With complaints of arbitrariness in hearing of cases piling up, the Central Information Commission last week began listing out pending cases before each commissioner on its website. Cases pending before chief information commissioner Satyananda Mishra and information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi have already been uploaded while the other commissioners are likely to follow soon. This is the first time that an information commission has displayed at least a partial list of cases pending before it.

Speaking about the move, Mishra said, "This is an added advantage to the public. Other commissioners will also put up their list of pending cases but we have not set a time frame." CIC has a pendency of 22,000 cases with about 2,500 cases added every month. The decision was prompted by an RTI application that sought information on the status of a case filed a year ago. Information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said that in replying to the decision, the commission realized that the case was over a year old and was inadvertently left out of the cause list.

"I realized that if a mistake had been made in one case, it could have been made in some others as well. A careful search of 2010 cases revealed another 110 cases which had been forgotten and missed completely," Gandhi said. In fact, one of the cases related to the widow of a government employee and her struggle to get pension that only ended 17 years later.

The 'List of pending cases' has been displayed on the CIC website and will be updated every month. Gandhi said, "CIC is only six years old and this will be an opportunity for us to correct mistakes and also reassure citizens that there is fairness in taking up their cases. In most commissions and judicial bodies, citizens suspect arbitrariness and corruption in the listing of cases. The simple act of listing all pending cases publicly will go a long way in restoring citizens' confidence in these institutions, and also act as self- regulating check."

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea under the transparency law for disclosure of selection norms and appointment process in the country's internal intelligence agency, Intelligence Bureau (IB). A bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi rejected the plea by an unsuccessful IB job aspirant, dismissing his accusation that IB selection process was plagued by corruption.

"It appears that the selection process has been conducted in a transparent manner, and there is nothing to indicate any corruption in the said process," Justice Sanghi said. The high court's order came on an appeal by IB job aspirant Ravinder Kumar Kataria, challenging the Central Information Commission's June 2011 order, dismissing his plea earlier for disclosure of selection process and norms in IB. Kataria had alleged he could not be selected for the post of Junior Intelligence Officer (JIO) in IB in 2009 due to corruption.

The court accepted the Union Home Ministry's argument that Kataria is a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate and there were 17 posts reserved for SC category. All posts have been filled and the petitioner had scored lesser marks than the candidate last recruited in SC category, while the cut-off marks for the general category were substantially higher, the ministry told the court, seeking dismissal of Kataria's plea.

Kataria had approached the CIC after the Public Information Officer (PIO) had rejected his query saying Section 24 of the RTI Act exempts the intelligence and security agencies from the Right to Information Act's purview. The CIC had rejected Kataria argument that the information sought by him did not pertain to IB's functioning and merely pertained to the recruitment process for public employment by the agency and so the said information should be given to him.

The AP High Court was pulled up by the Central Information Commission (CIC) for its failure to adhere to the RTI Act. Nine other high courts besides AP's have been given three months time to get their act right. The CIC was reacting to a complaint filed by Hyderabad-based RTI activist C J Karira and Mani Ram Sharma of Rajasthan between December 2009 and March 2010. The complainants had stated that there was no disclosure of information under section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act by the courts. The case came up for hearing on December 30, 2011 and the order was passed on Thursday, ordering the high courts to fall in line within three months.

As per section 4 (1) (b), every government department should disclose complete details of the organization, employees, decisions taken by it and budget, among other details. According to the Act, this information should be updated as frequently as possible and made available to public by whatever means possible, including internet.

Apart from the AP High Court, the high courts of Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Allahabad, Madras, Guwahati, Punjab & Haryana and Sikkim were directed to start complying with the rule. However, since the Guwahati HC had recently updated all the details in conformity with the RTI Act, it was appreciated by the CIC and suggested that the court model could be emulated by others.

The complainant, Karira said, "For the past six years, from the time the RTI Act was introduced in 2005, the AP High Court has never abided by the section 4 (1) (b). The court has not provided the details related to it and its employees either on the internet or manually.

This section not only introduces transparency in the system but informs the public with clarity about the officials and the functioning of a department." Karira also expressed his disappointment that most of the departments in the state government were not following this particular section.

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.

If there are certain irregularities in the working and functioning of such banks and institutions, the citizens certainly have a right to know about the same, Mr Gandhi said in his landmark judgement.

In an unprecedented order, the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Shailesh Gandhi has ruled that disclosure of inspection reports of apex co-operative banks of various states and Mumbai District Co-operative Bank must be shared with the public in a proactive manner. This kind of disclosure would certainly serve public interest, as mandated under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, the CIC said. 

Ruling out the public information officer's (PIO) contention that disclosing the inspection reports would prejudicially affect the economic interests of the Indian nation, the CIC said, "It is pertinent to mention that significant amounts of public funds are kept with institutions including co-operative banks which are regulated by the apex co-operative banks. Therefore, it is only logical that the public has a right to know about the functioning and working of such entities including any lapses in regulatory compliances."

"Merely because disclosure of such information may harm the economic interest of the state, this cannot be a reason for denial of information under the RTI Act. If there are certain irregularities in the working and functioning of such banks and institutions, the citizens certainly have a right to know about the same. The best check on arbitrariness, mistakes and corruption is transparency, which allows thousands of citizens to act as monitors of public interest. There must be transparency as regards such organisations so that citizens can make an informed choice about them," Mr Gandhi said in an order issued on 14 November 2011.

Mumbai-based Kishanlal Mittal has filed an application under the RTI Act asking for copies of inspection reports of apex cooperative banks of various states and Mumbai District Cooperative Bank from 2005. Mr Mittal also asked the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) to provide copies of all correspondences it had with Maharashtra state govt, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and any other agency of state or union government regarding Maharashtra State Cooperative bank from January 2010 onwards. He also sought confirmed and or draft minutes of meetings held by governing board and directors of NABARD from April 2007.

The PIO of NABARD, in his reply said that information about inspection reports and its directors' meeting sought by Mr Mittal, are exempted under Sec8(1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005. Unsatisfied with this answer, Mr Mittal then approached the first appellate authority, which did not pass any order within the stipulated time. Mr Mittal then filed second appeal with the CIC.

In its order the CIC said, “The Appellant (Mr Mittal) has sought copies of inspection reports of apex co-operative banks of various states/Mumbai District Co-operative Bank from 2005 till date. At the outset, this Bench is unable to agree with the PIO that disclosing the said inspection report(s) would prejudicially affect the economic interests of the Indian Nation. Moreover, even if the information sought was exempt under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, this Bench is of the considered view that disclosure of inspection reports of apex co-operative banks of various states/Mumbai District Co-operative Bank must be shared with the public in a proactive manner. This kind of disclosure would certainly serve public interest, as mandated under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act."

Section 8 (2) of the RTI Act states, “Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of  the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interests in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests”.

The fundamental rights of citizens, enshrined in the Constitution of India cannot be curbed on a mere apprehension of a public authority. The Supreme Court of India has recognized that the Right to Information is part of the fundamental right of citizens under Article 19 of the Constitution of the India. Any constraint on the fundamental rights of citizens has to be done with great care even by Parliament. "The exemptions under Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act are the constraints put by Parliament and adjudicating bodies have to carefully consider whether the exemptions apply before denying any information under the RTI framework," Mr Gandhi remarked in his landmark judgement.

The UPA government appears to have put its most vocal campaign the Right to Information (RTI) Act on the silent mode. This comes in the backdrop of growing clamour within a section of the government to review the Act.

The RTI Act, which was enacted in 2005, has been the main factor behind major scams exposed in the last couple of years.

According to official statistics tabulated by the personnel, public grievances and pension ministry, the funds earmarked for the propagation of the RTI scheme have been grossly underutilized. With the 11th five year plan (2007-12) just five months away from termination, only 73 per cent of funds released under the RTI publicity had been utilised until September 30 this year.

An analysis of the government spending on propagating RTI showed a consistent decline. As per the ministry’s accounts report , the actual spending last fiscal was 80% of the allocated budget. However, in 2008-09 and 2009-10, the utilisation was 94.68% and 96.72 % respectively. A total of Rs24.16 crore was allocated to the RTI under the 11th plan.

This development has angered votaries of the RTI Act. Expressing his concern over under utilisation of funds, information commissioner ML Sharma said, “After six years of enactment, this is the most crucial time for publicising the Act as maximum citizens are still unaware of the stipulations of this Act.”

Sharma further demanded an increase in the allocation of funds for the propagation of the Act to help realise its true potential. He said that because of lack of proper information on various provisions of the RTI Act, several irrelevant applications had got filed with the CIC.

“Proper and sustained information on the Act and its use have to be the top priority to ensure that the Act reaches every home in the country,” he added.

Demanding more publicity for the Act, RTI Activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal said, “This (under utilisation of publicity funds for RTI) is really sad and the government should look into it. The propagation of the RTI Act should be in the hands of the Central Information Commission.”

Rather than spending on publicising their own personalities, politicians should look for raising funds for the publicity of the RTI Act, he said.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) in the third week of May 2011 overturned its own decision and ruled that the Supreme Court cannot refuse information on judicial matters if an applicant has asked for it under the Right to Information Act.

At present, information disclosure related to a person’s own case could be applied to the Supreme Court under the RTI act. However, in case of a third party, the Supreme Court ruled that application must be made under court rules. According to Rule 2 of the Supreme Court, the applicant must establish good cause before the court if he wants information regarding any case. But CIC objected to that by saying it goes against the RTI act.

Information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi gave the order stating that all citizens have the right to access information under Section 3 of the Right to Information Act.

The decision came after a resident of Gurgaon, R S Mishra had asked for information related to letters he had written to the Supreme Court. The apex court had denied the information.

Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that substantially aided clubs, aided schools and cooperative bodies, including sugar mills, house building societies and banks, are covered under the Right to Information Act.

The Central Information Commission has directed the Rashtrapati Bhavan that mercy petitions filed before the President do not attract any of the exemption clauses of the RTI Act and should be disclosed whenever sought under the transparency law.

The panel was hearing the petition of Mayilsamy K who had sought to know the details of processing the mercy plea filed by former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's assassins Santhan, Periarivalan and Muragan.

President Pratibha Patil had recently turned down their clemency petition but the order has been stayed by Madras High Court.

Taking the case on priority, as it was related to 'Life and Liberty', Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra said, "All mercy petitions filed before the President of India either by the persons sentenced to death or others, which have been taken into consideration by the government, should be disclosed.

"These are not covered under any of the exemption provisions of the Right to Information Act."

The Commission, however, exempted the advice given by the Home Minister to the President as it would be violative of the Article 74(2) of the Constitution and would not be disclosed under the Right to Information Act.

On the issue of file notings and communications made during the processing of mercy petitions, Mishra allowed their disclosure after severing names of officials who have given their advice as it could bring their safety in danger. In reference to communications, he said issues where section 8(1)(a) is attracted can be withheld.

"Disclose the copies of the file notings not forming part of the ministerial advice to the President of India after severing all the names and other references regarding the identities of the public servants regarding those file notings and making those correspondence," Mishra told the President's Secretariat.