Right to Information Act, 2005

Accountability & the right to information          The Hindu
   
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/05/14/stories/2005051401451000.htm
   
   
The Right to Information Bill, 2005 goes a long way in putting together a comprehensive mechanism for citizens to secure information under the control of the Government and thereby (as the statement of objects and reasons asserts) promotes "transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority." This landmark legislation is a radical improvement on the relatively weak and ineffective statute it seeks to replace, the Freedom of Information Act, 2002. The new legislation unequivocally confers on all citizens the right of access to information and, correspondingly, makes the dissemination of such information an obligation for all public authorities. An outstanding feature of the Bill is the provision for Information Commissions — independent high-level bodies at both the Central and the State levels that are dedicated to encouraging the citizen's right to know and enforcing the provisions of the Act. By empowering these Commissions to act as appellate authorities and by vesting them with the powers of a civil court, these bodies have been given the teeth to discourage public authorities from refusing to part with information.
   
Although it is based substantially on the bold draft prepared by the National Advisory Council headed by Sonia Gandhi, the Right to Information Bill contains a few provisions that have diluted its effectiveness. The provision in the original draft that criminal liability, with punishment by imprisonment, would extend to those who furnished false information or those who destroyed it has been deleted. Another important change relates to the selection of the Information Commissioner and his or her deputies. The draft Bill envisaged their selection by a team comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI). However, the Bill as passed by the two Houses has amended the draft to replace the CJI with "a Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the PM," thus making the selection process somewhat more partisan. These and some other flaws in the Bill should not detract from the fact that it is a substantial improvement over the Freedom of Information Act and other `freedom of information laws' passed by various States from 1997 onwards. While the right to know is not explicitly spelt out in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has held in several cases that this right is inherent in the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19) as well as the right to life and liberty (Article 21). The effectiveness of the Right to Information Act will depend substantially on how prepared the Central and State Governments are in implementing it — in both letter and spirit. The very fact that it will be in the statute books will send out an important message to all public authorities. The disclosure of information is no longer a transgression but an obligation. Conversely, its withholding is no longer a virtue but an offence.
   
   
   
   
Dangers of bureaucratic sabotage          The Hindu
   
http://www.hindu.com/2005/12/09/stories/2005120904121200.htm
   
   
The Centre's decision to alter the rules relating to file notings under the Right to Information Act, 2005, runs the risk of restricting access to a vital category of information. The promotion of "transparency and accountability" in the working of public authorities — the stated object of this landmark legislation — does not stop merely with making the decisions of government public. It also lies — and critically — in making it possible for people to know on what grounds these decisions were taken. Access to file notings by officials is necessary to evaluate the process of decision-making, to understand such things as which options were considered, which were not, and why some were rejected. The Centre has now made a distinction between "substantive notings", which may be revealed, and other notings, which may not. In the former category are notings on "plans, programmes and projects of the Government related to development and social issues", while in the latter are those "relating to identifiable individuals, groups of individuals, organisations, appointments, matters relating to inquiries and departmental proceedings... " By drawing such a distinction, the Centre has put a variety of file notings — which are much too general and vaguely defined — outside the ambit of the RTI Act. For instance, it is not clear what constitutes notings relating to identifiable individuals, groups of individuals, and organisations.
   
The category, `file notings,' does not figure under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, which contains a long list of the types of information that the government is under "no obligation to give any citizen." Not surprisingly, rights activists — including Aruna Roy of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information — have viewed the Centre's decision as a "retrograde step" and "an attempt to limit the scope of the Right to Information Act." The argument that making file notings public will result in officials becoming too cautious and, as a result, slow down the work of government is a specious one. Those who peddle this argument, mainly bureaucrats, fail to see the flip side. In a system that is transparent, officials will be deterred from making notings that are unreasonable and against the public interest. Another and unrelated issue that has emerged is whether the armed forces should be kept out of the RTI Act as the Chief of Naval Staff, Arun Prakash, recently urged. Section 24(1) of the Act states that it will not apply to "intelligence and security organisations" specified in the Second Schedule, a list that includes such organisations as the Central Reserve Police Force, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and the Assam Rifles. It is baffling why such para-military forces should be kept out of the ambit of the Act when the armed forces are not. This anomaly should be addressed in a manner that does not compromise security and at the same time serves the broad purpose of this groundbreaking legislation that seeks to secure for the citizens information under the control of public authorities.
    
    
    
   

Say no to RTI amendments          The Hindu
   
http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/11/stories/2010031158231000.htm
   
   
Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi recently took the extraordinary step of unilaterally releasing the minutes of the October 14, 2009 meeting between Union Minister Prithviraj Chavan and Central and State Information Commissioners on a proposal to significantly amend the Right to Information Act, 2005. The meeting's importance lay in the fact that it saw the hopeless isolation of the government side (Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Training) on the proposed amendments. Of the 60 Information Commissioners who attended, all but two were opposed to the idea of tinkering with the historic legislation. What explains such unity of resolve? The DoPT's package contained two ‘killer' amendments. The first would include under Section 8 (which specifies exemptions to the Act) applications deemed to be “frivolous and vexatious.” The second would bar from the Act's purview any discussion leading up to an official decision. The best judge of whether or not an application is “frivolous and vexatious” is the Information Commissioner who is called upon to decide the issue. In the four-and-a-half years since the Act came into force, no information officer has complained of being overburdened by such applications. Nor is there anything to suggest that government functioning is hampered by the disclosure of official discussions (previously known as file notings) and records of process. The only reasonable conclusion is that both the bureaucracy and the political government fear transparency of process because it will expose wrongdoing.
   
In recent days, RTI queries relating to public spending, governance, distribution of largesse, and even the procedure adopted for deciding awards have proved to be deeply embarrassing for the government. The ghost of RTI amendments has returned – in the controversial form of exemption for the office of the Chief Justice of India. The irony is too glaring to miss. It was the Supreme Court that laid the ground for opening up acts of governance to public scrutiny. In the 1975 State of U.P. vs Raj Narain case, the court said: “In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their functionaries…” The RTI Act has empowered the ordinary citizen in a way its architects did not anticipate. Studies have shown its growing appeal across all social strata, which is surely why the government is set on blunting this powerful tool in the hands of the people. Such obscurantism must be seen through and defeated.
   
   
   
   
Cartoon          The Hindu
   
http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/31/stories/2006083199991000.htm
    
    
    
   
‘Corporate info in public domain’          The Times of India
   
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Q0FQLzIwMDkvMTIvMTkjQXIwMTMwMA==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom
   
CIC: Institute A ‘Legal Person’, IT Records Can Be Disclosed
   
   
New Delhi: In a decision that is likely to send alarm bells ringing for corporates, the Central Information Commission (CIC) recently ruled that information held by corporates or institutes could not be termed “private” and should be made public.
   
In this particular case, the commission has allowed disclosure of income tax assessment records of Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre and its promoters Dr Naresh Trehan and Rajan Nanda. This is a major departure from CIC’s previous orders where income tax-related information has been ruled as personal information of third party and so far not been disclosed.
   
Interpreting corporates as a “legal person” rather than a natural person, information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said personal was attributed to an individual rather than an institute or corporate.
   
A part of the order also recognised that whistle-blowers were working in public interest and should be given access to information. Applicant Rakesh Gupta had asked for information regarding the income tax records of Escorts group which he alleged had evaded tax. Ruling that the applicant was using the Right to Information (RTI) to expose tax evasion, Gandhi said, “If an informer is using RTI to get information... by showing that tax has been evaded, it cannot be denied that a larger public interest is being served of getting the public’s due taxes and curbing corruption.”
   
According to the order, IT department had assessed tax evasion of an estimated Rs 500 crore by Escorts Limited and Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Chandigarh and Delhi. While Rajan Nanda was assessed with tax evasion of Rs 8 crore, Dr Trehan was assessed with evasion to the tune of Rs 10 crore. While some cases have been remanded to be reassessed, there are others that are pending before the Delhi High Court or have been settled by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (ITAT).
   
Recognising that Gupta played the role of a whistleblower and added “hundreds of crores” as additional income for the IT department, Gandhi overruled objections laid down by appellate authority to rule that giving the informant access to the records was serving “a larger public interest”.
   
Gandhi added, “The applicant fears that a lot of alleged tax evasion will go unpunished leading to a loss of revenue and perhaps his reward money. If citizens monitor this through RTI, it could be a major gain for public revenue and perhaps a good check on corrupt officials.

   
   
   
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information_Act
    
    
    
   
http://truth-baali.blogspot.com/
http://toostep.com/insight/welcome-to-the-world-of-mass-communication-journalism
http://toostep.com/insight/guide-for-journalism-students
http://toostep.com/insight/sports-beat




http://toostep.com/insight/understanding-judiciary-5
http://toostep.com/insight/understanding-judiciary-4
http://toostep.com/insight/understanding-judiciary-3
http://toostep.com/insight/understanding-judiciary-2
http://toostep.com/question/what-is-the-responsibility-of-a-lawyer
http://toostep.com/debate/satyamv-jayate-and-the-cost-of-truth


http://toostep.com/insight/love-sex-and
http://toostep.com/insight/understanding-religion-2
http://toostep.com/insight/understanding-religion-1


http://toostep.com/insight/personal-8
http://toostep.com/insight/personal-7
http://toostep.com/insight/personal-6
http://toostep.com/insight/personal-5
http://toostep.com/insight/personal-4
http://toostep.com/insight/personal-3
http://toostep.com/insight/personal-2
http://toostep.com/insight/personal-1


http://toostep.com/insight/shooting-the-messenger
http://toostep.com/insight/right-to-information-act-2005


http://toostep.com/insight/bharat-11
http://toostep.com/insight/chanakya
http://toostep.com/insight/bharat-9
http://toostep.com/insight/bharat-8
http://toostep.com/insight/bharat-7
http://toostep.com/insight/bharat-6
http://toostep.com/insight/bharat-5
http://toostep.com/insight/ekla-cholo-re
http://toostep.com/insight/bharat-4-5
http://toostep.com/insight/bharat-4
http://toostep.com/insight/bharat-3
http://toostep.com/insight/bharat-2
http://toostep.com/insight/bharat-1