Archive for August 2011

Jan Lokpal Bill will make RTI Act more effective: Hegde

Former Karnataka Lokayukta Justice Santosh Hegde speaks to RTI activists in city, calls August 28 nation's second Independence Day.


"This is a new awakening for us all and we shall celebrate August 28 as the second Independence Day and as a beginning step towards getting rid of corruption in our country," said Santosh Hegde, former Karnataka Lokayukta and Supreme Court judge.


In the city to deliver a speech organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Pune, Hegde said August 28 had given an insight that the fight to get liberated from corruption, which has become an integral part of our system. 


"Hazare has given us the realisation," he said. Hegde said filing an RTI would be more effective and meaningful if Jan Lokpal bill can be enforced 100 per cent. "This will give an additional strength to the RTI activists all over India. Jan Lokpal bill is a second revolution after the RTI movement," he said. 


Reacting on Hegde's appeal, Anoop Awasthi, ex-Navy Punekar and an RTI activist from Hadapsar, said Hegde's speech was encouraging. "We are happy to get the moral support from Jan Lokpal bill, where whistle blowers would get police protection," he said. 


Over 60 RTI activists attended Justice Hegde's lecture. Others were Santosh Mishra, Baldev Singh, Aniket Deshmukh, Bhavesh Bhat and Vijay Varudkar. Varudkar said the Jan Lokpal bill would give real socio-political freedom to vote and also to bring back an elected representative.

Wednesday 31 August 2011 by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , , | Leave a comment

DoPT has issued a new circular for strengthening the implementation of RTI Act.

Some of the suggestions given are:

1. Annual reports submitted by departments should contain a chapter on RTI including information like number of applications received, number in which information denied, novel efforts made for RTI implementation, etc.

2. Each Ministry/Department/subordinate offices/PSUs/etc. to organise at least one half day training session for PIOs/FAAs - every year

3. All PAs who have a website to upload RTI related data/information on the portal regarding receipts and disposal of RTI applications within 10 days of the close of the month. This is to start from 10th July 2011 - for the Month of June 2011.

Wednesday 24 August 2011 by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , , | Leave a comment

YOU have the right to invoke RTI Act to fight corruption: SC

The Supreme Court has said citizens have a right to invoke the Right To Information Act to fight corruption and bring in transparency and accountability in the administration.

"The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability.

"The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause(b)of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption," the apex court said.

A bench of justices R V Raveendran and A K Patnaik made the remarks while dismissing the Central Board of Secondary Education's plea that students have no right to examine their evaluated answer scripts.

The apex court however, said that the Act should not be misused for extracting impractical information in an indiscriminate manner.

Wednesday 17 August 2011 by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , | Leave a comment

RInfra comes within the ambit of the RTI Act

           Energy consumers served by Reliance Infrastructure can now obtain information about its services under the RTI Act as the State Information Commission has, in a significant order, ruled that being a public utility service provider it comes under the transparency law.

In a recent order, the SIC has said that though RInfra is a private company, it provides “essential service” and hence comes within the ambit of the RTI Act.

It also directed the company to appoint a Public Information Officer (PIO) and a first appellate authority.” 

The order came on a complaint by Anil Galgali who had approached the Commission after his request for some details of his electric meter connection under RTI Act was rejected by the company on the ground that it was a private firm and the law was not applicable to it.

The company argued that since it does not receive any monetary or other assistance from the government and was not formed under any Constitutional provision or legislation it was not a public company and hence not covered under RTI Act.

However, the complainant insisted that Reliance Infra comes within the purview of the transparency law as it was formed under the Company Act and functioned as a public utility service provider.

Concurring with his view, the Commission ruled that power suppliers in the state come under the ambit of RTI as they supply essential service.

It also held that RInfra was formed under Electricity Act 2003 under which supplying power is a public service.

The SIC, on July 19 passed an order bringing RInfra under the ambit of RTI after observing that though it was a private company it provided "essential public service" of electricity and hence should come under the Act. The order came following a complaint filed by one Anil Galgali. 

In its appeal challenging the order, RInfra has said it is not a body or institution of government established or constituted by the Constitution of India. 

The petition would come up for hearing in due course of time. Galgali had approached the Commission after Reliance Energy declined to provide him information regarding his electricity bills. Galgali had sought information under the RTI Act which was rejected saying the provisions of the Act does not apply to private companies.

by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , , , | 3 comments

Applications Received Under RTI ACT


  As per the information available with Central Information Commission, 18,32,181 applications were filed before Central Public Authorities during the years 2007-08 to 2010-11. Out of these, information was supplied in 17,33,620 cases.

Information about applications received and disposed of by public authorities of State Governments is not centrally maintained.

A sum of Rs. 2,21,56,363/- was collected as fees from RTI applicants by Central Public Authorities over the period from 2007-08 to 2010-11.

A sum of Rs.44,23,221/- was recovered as penalty from Central Public Information Officers over the period 2007-08 to 2010-11.

This was stated by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Shri V.Narayanasamy.

by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , | Leave a comment

Union Cabinet Approved Whistleblowers Act

On 10 August 2010 the Union Cabinet of India approved Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010, also known as Whistleblowers act to provide protection to Whistleblowers and punishing those who expose identity of Whistleblowers.

Under the Whistleblowers act anybody who reveals the identity of Whistleblowers would be punished with 3 years imprisonment or fine up to Rs. 50,000. In case of any information leakage regarding the Whistleblower’s identity the head of the department is to be held liable by (Central Vigilance Commission) CVC. At the same time there is also the provision that if anyone makes a false charge, he would be equally punishable with equal amount of imprisonment and fine.

 Under the Whistleblowers act, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) will have jurisdiction over all the ministries and institutions. CVC’s directives in protecting the identity of Whistleblowers can override any government’s directive. According to the Whistleblowers act, the CVC can seek clarification from any ministry or person who is charged with corruption. If they fail to do so or delay, then CVC has the authority to impose fine on the ministry or person concerned.

CVC’s jurisdiction will be absolute. No other civil court would have jurisdiction over the act where CVC is empowered. Any appeal can be filed only in High Court.
The killing of several Whistleblowers and RTI (Right to Information) activists—for instance, the killing of RTI activist Amit Jethwa— by the anti-social elements of the society was the reason behind that the government of India drafted the Whistleblower act. Because of recent increase in attacks on Whistleblowers and RTI activists it was needed to empower the CVC to protect the lives of Whistleblowers and to deal with corruption.
  • Whistleblower is a term commonly used for a person, who discloses information about the corruption in an organisation. Usually that person belongs to the same organisation.
  • Whistleblowers act also defined the word Corruption in government for the first time. Corruption is defined as willful misuse of power or willful misuse of discretion by which there is a demonstrable loss to government or a demonstrable gain to the public servant using that power. The Prevention of Corruption act, 1988, does not define corruption but puts down various actions which can be constituted as corruption.

Saturday 13 August 2011 by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , , | Leave a comment

The Man Who Dares to Bare

In the past ten months alone, ten RTI activists have been murdered for exercising their right to know. This is a story of a man, a Dalit from rural Rajasthan, who has dared that reality. About 600 km from New Delhi is a village in Rajasthan called Sangawaas, located between Jaipur and Udaipur, in the district of Rajsamand. It is home to Kheemaram, a 37-year-old father of three.
Kheemaram was placed at the frontline of myriad struggles by his very birth—as a Dalit. To grow up as one in rural India, particularly, is to experience India at its harshest. But 2010 has been his most harrowing phase yet. His relentless pursuit to expose corruption and misgovernance in his village has made him some very bitter enemies.
His first successful RTI exposed corruption in the cooperative bank in his village, leading to the arrest of the bank’s manager for siphoning off over Rs 7 lakh of public money. What he hadn’t bargained for was the intimidation that would follow. In taking on a system, he had taken on a fellow villager, a neighbour, Shanti Lal Garg. On being released, Garg went after Kheemaram with threats of killing himself and implicating the activist for it. “When you expose corruption, you will invariably antagonise those involved,” says Kheemaram.
Kheemaram talks about a movie he watched recently called Well Done Abba. Set in a village, it is a brilliant satire on how a government loan for a water project ends up being used to line the pockets of corrupt officials to push through the paperwork for the loan. “You will find hundreds of stories like that in our villages. Loans get sanctioned and everyone in government gets a cut. But on the ground, there is nothing to show for it.”
For his courage in taking on powerful forces in his village, Kheemaram has ended up losing the popular local support he had when he first started off. He has made his village the centre of his struggle. Even though he has had to counter personal attacks, he has never compromised his position.
Not surprisingly, Kheemaram has been shaking up the caste hierarchy in his village as well. He enlisted his wife to provide drinking water to workers at NREGS worksites—rebellious behaviour in a setting where ‘higher’ castes are conditioned to reject water served by a Dalit. Kheemaram created a still bigger stir by using a series of RTIs to expose the use of false Scheduled Caste certificates by village higher castes to gain government promotions. Enough was enough, some concluded. It led to death threats and attacks on his family.
When Kheemaram talks about RTI, he is like a man possessed. He has filed some 350–400 RTI applications. One to the district’s education officer ensured that every school in Rajsamand was painted with a chart of RTI regulations, as the law demands. Another RTI that he filed on behalf of workers in a village in Devgarh not only led to the release of wages due to them for two years, but also ensured equal pay for women labourers being paid Rs 10 less at the time.
At home Kheemaram pulls out file after file, digging out document after document that nails corruption, prejudice and malpractice. Little wonder that he has been attacked over a dozen times and his family repeatedly victimised. “They abuse us. They throw stones at us. At night, when my father is not home, they come knocking on our doors,” says Devi, his 14-year-old daughter who is studying in class VIII.
In 2010, Kheemaram filed his most explosive RTI yet. One that, by his own admission, shook him up. He took on the police. “When I was at Devgarh police station, I saw that a temple had been built on its premises,” he recounts, “I then filed an RTI seeking information from the office of the Superintendent of Police on how many police stations in the district had religious shrines—be it a temple, mosque or church. I requested their photos and asked for information on who had built these shrines.” After that, he adds, breaking into laughter, “I asked for details of any government official I could approach if I too wanted to build a temple in memory of my recently deceased father.”
And then he abruptly sobers up: “I knew this would have consequences and that I would have to suffer them.”
He was summoned to the SP’s office and asked to deposit Rs 1,000 as a ‘cost of photographs’, subject to which he would be given the information. “I received six photos of temples from five police stations and one police chowki in the district. The covering letter had responses to my queries. It said that no mosque or church had been built in any of the police stations, and that permission could not be given for the construction of a religious shrine on government property. And so, with one RTI, I had made enemies of six police stations.”
Not long after, Kheemaram was chargesheeted by the police for misbehaving with a woman of his village. Nothing had quite prepared him for this kind of slander. “Had I not filed the RTI about the temple, this FIR would not have been lodged. It upset me deeply. When the newspapers reported it, people called me and said they didn’t expect this of me. For the first time in ten years, I didn’t stir out of the house for two months. I considered giving it all up and starting a business or working in the fields,” says the RTI activist.
Kheemaram kept his phone switched off for two months. Unable to sleep or eat, he found himself pushed to the brink of sanity. “RTI activists are not safe anywhere,” he sighs, “And when you take on multiple forces, it can cost you dearly. Since an attack on my house two months ago, I have become even more scared. When I read about activists being murdered, I realise how dangerous this can get. I have slowed down now.”
For the last four months, Kheemaram has not filed any new applications. But he is back to being a full-time activist with MKSS. His latest campaign: wage hikes for NREGS workers.

by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , , | 1 comment

The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010

The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26, 2010 by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions.
 
Context

Whistleblowing is the act of disclosing information by an employee or any stakeholder about an illegal or unethical conduct within an organisation.

The Law Commission of India2 in 2001 had recommended that in order to eliminate corruption, a law to protect whistleblowers was essential. It had also drafted a Bill in its report. In 2004, in response to a petition filed after the murder of Satyendra Dubey, the Supreme Court directed that a machinery be put in place for acting on complaints from whistleblowers till a law is enacted. The government notified a resolution in 2004  that gave the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) the power to act on complaints from whistleblowers.

Since 2004, CVC has received 1,354 complaints from whistleblowers. In 2007, the report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission  also recommended that a specific law be enacted to protect whistleblowers. India is also a signatory (not ratified) to the UN Convention against Corruption since 2005, which enjoins states to facilitate reporting of corruption by public officials and provide protection against retaliation for witnesses and experts.

The Bill replaces the 2004 government resolution and sets up a mechanism to receive complaints of corruption or wilful misuse of power by a public servant. It also provides safeguards against victimization of the person making the complaint. 

Key Features 

Public Interest Disclosure 



Any public servant or any other person including a non-governmental organization may make a public interest disclosure to a Competent Authority (defined as the Central or State Vigilance Commission).

“Disclosure” is defined as any complaint made in writing or electronic mail against a public servant on matters related to (a) attempt to or commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (b) wilful misuse of power which leads to demonstrable loss to the government or gain to the public servant; or (c) attempt or commission of a criminal offence by a public servant.

A “public servant” is any person who is an employee of the central government or the state government or any company or society owned or controlled by the central or state government. However, no public interest disclosure shall be accepted against defence, police and intelligence personnel.

Each disclosure shall be accompanied by full particulars and supporting documents. The Vigilance Commission shall not entertain anonymous complaints. 

Procedure of Inquiry
 
First, the Vigilance Commission has to verify the identity of the complainant, and then conceal his identity (unless the complainant has revealed it to any other authority). Then it shall decide whether the matter needs to be investigated based on the disclosure or after making discreet inquiries. If it decides to investigate, it shall seek an explanation from the head of the concerned organisation. The Vigilance Commission shall not reveal the identity of the complainant to the head of the organisation unless it is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so. The head of the organisation cannot reveal the identity of the complainant.

After conducting the inquiry, if the Vigilance Commission feels that the complaint is frivolous or there is no sufficient ground to proceed, it shall close the matter. If the inquiry substantiates allegation of corruption or misuse of power, it shall recommend certain measures to the public authority (anybody falling within the jurisdiction of the Vigilance Commission). Measures include initiating proceedings against the concerned public servant, taking steps to redress the loss to the government, and recommending criminal proceedings to the appropriate authority.

Every public authority shall create a mechanism to deal with inquiries into disclosures. The mechanism shall be supervised by the Vigilance Commission.

The Vigilance Commission may take the assistance of the Central Bureau of Investigation or police authorities to make inquiries or to obtain information. 

Exemption from Inquiry
 
The Vigilance Commission shall not entertain any matter (a) if it has been decided by a Court or Tribunal, (b) if a public inquiry has been ordered, or (c) if the complaint is made five years after the action.

The Bill exempts disclosure of proceedings of the Cabinet if it is likely to affect the sovereignty of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality. Such an exemption has to be certified by the Secretary to the central or state government. 

Safeguards for Persons Making Disclosure 
 
A person shall not be victimised or proceeded against merely on the grounds that he has made a disclosure or assisted in an inquiry. The directions of the Vigilance Commission are binding in this regard.

The Vigilance Commission may give directions to a concerned public servant or authority to protect a complainant or witness either on an application by the complainant or based on its own information. It may direct that the public servant who made the disclosure be restored to his previous position.

If the Vigilance Commission decides that a complainant or a witness or a person assisting an inquiry needs protection (either based on an application filed by the complaint or a witness or on its own information), it shall issue directions to the concerned government authorities to protect such persons.

The Vigilance Commission shall protect the identity of the complainant and related documents, unless it decides against doing so, or is required by a court to do so. 

Penalties


The Bill lays down penalties for various offences. For not furnishing reports to the Vigilance Commission, a fine of upto Rs 250 shall be imposed for each day till the report is submitted. The total penalty amount however cannot exceed Rs 50,000. For revealing the identity of complainant negligently or due to mala fide reasons, the penalty is imprisonment for upto 3 years and a fine of upto Rs 50,000. For knowingly making false or misleading disclosures with mala fide intentions, the penalty is imprisonment upto 2 years and a fine of upto Rs 30,000.

Any person aggrieved by an order of the Vigilance Commission relating to imposition of penalty for not furnishing reports or revealing identity of complainant may file an appeal to the High Court within 60 days.

by RTI INDIA
Categories: , | Leave a comment

Indian Law: The Whistleblower Protection Law


Indian Law: The Whistleblower Protection Law

The whistleblower protection law has been enforced in various countries. Now, the government of India is planning to enact such a law, particularly after the murder of Satyendra Dubey, an engineer with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). Dubey was killed after he wrote to the ex-Prime Minister, A.B. Vajpayee’s office about the corrupt practices in the construction of highways.

Dubey had specified in his letter that his identity should remain concealed. True to word, the letter was forwarded to the concerned departments, without an attempt to conceal his identity. Dubey was murdered and his death led to a public outcry. 

Indian Law: Will these New Laws Empower or Endanger Citizens?
A similar case is that of Manjunath Shanmugham, a sales manager of the IOC. He was killed in 2005 for uncovering a racket that dealt in petrol adulteration. Following the public outrage surrounding his murder, the government proposed a bill pertaining to the matter.

The Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) developed the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Informers) Bill. The bill provides that anyone can file a complaint of corruption, with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), against any employee of the Central Government or organizations backed by the Central Government.

The CVC is an authorized nodal agency for addressing complaints. It has powers similar as of civil court, such as powers to issue summons, order police investigation and provide protection to the whistleblower. However, the CVC is not authorized, by Indian laws to address the complaints regarding matter that are already in court’s purview, prejudicial to national security, international relations and proceedings of the Union Cabinet.

by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Whistleblowers Protection bill has been passed by the Union Cabinet on August 9, 2010.


The bill is officially known as the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010. The proposed Indian law intends to protect the whistleblowers, facilitate the disclosure of information and uncover corruption and deceptive practices that exist in government organizations. 


Indian Law: Key Features of the Whistleblowers Protection Bill

Some of the key features of the proposed Indian law are as follows:
  • It will protect the whistleblowers from any discrimination or victimization in their workplace.
  • It provides for concealing the identity of a citizen who discloses information about the misuse of power and money. Those who reveal the identity of the whistleblower will be held liable and penalized, by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
  • The offenders will be liable for imprisonment up to 3 years and a fine up to Rs.50, 000.
  • There will be penalization in case of delays in response, under the Right to Information Act. A fine of Rs.250 will be imposed for every day of delay beyond the set deadline.
  • There will be penalization for officials who try to mislead the CVC.
  • The bill provides for addressing complaints against public sector employees and employees of the Central and the State Government.
  • The bill also ensures the honest government officials are not harassed in anyway but those individuals who file false complaints and charges will be liable for imprisonment up to 2 years and fine up to Rs.30, 000.


Indian Law: Criticism on the Whistleblowers Protection Bill 

According to Indian law reports, the bill has faced considerable criticism because its jurisdiction is restricted to the government sector and encompasses only those who are working for the Government of India or any of its agencies. It does not cover the employees of State Governments. The draft Bill aimed at protecting whistleblowers is a welcomed move. Given the fact that this bill, if it becomes law, is a very important legislation, the lack of public debate and consultation on the Bill seems to indicate the danger of it becoming another ‘paper tiger.’ 

Typically, the Ministries that propose draft legislations involve an elaborate process of public consultation to give the public a fair opportunity to criticize and scrutinize the provisions carefully. In this case, such an opportunity has been denied to the public and there is considerable criticism about it.

No doubt, the proposed law to protect whistleblowers will assist to detect corruption, ensure better information flow and pave the way for successful prosecution of corrupt individuals through clear and protected processes. However, the public in India have poor levels of confidence in fighting corruption because they fear retaliation and intimidation against those who dare to make complaints. Another worry pertains to the delay in disposing off these cases. Without public debate on the provisions of this proposed law, it is clear that there is no way for people to measure its effectiveness when the draft bill comes into force as law.

A whistleblower is a person who raises concern about frauds, corruptions, wrongdoings and mismanagement. For instance, a government employee who exposes corruption practices, within his department is a whistleblower. So is an employee of a private organization, who raises his voice against misconduct, within the company. 
The misconduct can be classified in several ways, such as:
  • Violation of Indian laws.
  • Posing direct threat to public interest.
  • Violation of health or safety norms.
  • Deceptive practices.
 A whistleblower may approach an external agency, such as law enforcement officers, media or social groups. He may also report the matter to other members of the organization.

 

by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , , , | Leave a comment

What is a whistleblower protection law?


A whistleblower is defined as someone who exposes wrongdoing, fraud, corruption or mismanagement. In many cases, this could be a person who works for the government who would report misconduct within the government or it could be an employee of a private company who reports corrupt practices within the company. 

The law that a government enacts to protect such persons who help expose corruption is called a whistleblower protection law. 

The issue of protection for whistleblowers caught the attention of the entire nation when National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) engineer Satyendra Dubey was killed after he wrote a letter to the office of then PM A B Vajpayee detailing corruption in the construction of highways.

by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , , , | Leave a comment

A whistleblower’s dilemma


A whistleblower’s dilemma         

The identity of those who expose corruption might be revealed under the Right to Information Act.

Corruption is the cancer of public life today. There is a universal growing recognition that corruption is anti-economic development, anti-poor and anti-national.

At last there are some systematic efforts being made to tackle the issue of corruption. The directive by the Supreme Court that candidates standing for election will have to declare details of their criminal record, their wealth and educational qualification has injected an element of transparency in public life. 

The passing of the Right to Information Act  is hailed as a major step to empowering civil society and making the government more accountable. Sunshine is the antidote for corruption and the more transparent public organisations become, there will be lesser scope for corruption.Equally important is the role played by people within a corrupt organisation in exposing corruption. These people are taking a great risk by exposing corruption in their organisations. Satyendra Dubey’s name flashes to mind readily. He was a sincere whistleblower in the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and had to pay a heavy price — his life.

This moved the Supreme Court to issue a directive to the CVC saying that action must be taken to protect whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers normally face a lot of problems in their careers. By exposing corruption among their superiors, they face the possibility of direct or indirect punishment. This could be in the form of lack of advancement and promotions ultimately leading to their careers failing.
The Whistleblowers’ Act at least protects the career interest of the whistleblowers and their identity. But a more important issue is the risk whistleblowers face in terms of physical harm. There is no provision for providing physical protection to them. That is the first part of the dilemma which whistleblowers in our country face.

The second aspect of the dilemma faced by whistleblowers is paradoxically because of the Right to Information Act! I recently learnt about an employee of a government of India public sector enterprise who tried to expose corruption amongst his superiors. He approached the chief vigilance officer of the organisation. The vigilance officer told him that while he may initiate action on his complaint, his identity as a whistleblower could not be protected because this may have to be revealed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

Here we see a classic example of the path to hell being paved with good intentions. In the case of whistleblowers who expose cases of corruption, should their identity also be revealed under the Right to Information Act? The only advice I can give is that the whistleblower should approach the CVC directly and make his case. CVC is under the Supreme Court’s directive to protect the identity of whistleblowers thanks to the tragic case of Satyendra Dubey.

But how many will be able to approach the CVC? This is the dilemma which every whistleblower in the country today faces. If we really want to make a breakthrough in tackling corruption and at the same time get the full benefits of both the Whistleblowers’ Act as well as the Right to Information Act, a practical solution will have to be found. 

The simple solution would be to make a provision in the Right to Information Act itself that the identity of whistleblowers will not be  revealed under the Act. This is definitely a problem that can be resolved. Where there is a will there is a way. Do we have the will to fight corruption?

by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

SOME USEFUL GUIDELINES FOR STUDENTS

SOME USEFUL GUIDELINES FOR STUDENTS TO APPLY TO ACCESS A COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET

1. If the student has not completed 18 years of age, the application has to be made by his / her father or mother or guardian to be on the safer side. The student has to give consent only.
If the student is above 18 years of age on the date of filing the application, he himself can file the application under RTI, with relevant changes in the format described, or get it filed by his father / mother / guardian in the format given by signing the authority portion.


2. Please make payment of the filing fee as per RTI rules of your state to which the examining board belongs. CBSE is a central government entity and for this you should pay Rs10 by postal order, drawn in favour of the Accounts Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education, made payable at Delhi.


3. Please use the format as prescribed by your state RTI rules, or if not prescribed use the format given. Do not omit the reference to the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in any format. Add it as a note.


4. The details of the format and payment of fee state-wise, are available at http://www.rti.gov.in and also in guide section of http://www.rtiindia.org.


5. The address of the public information officer is available at the RTI link on the website of the relevant examination board.


6. The format described can also be followed university exams with the appropriate changes.


7. If you do not get a reply within 40 days of mailing this application, or if the reply is not satisfactory, file the first appeal immediately. For details visit: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps ... govts.html


8. In case of difficulty, post your problem on the portal and members will assist you. Please visit
http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps ... ation.html

Friday 12 August 2011 by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , | Leave a comment

HOW TO APPLY TO ACCESS A COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET


If you have doubts about the marks you have secured, here’s how to apply to access a copy of the answer sheet. 

The Right to Information Act 2005

Application to obtain information
Date:
By Speed Post
To,
The Public Information Officer
______________________ Board
Address:

1. Name of the applicant:
2. Full address:
Mobile phone number:
Email ID:
3. Particulars of information required:
My son / daughter / ward _____ (write name here) _____ appeared for _____ standard examination of your board in the month of _____ . A photocopy of the mark sheet is attached for ready reference.
Please permit me and my son / daughter / ward to inspect his / her answer sheet/s as well as other relevant records and also provide me certified photocopies of his / her answer sheet/s pertaining to the following subjects:
[A]
[B]
4. Details of payment of filing fees.
5. Please rush the information to me by Speed / Registered Post.
6. Please also provide me file notings and action taken report on this application along with your reply. 

Note: I am emphatically drawing your kind attention to,
(A) 49-page judgment of a two-judge bench of the Honourable High Court of Calcutta in M.A.T. No. 275 of 2008 in University of Calcutta and others versus Pritam Rooj.
(B) Judgment dated 30-08-2010 of the Honourable Kerala High Court in WP(C). No. 6532 of 2006(C).
© Madras High Court judgment dated 13-09-2010 in R Ramasamy versus Dr Ambedkar Law University in W.P. (MD) No.4815 of 2008.

Signature of applicant

Authority:  I authorise and permit the public information officer, to supply information sought by my father / mother / guardian and also allow me and my father / mother / guardian to inspect relevant answer sheet/s and connected records as requested per this application. I waive notices under section 11 of RTI Act 2005. I am an Indian citizen.

Signature of examinee:

by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , | Leave a comment

Thanks to RTI, students can now access their answer sheets


Thanks to RTI, students can now access their answer sheets.

 
Upholding the Calcutta High Court’s decision to allow students to see their answer sheets, the Supreme Court allows candidates of all examination to access answer sheets through RTI.

The Supreme Court’s judgment would now allow the students to access their answer sheets under RTI Act. The Supreme Court said that examination conducting agencies have no fiduciary capacity and hence they can’t restrict students from seeing their answer sheets. Student can access answer sheets through RTI.




Now all Students can view their Answer Sheet including professionals: Supreme Court

In a landmark judgement which would be thanked by the Student Fraternity across India, Supreme Court on 9 th August 2011 has announced that any Student aggrieved by the marks awarded to him/her in the Exams can now make an application and have a look at how the marks have been awarded. All Students irrespective of whether in School, College or pursuing Professional Qualification like CA/IAS/MBA can now file an application under RTI and the Institute conducting the Exams would be under an obligation to reveal to the Student his answer sheet and the manner in which he has been awarded marks.

Even Students appearing for Class X and Class XII Boards would now be able to view their answer sheets as Supreme Court has now ordered for disclosure of Answer Sheets for those students making an application under the RTI Act.

Passing the path-breaking order that will be lapped up by students, but may cause consternation among the teaching fraternity, a bench of Justices R V Raveendran and A K Patnaik dismissed a bunch of appeals filed by the Central Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), University of Calcutta, West Bengal Central School Services Commission and Assam Public Services Commission who had challenged the Judgement of the High Court. The petitioners had challenged rulings by different information commissioners under the RTI Act directing them to show the answer-sheets to the students.

The basic contention of all these education boards, Calcutta University and ICAI was that there was a fiduciary relationship between the examiner and the board, and hence it was not proper to show the answer-sheet to the student. CBSE had claimed exemption from the ambit of RTI Act. The Supreme Court held that evaluated answer-sheets were covered under the definition of information under the RTI Act, 2005 and reiterated the duty of the public authority to allow maximum disclosure as envisaged by the RTI.

Explaining the scope of the fiduciary relationship of the agency holding the examination, the Bench held that bodies conducting examinations could not retain evaluated answer sheets in any fiduciary capacity and contend that they would not disclose the same. Welcoming the judgment, the National Campaign for Peoples Right to Information, said: The NCPRI believes this ruling would positively affect the transparency rights of lakhs of students of all kinds across the country including examinations conducted by school boards, universities and public service commissions CAT 2011.The move will help make the education system more transparent and administrators more accountable, said Sobha Mishra, head of education at industry lobby Ficci. If someone sat for an exam, he should not be denied the right to see his answer paper once the result is out.

No institute or exam-conducting body should ever resist such disclosure, she said. The verdict will benefit lakhs of students appearing for various examinations, including CA Exams conducted by the ICAI, as it gives a student the right to inspect answer-sheets by just applying to the relevant university, council, board or commission.

Rooj was a student of mathematics in the Presidency College.
In 2006, when he sat for the first part of degree examination he secured 52 percent marks. In the second year he got 208 out of 400 marks and got just 28 marks out of 100 in the fifth paper. Upon seeking re-evaluation, his marks increased by four in the fifth paper. He contended that his poor marks stood in the way of his getting admission in post-graduation course and applied to inspect his mark sheet under the RTI law which was rejected.

The university said that the answer sheets of examinees cannot be shared. He then approached the High Court and the High Court announced in the favour the Student. Calcutta University challenged the order of the High Court and approached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court on 9 th August 2011 upheld the judgement of the high court and ordered Answer sheets to be disclosed under RTI

 


by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , , , | 2 comments

Make public annual returns of co-operatives: CIC

The Central Information Commission has directed the Delhi Government to make public the annual returns of all the co-operative societies and place those records on its website. The case relates to a plea of an RTI applicant, who was also a member of cooperative group housing society. She had complained to the Registrar, Cooperative societies that her name was not mentioned on its website.

Applicant Jasvinder Kaur submitted she is a holder of a share certificate in a co-operative group housing society and fears that her membership has been illegally revoked. When she filed an RTI application, it was wrongly returned saying fee should be submitted in the favour of Registrar, Cooperative Societies.

Kaur further mentioned that the website of the registrar does not contain the annual returns, which includes details of audits, inquires, memberships among others to be submitted by each co-operative society.

She said in the absence of any returns being filed by the co-operative societies and their publication, it is difficult for legitimate members to find out their status and it inculcates malafide interests and opaqueness in the functioning of these bodies. She said these details should be placed pro-actively as mandated under section four of the RTI Act.

Agreeing with the contentions of the applicant, Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi directed, "annual returns of all co-operative societies shall be displayed pro-actively on the website of the department within one month of receipt of the Annual Returns."

Thursday 11 August 2011 by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , , | Leave a comment

Importance of Right to Information Act 2005


With many a success story in cities, the Right to Information Act, is reaching the rural areas too with villages using its provisions to redress their grievances.

Sidhakahna Jot Keshav village in Bahraich district of Uttar Pradesh is one such example.

Five inspired residents of the village filed RTI applications and questioned the district administration about the conditions of the village roads and drains. They also raised questions as why there were no allotments under the Indira Awaas Yojna.
The administration immediately acted and the construction of the roads and drains began in the village. Since then, 32 villagers have been allotted the houses under the Indira Awaas Yojna and the administration has displayed a list on the village wall, containing the names of the villagers eligible for the allotments under the scheme.

RTI is the way to empowering villages.
RTI is like a life line to the rural India. The Act has shown a great potential to transform the life of rural society.
 
However, there are some hurdles.
The true potential of RTI is still to be explored, especially in the rural India where villagers find it very cumbersome to file RTI applications.
The procedure should be simplified and made people friendly.

"Bihar has set a great example by creating a dedicated phone line for RTI. Here RTI can be filed through a phone call. Even an illiterate villager can file his RTI application by a call," he pointed out.

The Act is influencing people to come forward and question the progress on various welfare schemes, creating a positive change in the most backward areas like Eastern UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Madhya Pradesh, Assam and in Maharashtra.

Though villages are less aware about the Act than the cities, yet there are villages where RTI is being used. In the villages of Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra awareness about the Act is quite good and they are using the Act. In fact, slum areas of Mumbai have very high level of awareness regarding the RTI Act.

Most questions in RTI applications are related to public distribution system, Ration card, BPL card, Indira Awaas Yojna, lands, irrigation, corruption in the welfare schemes and day to day working of local village administration, says Major Sanjay Yadav, Information Commissioner in UP.

In Allahabad, daily wagers had a tough time arranging a proper meal as they were not receiving rations on their cards. Some 21 villagers prepared RTI applications and questioned the administration. The very next day all the ration card holders got their rations.
Even the most backward sections of rural societies are seeking information related to Prime Minister's Employment Scheme, Indira Awaas Yojna, ration card, midday meal, and uniform distribution in the schools and the conditions of village roads.

There are still some problems in the implementation of the Act in villages but these success stories are the examples of change and through proper awareness and guidance the Act can do wonders. 

Right to Information Act 2005 is hailed as a revolution in India's evolution as a democracy. It empowers the ordinary citizen with the tools of information that propel government decisions.

Thanks to the legislation, citizens can seek -- and get within 30 days - information on how the government arrived at decisions, be it about his ration card application or the money spent on lighting a bridge outside his home. 

by RTI INDIA
Categories: , , , , , , | 1 comment