Reply received from the CIC on the above issue is given below: I defenitly feel that the above Regulation is not maintainable under the RTI Act 2005Col NR Kurup (Retd)---------- Forwarded message ----------From: whabibullah@nic.in
Date: Jun 24, 2007 12:59 PMSubject: Re: Fwd: THE CENTRAL INFORMATIONCOMMISSION (MANAGEMENT)REGULATIONS 2007 -REGTo: Col colnrkurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com>Cc: profkknigam@gmail.com, lcsinghi@nic.in
Thanks. This will be examined. But the power to regulate the working of the Commission itself is firmly within the definition of management of the Commission's own affairs Wajahat
----------
Anoop Kumar (Secunderabad):
I am in agreement with Col. NR Kurup. The RTI Act in it's present form is simple, convenient and user friendly. CIC is unnecessarily meddling with it while CIC has no such powers to formulate the rules.
The intention of the CIC may be to reduce down the burden on CIC by minimising the 2nd appeals and complaints filed before them. This can be more effectively achieved by strictly imposing penalties on the erring CPIO's as per the present provisions of the act. I find efforts are underway to make the simple user friendly RTI act more complex. Efforts are underway to add to the difficulties of the citizen/information seeker and also to increase the cost. Efforts are underway to discourage the public from seeking information from the government departments. Efforts are underway to dilute the act make it more government friendly.
Finally, efforts are underway to wash down the RTI act down the drain. Let us all object to the framing of independent rules by the authorities who have to ensure implementation in letter and spirit of the act. Let us all file our protests with the CIC & DOPT. Let us atleast not allow the RTI Act to be weakened from it's present form if we cannot strengthen it further.Regards - S.
Anoop Kumar.
----------
Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (Delhi):
I also hope that the functioning of CIC will improve after this notification.
I see one more good change in the approach of the CIC is thatit has made the personal hearing a compulsory one. Earlier, some of the commissioners were of the habit of passing an order without giving hearing to any of the parties. But now as Rule 15 of the new regulation provides that the appellant/ complainent shall be informed about the date and venue of the hearing. In case he could not make to the hearing in the first time for some reason, he must be given a second opportunity to be heard before any order is passed. I suppose, this will certainly help in improving the functioning of the commission.
I suppose that the group remembers that in a number of cases, as one in Yoga Rangatia versus CIC and others, the Delhi High Court has set aside the order of the CIC which was passed without giving any personal hearing to the complainant. After this judgment coupled with rule, it will be difficult for the commissioners to dispose off the cases without giving any personal hearing
Rule 15 is reproduced below:15. Personal presence of the appellant or complainant:-(i) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be informed of the date of hearing at lest seven clear days before that date.(ii) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may at his discretion be present in person or through his duly authorized representative at the time of hearing of the appeal or complaint by the Commission, or may opt not to be present.(iii) Where the Commission is satisfied that circumstances exist due to which the appellant or the complainant is being prevented from attending the hearing of the Commission, the Commission may afford the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, another opportunity of being heard before a final decision is takenor take any other appropriate action as it may deem fit.(iv) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person while presenting his case before the Commission and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner.(iv) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person while presenting his case before the Commission and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner.(iv) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person while presenting his case before the Commission and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner.(v) If an appellant or complainant at his discretion decides not to be present either personally or through his duly authorized representative during the hearing of an appeal or complaint before the Commission, the Commission may pronounce its decision ororder in the matter ex parte,
Thanks and Regards.Divya Jyoti JaipuriarPublic Cause Research Foundation
(A Parivartan Initiative)
----------
Manoj Pai (Ahmedabad):
Dear Manoj (Kamra),
Well you are right, it will certainly reduce the time limit of seeking parawise replies from the respondent. But it is very well known that most PIOs dont respond to application until and unless the First Appeal is file. Now, they will not respond until the Second Appeal is filed. Like correctly pointed out by you, there is again no time limit fixed for their reply. In this case, the earlier method of the Commission sending the copies of the appeal/complain to the respondent fortheir comments and fix a time limit of 15 days, was more effective.
If you further check out Para 11. "Presentation and scrutiny of appeal or complaint " properly there is no clause which states that the appeal can be rejected if no proof of having served the copy of the appeal /complain to the CPIO is annexed with the appeal /complain.Now does it means the registrar cannot reject your appeal if you havent served the copy to the PIO/AA?
Manoj PaiAhmedabad
----------
Manoj Kamra (Bikaner):
Dear Mr.Pai,
Without time limit on PIO to file comments to CIC,It will be unnecessary burden on appellents of two undue speedposts, hitherto sent by CIC.As suggested by you,its previous pattern of time limit of 15 days should be preserved.Overall,it seems that it has been framed for the betterment but in hurry having severe inconsistencies(devoting full paras like 10 but ignoring in summery of all documents to be submitted).We should hope that they will make changes after our persistent requests with supporting reasons for which there should be brainstorming in the group.Please suggest strategy to attract the attention of CIC for such inconsistencies.
regards
Manoj K.Kamra
----------
NOTIFICATIONNo.CIC/Legal/2007/006 Dated: 21st June, 2007
It is notified for general information that the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 framed under Section 12(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 shall come into force with immediate effect.
( L.C. Singhi )Joint Secretary (Law) andAdditional Registrar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007
New Delhi dated June 13, 2007
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 12(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act 22 of 2005) and all other provisions in the Act enabling in this behalf, the Chief Information Commissioner hereby makes the following Regulations for management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission so as to enable it to function effectively.
Chapter-1:
Short Title and Commencement:-
(i) These Regulations may be called "the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007.
(ii) They shall come into force with effect from such date as the Chief Information Commissioner may by order specify.
(iii) Appeals and Complaints which have already been filed before the date of commencement of these Regulations and have been found in order and are already registered before this date will be proceeded with as before and shall not abate for any infirmity therein but these regulations will be applicable for any prospective action even in regard to such pending appeals and complaints.
2. Definitions:-
In these Regulations unless the context otherwise requires, -
(a) "Act" means the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act 22 of 2005);
(b) "Appellant" includes a complainant.
(c) "Commission" means the Central Information Commission;
(d) "Chief Information Commissioner" means the Chief Information Commissioner appointed under the Act.
(e) "CPIO" ("PIO" in case of the Union Territories and the State of Delhi) means an officer designated by a public authority under Section 5(1) of the Act and includes an Assistant CPIO/PIO so designated or notified under Section 5(2) of the Act and it also includes —
(i) an officer to whom an application submitted under the Right to Information Act seeking certain information is transferred under Section 5(4) of the Act; and
(ii) any officer to whom the request for information from an applicant is submitted by the CPIO/PIO either for approval or for orders or for disposal; and
(iii) the Head of the public authority in case no CPIO/PIO is appointed or notified;
(f) "Decision" includes an order, direction or determination of an issue.
(g) "First Appellate Authority" means an authority so appointed or notified by the public authority under the Act and includes a head of the office or the head of the public authority if no first appellate authority is appointed or notified.
(h) "Information Commissioner" means an Information Commissioner appointed under the Act and a "Designated Commissioner" means an Information Commissioner designated by the Chief Information Commissioner to deal with appeals or complaints assigned to him by a general or special order.
(i) "Prescribed" means prescribed by or under the Act or under the Rules or Regulations.
(j) "Records" mean the aggregate of papers relating to an appeal or complaint including pleadings, rejoinders, comments, proceedings, documentary or oral evidence, decision, orders and all other documents filed with or annexed to an appeal or complaint or submitted subsequently in connection with such appeal or complaint.
(k) "Registry" means the Registry of the Commission comprising the Registrar(s), Additional Registrar(s), Joint Registrar(s), Deputy Registrar(s) or Assistant Registrar(s).
(l) "Registrar" means the Registrar of the Commission and unless the context otherwise requires includes an Additional Registrar, a Joint Registrar, a Deputy Registrar or an Assistant Registrar.
(m) "Regulation" means Regulation framed herein;
(n) "Representative" means a person duly authorized by or on behalf of any of the parties to the proceedings or interveners and may include a Legal Practitioner.
(o) "Respondent" includes an intervener or a third party or a party impleaded by the Commission.
(p) "Rules" mean the Rules framed by the Central Government under Section 27 of the Act;
(r) "Section" means section of the Act;
(s) Words and expressions used herein but not defined shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Act or in the Rules.
CHAPTER-II: Officers of the Commission and their functions
3. Appointment of Registrar:-
The Commission may designate one or more of its officers in the Commission to function as Registrar(s) of the Commission. It may also designate other officers of the Commission to act as Additional Registrar(s), Joint Registrar(s), Deputy Registrar(s) or Assistant Registrar(s) and provide other staff that may be necessary to assist the Registrars in the performance of their duties and responsibilities.
4. Powers and functions of the Registrar:-
(i) The Registrar shall be the Chief Executive of the Commission on the judicial side. Any communication addressed to him will be deemed to be addressed to the Commission and the Commission will be represented by him in all judicial matters.
(ii) The Registrar shall discharge his functions under the control and superintendence of the Chief Information Commissioner.
(iii) All records of the Commission shall be in the custody of the Registrar.
(iv) The Official Seal of the Commission shall be kept in the custody of the Registrar.
(v) Subject to any general or special directions of the Chief Information Commissioner, the Official Seal of the Commission shall be affixed to any order, summons or other process under the authority of the Registrar.
(vi) The Official Seal of the Commission shall not be affixed to any certified copy issued by the Commission save under the authority of the Registrar.
(vii) The office of the Registrar shall receive all applications, appeals, counter statements, replies and other documents.
(viii) The Registrar shall decide all questions arising out of the scrutiny of the appeals and complaints before these are registered.
(ix) The Registrar may require any application, appeal, counter statement, replies presented to the Commission to be amended in accordance with these Regulations and direct any formal amendment of such records.
(x) The Registrar shall fix the date of hearing of appeal, complaint or other proceedings and may prepare and notify in advance a cause list in respect of the cases listed for hearing.
(xi) The Registrar will decide questions relating to extension of time in respect of filing of counter statement, reply, rejoinder, etc.
(xii) The Registrar may, on payment of a fee prescribed for the purpose, grant leave to a party to the proceedings to inspect the record of the Commission under supervision and in presence of an officer of the Commission.
(xiii) Copies of documents authenticated or certified shall be provided to the parties to the proceedings only under the authority of the Registrar.
(xiv) The Registrar shall communicate the decisions, orders or directions of the Commission to the concerned person/persons, and all such communications signed or authenticated by the Registrar or under his authority shall be deemed to be the communication from the Commission.
(xv) The Registrar shall be responsible for ensuring compliance of the orders, directions or decisions passed by the Commission and to take all necessary steps in this regard.
(xvi) The Registrar shall ensure that decency, decorum and order is maintained during hearing of an appeal, complaint or any other proceedings maintained and shall take all necessary steps in this regard.
(xviii) The Registrar shall exercise all such powers and discharge all such functions as are assigned to him by these Regulations or by the Chief Information Commissioner from time to time.
(xix) The Registrar shall assist all Information Commissioners in discharge of their functions. (xx) The Additional Registrar shall have all the powers conferred on a Registrar and will exercise all the functions of the Registrar under his guidance.
(xxi) The Registrar may with the approval of the Chief Information Commissioner delegate to a Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar any function required to be performed under these Regulations.
Chapter III: Working Hours, sittings and vacations etc.
5. Subject to any order by the Chief Information Commission, the office of the Commission will be open on all working days from 9.30 AM to 5.30 PM with a lunch break of an hour from 1.00 PM to 2.00 PM.
6. The Commission may have Summer vacation of 2 to 4 weeks during June-July and a winter vacation of two weeks during December-January, as notified by the Chief Information Commission. The office of the Commission will, however, remain open during vacation except on gazetted holidays. The Chief Information Commissioner may make appropriate arrangements to deal with matters of urgent nature during vacations.
CHAPTER – IV:
Registration, Abatement or Return of Appeal.
7. Appeal or complaint etc. to be in writing:-
Every appeal, complaint, application, statement, rejoinder, reply or any other document filed before the Commission shall be typed, printed or written neatly and legibly and in double line spacing and the language used therein shall be formal and civilised and should not be in any way indecent or abusive. The appeal, complaint or an application shall be presented in at least two sets in a paper-book form
8. Contents of appeal or complaint:-
(1) An appeal or a complaint to the Commission shall contain the following information, namely:-
(i) name, address and other particulars of the appellant or complainant, as the case may be;
(ii) name and address of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or the Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO) against whom a complaint is made under Section 18 of the Act, and the name and address of the First Appellate Authority before whom the first appeal was preferred under Section 19(1) of the Act.
(iii) particulars of the decision or order, if any, including its number and the date it was pronounced, against which the appeal is preferred;
(iv) brief facts leading to the appeal or the complaint;
(v) if the appeal or complaint is preferred against refusal or deemed refusal of the information, the particulars of the application, including number and date and name and address of the Central Public Information Officer to whom the application was made and name and address of the First Appellate Authority before whom the appeal was filed;
(vi) prayer or relief sought;
(vii) grounds for the prayer or relief;
(viii) verification by the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be; and
(ix) any other information which may be deemed as necessary and helpful for the Commission to decide the appeal or complaint.
(2) The contents of the complaint shall be in the same form as prescribed for the appeal with such changes as may be deemed necessary or appropriate.
9. Documents to accompany appeal or complaint:-
Every appeal or complaint made to the Commission shall be accompanied by self attested copies/photo copies of the following documents, namely:-
(i) The RTI application submitted before the CPIO along with documentary proof as regards payment of fee under the RTI Act;
(ii) The order, or decision or response, if any, from the CPIO to whom the application under the RTI Act was submitted.
(iii) The First appeal submitted before the First Appellate Authority with documentary proof of fling the First Appeal.
(iv) The Orders or decision or response, if any, from the First Appellate Authority against which the appeal or complaint is being preferred;
(v) The documents relied upon and referred to in the appeal or complaint;
(vi) A certificate stating that the matters under appeal or complaint have not been previously filed, or are pending, with any court or tribunal or with any other authority;
(vii) An index of the documents referred to in the appeal or complaint; and
(viii) A list of dates briefly indicating in chronological order the progress of the matter up to the date of filing the appeal or complaint to be placed at the top of all the documents filed.
10. Service of copies of Appeal/Complaint: -
Before submitting an appeal or complaint to the Commission, the appellant or the complainant shall cause a copy of the appeal or complaint, as the case may be, to be served on the CPIO/PIO and the Appellate Authorities and shall submit a proof of such service to the Commission. Provided that if a complainant does not know the name, address and other particulars of the CPIO or of the First Appellate Authority and if he approaches the Commission under Section 18 of the Act, he shall cause a copy of his complaint petition to be served on the concerned Public Authority or the Head of the Office and proof of such service shall be annexed along with the complaint petition.
11. Presentation and scrutiny of appeal or complaint:-
(i) The Registrar shall receive any appeal or complaint petition addressed to the Commission and ensure that
(a) the appeal or the complaint, as the case may be, is submitted in prescribed format;
(b) that all its contents are duly verified by the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be;
(c) that the appeal or the complaint is in accordance with the Regulations.
(ii) The Registrar shall also ensure that the appeal or the complaint petition contains copies of all required documents such as (i) RTI application (ii) Receipt of the RTI Application (iii) Proof in regard to payment of fee/cost, if any; (iv) Decision/reply etc. from the CPIO, if any; (v) Appeal to the 1st Appellate Authority; (vi) Decision of the 1st Appellate Authority, if any.
(iii) The Registrar shall scrutinize every appeal/complaint received and will ensure —
(a) that the appeal or the complaint petition is duly verified and required number of copies are submitted;
(b) That all the documents annexed are duly paginated and attested by the appellant or the complainant.
(c) That the copies of the documents filed and submitted are clear, distinct and legible;
(iv) That the Registrar will return any such appeal or the complaint if it does not meet the requirement or conform to the standard as set out above and permit its resubmission in proper form.
(v) The Registrar may reject any such appeal or complaint petition —
(a) if it is time-barred; or
(b) if it is otherwise inadmissible; or
(c) if it is not in accordance with these Regulations. Provided that no such appeal or complaint petition shall be rejected by the Registry unless the concerned appellant or the complainant is given an opportunity of being heard.The decision of the Registrar in regard to the issue of maintainability of an appeal or a complaint shall be final.
(vi) All appeals and Complaints not rejected or returned as above and found in order shall be registered and a specific number will be allocated.
(vii) The Registrar or any other officer authorized by the Commission shall endorse on every appeal or complaint the date on which it is presented.
(viii) The appeals and complaints shall bear separate serial numbers so that they can be easily identified under separate heads.
(ix) If any appeal or complaint is found to be defective and the defect noticed is formal in nature, the Registrar may allow the appellant or complainant to rectify the same in his presence or may allow two weeks time to rectify the defect. If the appeal or complaint has been received by post and found to be defective, the Registrar may communicate the defect(s) to the appellant or complainant and allow him two weeks time from the date of receipt of communication from the Registrar to rectify the defects.
(x) If the appellant or complainant fails to rectify the defects within the time allowed in clause
(xi) above, the appeal or complaint shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.(xi) An appeal or complaint which is not in order and is found to be defective or is not as per prescribed format is liable to be rejected. Provided that the Registrar may, at his discretion, allow an appellant or complainant to file a fresh appeal or complaint in proper form.
12. Filing of Counter Statement by the Central Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority:-
After receipt of a copy of the appeal or complaint, the Central Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority or the Public Authority shall file counter statement along with documents, if any, pertaining to the case. A copy of the counter statement(s) so filed shall be served to the appellant or complainant by the CPIO, the First Appellate Authority or the Public Authority, as the case may be.
13. Posting of appeal or complaint before the Information Commissioner:-
(i) An appeal or a complaint, or a class or categories of appeals or complaints, shall be heard either by a Single Information Commissioner or a Division Bench of two Information Commissioners, or a Full Bench of three or more Information Commissioners, as decided by the Chief Information Commissioner by a special or general order issued for this purpose from time to time.
(ii) Where in the course of the hearing of an appeal or complaint or other proceeding before a Single Information Commissioner, the Commissioner considers that the matter should be dealt with by a Division or Full Bench, he shall refer the matter to the Chief Information Commissioner who may thereupon constitute such a Bench for the hearing and disposal of the matter.
(iii) Similarly, where during the course of the hearing of a matter before a Division Bench, the Bench considers that the matter should be dealt with by a Full Bench, or where a Full Bench considers that a matter should be dealt with by a larger Bench, it shall refer the matter to the Chief Information Commissioner who may thereupon constitute such a Bench for the hearing and disposal of the matter.
14. Amendment or withdrawal of an Appeal or Complaint:
The Commission may in its discretion allow a prayer for any amendment or withdrawal of an appeal or complaint during the course of its hearing if such a prayer is made by the appellant or complainant on an application made in writing. However, no such prayer may be entertained by the Commission after the matter has been finally heard or a decision or order has been pronounced by the Commission. 15. Personal presence of the appellant or complainant:-
(i) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be informed of the date of hearing at lest seven clear days before that date.
(ii) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may at his discretion be present in person or through his duly authorized representative at the time of hearing of the appeal or complaint by the Commission, or may opt not to be present.
(iii) Where the Commission is satisfied that circumstances exist due to which the appellant or the complainant is being prevented from attending the hearing of the Commission, the Commission may afford the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, another opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken or take any other appropriate action as it may deem fit.
(iv) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person while presenting his case before the Commission and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner.
(v) If an appellant or complainant at his discretion decides not to be present either personally or through his duly authorized representative during the hearing of an appeal or complaint before the Commission, the Commission may pronounce its decision or order in the matter ex parte, 16. Date of hearing to be notified:- The Commission shall notify the parties the date and place of hearing of the appeal or complaint in such manner as the Chief Information Commissioner may by general or special order direct.
17. Adjournment of Hearing:-
The appellant or the complainant or any of the respondents may, for just and sufficient reasons, make an application for adjournment of the hearing. The Commission may consider the said application and pass such orders as it deems fit.
18. Evidence before the Commission:-
In deciding an appeal or a complaint, the Commission may:-
(i) receive oral or written evidence on oath or on affidavit from concerned person or persons;
(ii) peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof;
(iii) inquire through authorized officer further details or facts;
(iv) examine or hear in person or receive evidence on affidavit from Central Public Information Officer, Central assistant Public Information Officer or such Senior Officer who decided the first appeal or such person or persons against whom the complaint is made as the case may be; or
(v) examine or hear or receive evidence on affidavit from a third party, or an intervener or any other person or persons, whose evidence is considered necessary or relevant.
19. Issue of summons: -
Summons to the parties or to the witnesses for appearance or for production of documents or records or things shall be issued by the Registrar under the authority of the Commission, and it shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Commission.
20. Conduct of an enquiry: -
The Commission may entrust an enquiry in connection with any appeal or complaint pending before it to the Registrar or any other officer for the purpose and the Registrar or such other officer while conducting the enquiry shall have all the necessary powers including power to —
(i) summon and enforce attendance of persons;
(ii) compel production of documents or things;
(iii) administer oath and to take oral evidence or to receive affidavits or written evidence on solemn affirmation;
(iv) inspect documents and require discovery of documents; and
(v) requisition any public record or documents from any public authority.
21. Award of costs by the Commission:-
The Commission may award such costs or compensation to the parties as it deems fit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
22. Communication of decisions and Orders:-
(i) Every decision or order of the Commission shall be signed and dated by the Commissioner or Commissioners who have heard the appeal or the complaint or have decided the matter.
(ii) Every decision/order of the Commission may either be pronounced in one of the sittings of the Commission, or may be placed on its web site, or may be communicated to the parties under authentication by the Registrar or any other officer authorized by the Commission in this regard.
(iii) Every such decision or order, whenever pronounced by a Single Information Commissioner or by a Division Bench or by a Full Bench of three or more Information Commissioners, shall be deemed to be the decision or order by the Commission under the Act.
23. Finality of Decision:-
(1) A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final
(2) An appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, however, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request;
(3) The Chief Information Commissioner, on receipt of such a request, may consider and decide the matter as he thinks fit. 24. Abatement of an Appeal/Complaint:The proceedings pending before the Commission shall abate on the death of the appellant or complainant.
CHAPTER-V:
MISCELLANEOUS
25. Seal and Emblem:-
The Official Seal and Emblem of the Commission shall be such as the Commission may specify.
26. Language of the Commission:-
(i) An appeal or a complaint may be filed in English or in Hindi and all the documents or copies thereof shall also be filed in English or in Hindi. Where a document, in original, is in a language other than English or in Hindi, a certified authenticated copy of its translated version in English or in Hindi shall also be filed along with the original. This shall also apply in the case of a counter statement, rejoinder, reply or any other document or documents filed before the Commission.
(ii) The proceedings of the Commission shall be conducted in English or in Hindi.
===============================================================
Comments on Hum Janenge
Rajesh Darak (Mumbai):
Regarding The CIC (Mgt.) Regulations, 2007, the following clauses are of particular concern :
CHAPTER – IV: Registration, Abatement or Return of Appeal.7. Appeal or complaint etc. to be in writing:- Every appeal, complaint, application, statement, rejoinder, reply or any other document filed before the Commission shall be typed, printed or written neatly and legibly and in double line spacing and the language used therein shall be formal and civilised and should not be in any way indecent or abusive. The appeal, complaint or an application shall be presented in at least two sets in a paper-book form
Comment - Even simple communications such as inability to attend hearings or unwillingness to file rejoinders will have to be sent by post or hand delivery and not by EMAIL. This is a retrogressive step meant to cause unnecessary burden on appellants.
9. Documents to accompany appeal or complaint:-Every appeal or complaint made to the Commission shall be accompanied by self attested copies/photo copies of the following documents, namely:-
(vi) A certificate stating that the matters under appeal or complaint have not been previously filed, or are pending, with any court or tribunal or with any other authority;
Comments - I wonder what purpose this will serve? How will an appellant come to know whether matters have been previously filed by someone else or are pending with any court or tribunal, etc. Even if these are pending with the court, wherein the appellant is one of the parties, what purpose will it serve apart from creating a bias in the minds of the CIC towards exemption under section 8 (h)
15. Personal presence of the appellant or complainant:-(i) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be informed of the date of hearing at lest seven clear days before that date.
Comments - 7 days are insufficient. At least 15 days advance notice must be given.
22. Communication of decisions and Orders:-
(ii) Every decision/order of the Commission may either be pronounced in one of the sittings of the Commission, or may be placed on its web site, or may be communicated to the parties under authentication by the Registrar or any other officer authorized by the Commission in this regard.
Comments - This is retrograde. The CIC is not bound to communicate its decision / order to the parties but may simply pronounce it or place it on website. From the appellants / complainants the CIC wants everything in writing but the CIC itself is free not to send its orders at all or simply send them by email. What if someone aggrieved by the order wishes to go to court? How will he prove the verbal pronouncement?
24. Abatement of an Appeal/Complaint: The proceedings pending before the Commission shall abate on the death of the appellant or complainant.
Comments - Since CIC has recognised non-individuals such as trusts, ngos, corporates, firms, etc. as bona fide applicants, death in such cases should imply winding up of company, dissolution of firm, etc.RD--Rajesh Darak {+91-(0)-98206-83005}
----------
Veeresh Malik (Delhi-Pune) :
a) This definition is well overdue:- "CPIO = (iii) the Head of the public authority in case no CPIO/PIO is appointed or notified. "Also:-""and includes a head of the office or the head of the public authority if no first appellate authority is appointed or notified."
"b) "Designated Commissioner" has now been defined too. Check it out!! I can see some people going "yum-yum" already.
c) Respondent includes a 3rd party as well as intervenor and can also include a party impleaded by the CIC. Which does mean that the CIC can try and force/compel anybody to attend? And legal practitioners have been included as "representatives".
d) This is not in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act'05:- "Appeal or complaint etc. to be in writing:- Every appeal, complaint, application, statement, rejoinder, reply or any other document filed before the Commission shall be typed, printed or written neatly and legibly and in double line spacing and the language used therein shall be formal and civilised and should not be in any way indecent or abusive. The appeal, complaint or an application shall be presented in at least two sets in a paper-book form."
In this day and age, even the correspondence from the President of India is not in "double spacing". And paper book form? There go the binding expenses, through the roof.
e) A Section 18 complaint just became even more complicated - applicants will have to provide proof and a copy of the complaint served to the Public Authority. This is Catch-22 at its best - if I could serve an RTI Application in the first case, why would I come to CIC under Section 18 to complaint?
f) A "defective complaint" can be deemed to be withdrawn under yet another complicated clause. Brilliant!!! Kafka rides again here.
g) Proceedings pending before the Commission shall abate on the death of the appellant or complainant, clause 24.. This is very dangerous and I can not understand why the CIC would have included this clause, it is against all natural justice and also gives a motive to a variety of people to cause the death of the complainant/appellant. CIC must be approached to change this clause, before any RTI applicants get killed. Furthermore, in many cases, the consequential effects of an RTI Application will survive post-demise, so what is the logic for this one?
h) The language clause, English or Hindi only, has also been introduced. A provision for translations is there, but again it is at the cost of the applicant. Anti poor, certainly, and anti most of India, by definition.
----------
Manoj Kamra: (Bikaner)
Dear Sh.Veeresh Malik,As per your detailed analysis,Induction of Clause 24 will result in criminalisation of RTI by govt deptts and this should be strongly resisted.They(govt officials) will prefer "SUPAARI" to avoid facing commission to terminate the appeal.As society can not file RTI application and only single citizen can file it in one decision of cic.
For example-It may be against me to avoid revealation of scam by RTI.
u/s 18,I donot find any difficulty,if we file application by speedpost.If CPIO return it,copy of returned envelope will be sufficient proof.I have been using this method successfully(so far 7- 8 returned envelopes collected and sent as complaint). regardsManoj Kamra
----------
Shailesh Gandhi (Mumbai):
Dear Wajahat,
I Was distressed at the announcement of rules which are to come into effect immediately. I am sure you will appreciate that it would take a minimum of three months or more before most Citizens can even know about these. It would be fair to issue them as guidelines for some months, and also allow suggestions before they are finalised.
A sudden announcement of rules with immediate effect will harm the interests of the Citizens and RTI. Also, inspired by this, perhaps other Commissions will also start announcing such initaitives which could certainly make most second appeals and complaints defective. I agree this could silence the issue of pendencies.
I have had a hurried look at the rules, and feel they seem to be aspiring to make the Commission like Courts- the crematoriums of the law they are suppposed to safeguard. A number of additinal conditions have been imposed on submissions of second appeals which will make it a number second appeals and complaints defective. This is supposed to be a law where the Citzens have een promised, " Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing. " If the Commissions adopt such a rigid formats and rules, it will make it very difficult for common people to appeal.
I beg of you, please consider this plea and transparently work out a solution, which could make the work of the Commission easy as also be simple to follow.
Secondly, please accept that if any changes are to be made in your procedures, at least six months should be given for Citizens to get educated. Various Commissions, have allowed major lapses on the part of PIOs and Appellate Authorities' on the plea that the Act was new. You will certainly appreciate that Citizens will also need time to understand and get educated on any changes.
----------
Col N R Kurup (Tellicherry) :
I doubt that the Central Information Commission (Amendment) Regulation 2007 is not in the good interest of RTI. Following are my observations:
1. The powers vested with CIC in Section 12(4) of the Act is "general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of CIC" whereas the above orders is a Regulation means "a Rule" or "Order" prescribed for management. Power to make Rules is not in Section 12(4) but in Section 27, 28 and 29 for which the CIC has no powers. Naturally the above Regulation is not maintainable under RTI Act 2005.
2. The above Regulation is not commensurate with the principles of the RTI Act. It is in the lines
of old British Raj Acts and Rules and appear to be the first step to make the RTI at par with other Acts
3. The glory of the RTI Act is its shifting of accountability to the respondent from the appellant whereas the above Regulation tries to shift the responsibility to the appellant. Eg., Sn.10 & 12 of the above Regulation. Section 10 stipulate that the Appellant cause to serve copies of his Appeal to the CPIO and AA and shall submit a PROOF OF SUCH SERVICE to the Commission whereas no such stipulation is made in Section 12 when the CPIO/AA where they are required to sent copy of their counter to the Appellant.
4. The definition of various terms given in the "Regulation" varies from that given in the Act. I doubt whether the CIC is vested with any power to amend the definition the way he desire and enforce it. Whatever the definition the CIC give should be the same as given in the Act
5.In Section 2(n)of the CIC's Regulation, "Representative " is defined as a person duly authorised by or on behalf of any of the parties to the proceedings and may INCLUDE A LEGAL PRACTITIONER, whereas in Section 15(iv) it says that the person representing him may not be a LEGAL PRACTITIONER
6. One of the dangerous clause introduced by the CIC is in Section 9(vi) that the appeal should have a "certificate stating that the MATTER under appeal or comnplaint have not been previously filed or are pending with ANY COURT or TRIBUNAL or WITH ANY OTHER AUTHORITY.An appellant seek copy of a particular document or information to help him in MATTERS PENDING WITH ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL OR WITH ANYT OTHER AUTHORITY. Forbiding such such information will defeat the aim of the RTI Act and the CPIOs or AAs will get away on this plea.
7. Section 11(v)(a) of the Regulation states that "The Registrar may reject any such appeal or complaint petetion if it is time-barred. This is in contravention to proviso to Section 19(3) of the Act which stipulate that " the CIC may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of 90 days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing he appeal in time.
8. As p[er the CIC'sregulation there is requirement for the Appellant to come to CIC's office many times. It become impossible for an appellant coming from far away places like Kerala to avail the privilege of the Act.
9. Presently the Appellant is given an opportunity to file a Rejoinder and even Notes of arguments. That find no place in the new Regulation 10. It is worthwhile to compare the simplicity of the Act envisaged in Section 6 of the Act with the complexity of CIC's regulation which cannot be pursued without assistance of competent persons thus defeating the very aim of the RTI Act.I feel that this is the first step to take the RTI Act to the grave.
-------------
Col N R Kurup ((Tellicherry) :
Reply received from the CIC on the above issue is given below: I defenitly feel that the above Regulation is not maintainable under the RTI Act 2005Col NR Kurup (Retd)---------- Forwarded message ----------From: whabibullah@nic.in
Date: Jun 24, 2007 12:59 PMSubject: Re: Fwd: THE CENTRAL INFORMATIONCOMMISSION (MANAGEMENT)REGULATIONS 2007 -REGTo: Col colnrkurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com>Cc: profkknigam@gmail.com, lcsinghi@nic.in
Thanks. This will be examined. But the power to regulate the working of the Commission itself is firmly within the definition of management of the Commission's own affairs Wajahat
----------
Anoop Kumar (Secunderabad):
I am in agreement with Col. NR Kurup. The RTI Act in it's present form is simple, convenient and user friendly. CIC is unnecessarily meddling with it while CIC has no such powers to formulate the rules.
The intention of the CIC may be to reduce down the burden on CIC by minimising the 2nd appeals and complaints filed before them. This can be more effectively achieved by strictly imposing penalties on the erring CPIO's as per the present provisions of the act. I find efforts are underway to make the simple user friendly RTI act more complex. Efforts are underway to add to the difficulties of the citizen/information seeker and also to increase the cost. Efforts are underway to discourage the public from seeking information from the government departments. Efforts are underway to dilute the act make it more government friendly.
Finally, efforts are underway to wash down the RTI act down the drain. Let us all object to the framing of independent rules by the authorities who have to ensure implementation in letter and spirit of the act. Let us all file our protests with the CIC & DOPT. Let us atleast not allow the RTI Act to be weakened from it's present form if we cannot strengthen it further.Regards - S.
Anoop Kumar.
----------
Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (Delhi):
I also hope that the functioning of CIC will improve after this notification.
I see one more good change in the approach of the CIC is thatit has made the personal hearing a compulsory one. Earlier, some of the commissioners were of the habit of passing an order without giving hearing to any of the parties. But now as Rule 15 of the new regulation provides that the appellant/ complainent shall be informed about the date and venue of the hearing. In case he could not make to the hearing in the first time for some reason, he must be given a second opportunity to be heard before any order is passed. I suppose, this will certainly help in improving the functioning of the commission.
I suppose that the group remembers that in a number of cases, as one in Yoga Rangatia versus CIC and others, the Delhi High Court has set aside the order of the CIC which was passed without giving any personal hearing to the complainant. After this judgment coupled with rule, it will be difficult for the commissioners to dispose off the cases without giving any personal hearing
Rule 15 is reproduced below:15. Personal presence of the appellant or complainant:-(i) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be informed of the date of hearing at lest seven clear days before that date.(ii) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may at his discretion be present in person or through his duly authorized representative at the time of hearing of the appeal or complaint by the Commission, or may opt not to be present.(iii) Where the Commission is satisfied that circumstances exist due to which the appellant or the complainant is being prevented from attending the hearing of the Commission, the Commission may afford the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, another opportunity of being heard before a final decision is takenor take any other appropriate action as it may deem fit.(iv) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person while presenting his case before the Commission and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner.(iv) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person while presenting his case before the Commission and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner.(iv) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person while presenting his case before the Commission and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner.(v) If an appellant or complainant at his discretion decides not to be present either personally or through his duly authorized representative during the hearing of an appeal or complaint before the Commission, the Commission may pronounce its decision ororder in the matter ex parte,
Thanks and Regards.Divya Jyoti JaipuriarPublic Cause Research Foundation
(A Parivartan Initiative)
----------
Manoj Pai (Ahmedabad):
Dear Manoj (Kamra),
Well you are right, it will certainly reduce the time limit of seeking parawise replies from the respondent. But it is very well known that most PIOs dont respond to application until and unless the First Appeal is file. Now, they will not respond until the Second Appeal is filed. Like correctly pointed out by you, there is again no time limit fixed for their reply. In this case, the earlier method of the Commission sending the copies of the appeal/complain to the respondent fortheir comments and fix a time limit of 15 days, was more effective.
If you further check out Para 11. "Presentation and scrutiny of appeal or complaint " properly there is no clause which states that the appeal can be rejected if no proof of having served the copy of the appeal /complain to the CPIO is annexed with the appeal /complain.Now does it means the registrar cannot reject your appeal if you havent served the copy to the PIO/AA?
Manoj PaiAhmedabad
----------
Manoj Kamra (Bikaner):
Dear Mr.Pai,
Without time limit on PIO to file comments to CIC,It will be unnecessary burden on appellents of two undue speedposts, hitherto sent by CIC.As suggested by you,its previous pattern of time limit of 15 days should be preserved.Overall,it seems that it has been framed for the betterment but in hurry having severe inconsistencies(devoting full paras like 10 but ignoring in summery of all documents to be submitted).We should hope that they will make changes after our persistent requests with supporting reasons for which there should be brainstorming in the group.Please suggest strategy to attract the attention of CIC for such inconsistencies.
regards
Manoj K.Kamra
----------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)