Here's an encounter that the city police are in no mood to encourage. Within days of a Right to Information activist subjected to third degree at a city police station, TOI finds that it wasn't a stray bad experience, with cops pulling out all stops to stay RTI-proof. In fact, police officers in some stations even say they are unaware of the RTI Act and remain most unresponsive when it comes to their responsibilities under the Act. And a telling reality: a significant number of pending cases at the Information Commission pertain to the police department.

From claiming that "there is nothing like RTI" to showing the door to quizzing on the reasons for filing an RTI query, police stations come across well-armed against anybody seeking information under the Act.

On Tuesday, TOI posing as an RTI applicant visited police stations with a simple three-question query: the number of FIRs filed at police stations in the year 2011, the number of cases solved and the number of cases pending. The Cyberabad commissionerate directed the applicant from one official to another, with the third official, an administrative officer, finally reluctantly accepting the application, saying that a "lot of information" had been sought in the query and it would take over a month to put it together.

The Punjagutta police station did not deny giving information. It simply refused to accept the RTI query since the letter was "not in an envelope". In fact, it took time for the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO), the writer (who writes complaints and FIRs) at the station, to decide whether or not to accept the application. He threw a volley of interrogative questions demanding to know the applicant's background, details of professional life and also residence proof etc. The applicant was also advised to show more interest in other police stations and spare Punjagutta. The PIO also demanded to know repeatedly why the applicant was interested in these details and what he intended to do with it. After much persuasion, the PIO insisted that he would accept the application only if it was brought in an envelope. The RTI Act does not mention any such rule.

It was a similar experience at the Begumpet police station where an inspector first tried to physically stop the applicant from entering the premises. The second hurdle was once again the station's PIO (the writer) who bombarded the applicant with questions about background only to advise him in the end to concentrate on social service and stop filing RTIs which is not beneficial to anyone. However, unlike at Punjagutta they accepted the RTI application.

RTI activists corroborate TOI's experience with their own. P Ramakrishna, an RTI activist shared how a colleague had gone to Chandanagar police station on December 4, 2011, to file an RTI query on the number of road accidents in the area. "He was held over and the inspector called me from the station. I was asked rudely about why we needed this information," says Ramakrishna, adding that he recorded that telephone conversation where the inspector was threatening him. While the RTI query was finally accepted, a reply is still awaited.

Another activist, T V Bhaskar of Guntur said that he received threatening calls four months ago following which he informed the collector and district SP and sought protection, which was denied. A government circular released in 2010 states that any RTI activist seeking protection should be provided the same.

Known RTI activist C J Karira said that the home department was the most RTI-unfriendly. He said as per the Act, every police station should have a board outside giving details of the PIO and the appellate officer which is not being followed in any police station in the city.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has received flak from the Central Information Commission for its failure to provide information to an RTI applicant and claiming otherwise. The curious case came before the Central Information Commission where an MCD official, when questioned by Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi during the hearing, said information sought by the applicant has been furnished. When grilled, the official Jagdish Prasad, produced a reply which said, "Since this information is time consuming the department may prepare the information, as and when report will be compiled and it will be provided to you as early as possible".

Such a reply prompted a stern warning from Gandhi. "The Commission warns the PIO not to send people for hearings who do not have the capacity of understanding what information is," he said. The case relates to one Swarn Kumari Sharma of Karol Bagh who was trying for last one year to know details of Assured Career Progression scheme of teachers in MCD schools but was not provided any response to her questions. The RTI Act mandates furnishing of information within a month of application.

"From the facts before the Commission, it is apparent that the PIO and the deemed PIO are guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act," Gandhi said while issuing showcause notice to officials of the MCD. "Mrs Vijaylaxmi then PIO and Deemed PIO Mr Jagdish Prasad, School Inspector will present themselves before the Commission...alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1)," he said.

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.

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.

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.