Had the West Bengal government bothered to reply to a query about the city’s AMRI Hospital under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the devastating fire which claimed 94 lives might have been averted, a doctor said Thursday.

“If the health department had been bothered by our query, they certainly would have visited the hospital or talked with its authorities for the information. This not only would have put in motion the government machinery but also woken up the hospital administration,” said Kunal Saha, president of People for Better Treatment (PBT), an organisation fighting medical negligence.

“Who knows, the hospital, afraid of government action, would have rectified the fire safety mechanism and the tragedy might have been averted,” he added.

Police and fire department investigation reports show the hospital had flouted several fire safety measures.

PBT treasurer Mihir Banerjee filed the RTI query Oct 31 regarding the registration and financial details of the AMRI Hospital.

After not receiving a reply, Banerjee again filed a query Dec 15, this time before the appellate authority. A reply is still awaited.

Saha, who earlier had sued and won a record Rs.1.73 crore compensation for his wife’s death due to medical negligence in 1998 against the hospital and several doctors, has approached the apex consumer forum seeking their imprisonment for the failure to pay the awarded amount.

“More than eight weeks have passed since the order of compensation (Oct 21) was passed but the respondents (which includes AMRI) have not paid a single penny till now. So Dec 19 we filed a suit at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asking for their imprisonment under the relevant law,” Saha said.

Seven of the hospital’s directors are under arrest and facing trial for various offences in connection with the Dec 9 tragedy. A look out notice has also been issued for three other directors.

Madhya Pradesh universities have decided to do away with the revaluation system on the ground that the procedure is rather cumbersome. However, a student, who wants his/her answer sheet revaluated, could take recourse to Right to Information (RTI) route for the purpose. 

The new rule also seeks to scrap the provision that no mark will be added to the revaluated answer sheet unless there is a 10% increase in total marks. Also, the double rounds of revaluation will be eliminated in the new system.

The coordination committee of the state’ universities headed by chancellor and governor Ram Naresh Yadav passed a resolution to this effect on Thursday at Raj Bhawan in Bhopal. Vice-chancellors of the state’s universities attended the meeting. 

Confirming this, officiating vice-chancellor of the Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya (DAVV) Raj Kamal said the committee passed the resolution that students can seek revaluation under the RTI. However, the government is yet to issue a notification on the matter. 

The resolution provides change in the rule to apply for revaluation. Now a student, who wants revaluation of his/her answer sheet, will have to apply under the RTI Act. His application will be submitted to a three-member committee to be formed at university level. 

The committee will put across the student’s demand to the university and then revaluation will be permitted. In the existing practice, students wanting revaluation are required to fill revaluation form available at their college office.

The Delhi High Court Friday issued notice to the Department of Personnel Training (DOPT) on a plea seeking its direction on whether the Central Information Commission (CIC) was legally empowered to prosecute an entity or a person for the offence of perjury if false documents are filed before the commission.

A Delhi-based lawyer, Shanmuga Patro approached the Delhi High Court after being refused by CIC to initiate a criminal complaint against the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, its aides and affiliates, who, according to him, misled CIC by filing forged and fabricated documents in evidence and succeeded before CIC.

Justice V.K. Shali hearing the matter sought response from DOPT before the next date of hearing March 16, 2012.

Through the petition, Patro raised the issue as to whether the CIC could be treated as a court for prosecuting persons for the offence of perjury or not.

Patro, the petitioner, argued: ?If a person or entity is permitted to give false documents and evidence before CIC with impunity, then how can CIC be expected to enforce Right to Information??

The petitioner said that in June 2011, he approached CIC to institute proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC and sought initiation of criminal case against the foundation, its aides and affiliates for filing forged and fabricated documents in evidence before the panel.

In December 2011, CIC had refused to initiate prosecution for the offence of perjury against foundation and ordered that ?it has no powers to take action for perjury under Section 340 of CrPC?.

Based on the information and reports filed by Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, the CIC had in October 2010 declared that Rajiv Gandhi Foundation is not a `Public authority? in terms of RTI Act and is not bound to provide information under Right to Information Act.

Patro, however, alleged: ?While Rajiv Gandhi Foundation informed CIC that only about 4 percent of its revenue is received from Government, in reality it receives a greater percentage of its revenue from Government.?

Being aggrieved with CIC?s order of expressing inability to examine whether Rajiv Gandhi Foundation committed perjury or not, Shanmuga Patro approached the Delhi High Court.

?Outcome of this case will decide CIC?s powers to commence criminal cases against parties who have been committing perjury, offences against public justice and offences relating to documents given in evidence before CIC,? said Patro.

The petitioner in his petition also raised the question whether the Information Commissioners, including the CIC, could be treated as “public servants” within the definition of section 195 of the CrPC.

RTI applications may now be limited to 250 words and to only one topic if the rules for processing of such applications suggested by the Department of Personnel may find their way through.

According to proposed amendments in the RTI rules, the DOPT, nodal body for implementing the Act in the country, has said each application will be limited to 250 words excluding the address of the public authority and applicant. It will also be limited to only one subject matter.

Even more surprising is the fact that RTI applicants will have to pay the "actual amount" spent by public authority on hiring a machine or any other equipment, if any, to supply information.

The rules will be a modification of the present RTI (regulation of fee and cost) rules, 2005 and the Central Information Commission (appeal procedure) rules, 2005.

The DoPT has sought the comments on these changes from public on email id "usrti-dovt@nic.in" by December 27, 2010.

The rules have resulted in furore among RTI activists who say that they will be of no good to semi-literate and illiterate people who are the main users of the law.

"Though Comments being sought from Civil Society though in accordance with Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act, however this notification gets limited to only those who are net friendly and that too only two weeks time given," Commodore (Retd) Lokesh Batra said.

He said people from rural areas who do not have Internet access will be devoid of sending their views on the subject.

"Putting a word limit of 250 words will obstruct the Right to Information. There was very minute number of people who misused the provisions of RTI applications by asking large number of questions but there are enough powers to reject such applications. There was no need for such limits on word usage," said Subhash Agrawal, another RTI activist.

"The new rules widen the ambit of discretionary use by the concerned Public Information Officer who can reject the applications summarily," Venkatesh Nayak of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative said.

He asked how can the government set a limit of words, especially when same set of questions in different languages will require different word usage.

He also said legally the process of RTI starts when application is submitted to a PIO. "The State cannot dictate the user to set word limit before process starts. Instead the CPIO should be empowered to ask the appellant to prioritise the information, in case of voluminous information," he said.

At a time when Gandhian Anna Hazare is set to begin a fast against corruption, a Gandhian institution in Ahmedabad has been accused of fraud.

Mahatma Gandhi started Majoor Mahajan Sangh in 1920 to fight for the rights of textile mill workers and even undertook a fast to convince mill owners to give the workers higher pay.

Today, the sangh is being accused of subverting Gandhian values. Police in Ahmedabad has accused leaders of the labour union of siphoning off crores of rupees meant to be compensation for jobless workers of 29 closed textile mills. The FIR, filed on Saturday, has named Raman Patel, president of the sangh, its secretary Manhar Shukla, chartered accountants Amal Datt & Associates, private lender Mohanlal Shah, Bapunagar Mahila Co-operative Bank and the HC appointed official liquidator as accused.

According to the FIR, savings accounts were opened in both cooperative and nationalized banks in the name of people who had never worked in a textile mill and the money withdrawn.

The scam came to light when Mansukh Parmar, who retired from Calico Mills in 1988, filed a complaint of fraud and embezzlement with the Navrangpura police. He told the police that when textile mills closed down in 1999, the Central government had come out with a scheme of giving the workers 18 months salary as compensation.

The sangh was asked to identify beneficiaries of the scheme and Parmar was on one of the committees identifying workers. Parmar alleges Calico Mills had 4,949 workers who were entitled for compensation. However, the sangh prepared a list of 5,757 names, 808 workers more than the actual number. He alleged that he was thrown out of the committee because he objected to this anomaly.

The sangh passed on the inflated list to the liquidator who issued cheques without verifying the names. Parmar had said in his complaint that instead of handing over cheques individually to beneficiaries, the liquidator gave all the cheques to the sangh officials.

The sangh officials have been accused of selling the cheques to a private lender at a discount. Police officials have found that at least 284 cheques have been issued in the names of people who had never worked in a textile mill. Yet, savings accounts were opened in their names in the Bapunagar bank and Rs 1.63 crore was withdrawn.

The department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has asked the states and competent authorities to 'harmonize RTI fee' and charge the amount as prescribed in the Act. The DoPT was forced to release the directive as there have been instances where state governments and departments have charged exorbitant fee, in lieu of the information sought. The hefty fee is a disincentive, said DoPT.

Further, the to make sure that state governments don't take it as just yet another order from

DoPT has asked states to inform it about the action taken. The department has written to the chief secretaries of all states, registrars of high courts and registrar of the Supreme Court to harmonize the RTI fee.

The sections 27 and 28 of the Right to Information Act empower governments and competent authorities to make rules to prescribe the fee payable under the RTI Act. In effect, Central government, state governments and high courts have notified fee rules.

However, DoPT said it has observed that the fee prescribed by different governments/competent authorities is at great variance. While most of the states, including Uttar Pradesh, charge Rs 10 for information and Rs 2 per annexure, very much in harmony with the rules defined under the RTI Act, Sikkim charges Rs 100 as RTI fee, per application, and Rs 10 per annexure. States like Haryana, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu charge varied amounts of fee.

Haryana and Tamil Nadu charge Rs 50, while Andhra Pradesh charges no money at village level, Rs 5 at mandal level and Rs 10 for all other public authorities.

"The second administrative reforms has said that states should frame rules regarding application fee in harmony with the Central rules and ensure that the fee should not become a disincentive for using the right to information," said DoPT, in response to a query by Subhash Chandra Agrawal, an RTI activist.

Delhi, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar, Mizoram, Karnataka, Orissa and Gujarat said they charge the same fee as prescribed in the Central rules.

UP, though has the Central rule in place, but is yet to inform DoPT about the action taken on its latest instruction.