My experiment / experience with RTI
CIC assures provision of file notings
A brown envelope, the symbol of officialdom, received in Dec. 07 got me excited. It was from the Central Information Commission (CIC) on my appeal under Right to Information (RTI) Act. I was under the impression that the issue had been given a decent burial. But the dull, brown envelope revived my spirits and raised my hope in the Act. It contained intimation about CIC’s hearing on my appeal against refusal of file notings by my own department’s CPIO and Appellate Authority.
It was sheer coincidence that I was in Delhi when the intimation reached my house in Chennai and double lucky in that I was staying within the same campus where the Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, CIC, is situated.
December 12 2007 - The hearing lasted hardly for 2 minutes and, therefore, it looks like a dream now. The short point of the case heard by the Commission was the non-disclosure of file notings to the Complainant. In its decision No.CIC/OK/C/2007/00215 dated the 15th Dec. 2007, the Bench of Dr. Kejariwal had observed, “… there is nothing in the Act which prevents file notings from being shown to the Complainant”. The Commission ‘was sorry to note that the DOPT’s website continues to create confusion in the minds of the public authorities and continues to unnecessarily put pressure on both the parties who come to the Commission’, he pointed out.
During the hearing, the Commission was surprised that the Respondent Public Authority was “not aware of the several decisions of the CIC, including a Full Bench decision which allowed disclosure of the notings”. Accordingly, the Commission disposed of the case directing the Respondents to disclose the file notings desired by the Complainant and also to provide a photocopy of whichever pages that he desired, free of cost, by 15th Jan. 2008.
The fight began with the dawn of the year 2007. I sought information under RTI Act on eight counts from the CPIO of my regional office in Chennai as well as the CPIO of my HQ in New Delhi. The HQ, trying to wriggle out of the situation, transferred the request to the Chennai CPIO, saying ‘the requested information falls within the jurisdiction of CPIO, Chennai’. The Chennai CPIO tried to dodge the issue by giving evasive and contradictory statements: ‘…the information has no relationship to public activity or intent’, ‘… invasion of individual into administrative actions...’ ‘RTI Act should not be allowed to be manipulated to one’s own personal advantage …’ He even dragged the PM’s quote to support his pretentious stand!
I reminded the Chennai CPIO that all Government actions and inactions were supposed to be only in public interest and, therefore, transparent. However, I also gave a separate grievance redressal application on the same points. Side by side, I took up the issue through an appeal with the CPIO at HQ, who is the Appellate Authority under RTI Act. … 2/-
Though dismayed by the evasive attitude of our HQ, I continued trying to squeeze out whatever information was available on their files. To this, HQ admitted that no correspondence was made and only oral communication was done. HQ also affirmed that “as per RTI instructions and clarifications of DoPT (Department of Personnel & Training) available on the website, file notings are not to be supplied to the applicant.”
By this time, a month had lapsed. Though I was regularly marking copies to Dr. Kejariwal, the Information Commissioner of CIC in New Delhi, who was looking into RTI issues concerning our Ministry, I decided to appeal to him against the decision of CPIO refusing disclosure of file notings. This was in Feb. ‘07. But there was neither an acknowledgement nor a reply from CIC. (Now the system has changed and acknowledgements are promptly sent, I was assured.) Though desperate, I continued sending regular reminders.
In another blow, the CPIO Chennai informed that the Postal Order of Rs. 10 submitted by me towards application fee has not been accepted by bank or post office and that I should pay in cash. I stubbornly kept quiet.
After more than a month of my appeal, the Appellate Authority & CPIO at HQ refused to budge saying ‘since my transfer orders have been withdrawn, my demand for furnishing the documents of Chennai office has been rejected, as per existing provision of RTI’ and that ’there was no modification of DoPT notification as regards providing notings’.
It was strange that whereas our department was conducting awareness campaigns on RTI, its own staff was being denied information under RTI. I could not help shooting a sarcastic reply to our HQ pointing out this strange phenomenon and thanking for at least providing the information that no information would be given. It seemed this had provoked them to act. By the end of May, I got some information, as provided by Chennai CPIO. Though not full truth, something was better than nothing, as he had committed himself to some of his commissions and omissions. But no notings. Though I could not achieve what I had aimed at, I thanked the new CPIO at HQ for the perceptible change and hoped our department would practice what it preached.
Meanwhile, the adamant Chennai CPIO himself was literally chucked out for all the omissions and commissions and I decided to bury the matter quietly, having lost all hope. But the dull, brown official envelope brought back hope and cheer to me. And the strong decision of the CIC to disclose the file notings was like light at the end of a long, winding, dark tunnel. At last, the cat will be out of the bag if and when I decide to approach CAT (Central Administrative Tribunal) based on the notings.
S. Balakrishnan, krishnanbala2004@yahoo.co.in 52/C-1 Sivan Kovil St., Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024
CIC assures provision of file notings
A brown envelope, the symbol of officialdom, received in Dec. 07 got me excited. It was from the Central Information Commission (CIC) on my appeal under Right to Information (RTI) Act. I was under the impression that the issue had been given a decent burial. But the dull, brown envelope revived my spirits and raised my hope in the Act. It contained intimation about CIC’s hearing on my appeal against refusal of file notings by my own department’s CPIO and Appellate Authority.
It was sheer coincidence that I was in Delhi when the intimation reached my house in Chennai and double lucky in that I was staying within the same campus where the Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, CIC, is situated.
December 12 2007 - The hearing lasted hardly for 2 minutes and, therefore, it looks like a dream now. The short point of the case heard by the Commission was the non-disclosure of file notings to the Complainant. In its decision No.CIC/OK/C/2007/00215 dated the 15th Dec. 2007, the Bench of Dr. Kejariwal had observed, “… there is nothing in the Act which prevents file notings from being shown to the Complainant”. The Commission ‘was sorry to note that the DOPT’s website continues to create confusion in the minds of the public authorities and continues to unnecessarily put pressure on both the parties who come to the Commission’, he pointed out.
During the hearing, the Commission was surprised that the Respondent Public Authority was “not aware of the several decisions of the CIC, including a Full Bench decision which allowed disclosure of the notings”. Accordingly, the Commission disposed of the case directing the Respondents to disclose the file notings desired by the Complainant and also to provide a photocopy of whichever pages that he desired, free of cost, by 15th Jan. 2008.
The fight began with the dawn of the year 2007. I sought information under RTI Act on eight counts from the CPIO of my regional office in Chennai as well as the CPIO of my HQ in New Delhi. The HQ, trying to wriggle out of the situation, transferred the request to the Chennai CPIO, saying ‘the requested information falls within the jurisdiction of CPIO, Chennai’. The Chennai CPIO tried to dodge the issue by giving evasive and contradictory statements: ‘…the information has no relationship to public activity or intent’, ‘… invasion of individual into administrative actions...’ ‘RTI Act should not be allowed to be manipulated to one’s own personal advantage …’ He even dragged the PM’s quote to support his pretentious stand!
I reminded the Chennai CPIO that all Government actions and inactions were supposed to be only in public interest and, therefore, transparent. However, I also gave a separate grievance redressal application on the same points. Side by side, I took up the issue through an appeal with the CPIO at HQ, who is the Appellate Authority under RTI Act. … 2/-
Though dismayed by the evasive attitude of our HQ, I continued trying to squeeze out whatever information was available on their files. To this, HQ admitted that no correspondence was made and only oral communication was done. HQ also affirmed that “as per RTI instructions and clarifications of DoPT (Department of Personnel & Training) available on the website, file notings are not to be supplied to the applicant.”
By this time, a month had lapsed. Though I was regularly marking copies to Dr. Kejariwal, the Information Commissioner of CIC in New Delhi, who was looking into RTI issues concerning our Ministry, I decided to appeal to him against the decision of CPIO refusing disclosure of file notings. This was in Feb. ‘07. But there was neither an acknowledgement nor a reply from CIC. (Now the system has changed and acknowledgements are promptly sent, I was assured.) Though desperate, I continued sending regular reminders.
In another blow, the CPIO Chennai informed that the Postal Order of Rs. 10 submitted by me towards application fee has not been accepted by bank or post office and that I should pay in cash. I stubbornly kept quiet.
After more than a month of my appeal, the Appellate Authority & CPIO at HQ refused to budge saying ‘since my transfer orders have been withdrawn, my demand for furnishing the documents of Chennai office has been rejected, as per existing provision of RTI’ and that ’there was no modification of DoPT notification as regards providing notings’.
It was strange that whereas our department was conducting awareness campaigns on RTI, its own staff was being denied information under RTI. I could not help shooting a sarcastic reply to our HQ pointing out this strange phenomenon and thanking for at least providing the information that no information would be given. It seemed this had provoked them to act. By the end of May, I got some information, as provided by Chennai CPIO. Though not full truth, something was better than nothing, as he had committed himself to some of his commissions and omissions. But no notings. Though I could not achieve what I had aimed at, I thanked the new CPIO at HQ for the perceptible change and hoped our department would practice what it preached.
Meanwhile, the adamant Chennai CPIO himself was literally chucked out for all the omissions and commissions and I decided to bury the matter quietly, having lost all hope. But the dull, brown official envelope brought back hope and cheer to me. And the strong decision of the CIC to disclose the file notings was like light at the end of a long, winding, dark tunnel. At last, the cat will be out of the bag if and when I decide to approach CAT (Central Administrative Tribunal) based on the notings.
S. Balakrishnan, krishnanbala2004@yahoo.co.in 52/C-1 Sivan Kovil St., Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024
No comments:
Post a Comment