rithica2016-Part 2 Questions

RiThiCA-2016

Part 2: Questions

Distribution of marks:

Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Total	Part1	Grand Total
5	5	5	4	6	20	25	10	5	5	90	10	100

Important : The winner will have to score atleast 50 pc marks in this part to be eligible for the prize money!

1.      List at least five factors that make this Act citizen friendly. The format should be: quote the clause/sub clause of the RTI Act and give precise reasons, not exceeding 20 words per factor. (Maximum 5 marks)

2.      List at least five factors that can be considered as drawbacks. Format same as in Q1.  (Maximum 5 marks)

3.      Is the office of the Chief Justice of India a public authority? If yes, give reasons. If no, give reasons. (Maximum 5 marks)

4.      As per Sec 14(3)(d) the President of India can remove the Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner if, in his opinion, the commissioners are unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body. Now if you were the President of India and you find that the commissioners were repeatedly failing to impose the penalty on the public information officers who had defaulted in providing the information sought within the prescribed time even while ordering them to provide it then, would you consider it sufficient reason for removing those information commissioners for infirmity of mind? (Maximum 4 marks)

5.      Visit the site http://cic.gov.in/node/3479 and study the disclosures made by the Central Information Commission under Sec 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Now reproduce the information in the cases given below and answer the questions given therein. If the answer is no, provide the list of shortcomings.

5.1.Refer Sec 4(1)(b)(iii). Has the procedure for handling complaints/appeals disclosed?  (Maximum 3 marks)

5.2.Refer Sec 4(1)(b)(x). Has the monthly remuneration of the information commissioners and employees been disclosed correctly? (Clue: note the difference is between the info-monthly remuneration- to be disclosed and the basic pay/ pay scale that has been disclosed.) (Maximum 3 marks)

6.      Now, visit the official websites of the President, the Department of Personnel and Training (the nodal department for RTI), the Governor of any one state and any two state information commissions and provide the URL of the location where the public authorities have complied with Sec 4(1)(b)(iii) and (x). Against each URL mention the subsections , the information provided and the shortcomings. (Maximum 4 marks for each URL. Total 20 marks)

7.      Case studies. In the following cases download the decisions of the Central Information Commission and analyze them for correctness and accuracy. The analysis report should be provided in three parts-what is correct, what is wrong and the rating of the order on a scale of 0 to 9, 0 being bad to 9 being good. Maximum 5 marks for each decision analyzed.

7.1.Case 1. A defence pensioner sought the following details from the Pension disbursing authority, that is the SBI:

1.      Please refer Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-

Servicemen Welfare letter No No 17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pen/Policy) dated 11.11.2008. As per this letter the pension disbursing atuhorities (PDAs) were required to submit a report as per Annexure IV (Form for intimation by the Pension Disbursing Authority to the Principal CDA (P) Allahabad regarding Revision of Pension in terms of Ministry of Defence letter No.17(4)/2008(1)/D(Pen/Pol) dated 11.11. 2008. (in respect of those who were retired/discharged/died in service prior to 1.1.2006) given therein, to the Principal CDA, Allahabad. In this context, please provide the following information:

1.1.      How many pensioners of the category mentioned above are being served by you as the PDA or through you by the PDA? If you are not the PDA then the figures pertaining to the PDA should be given.

1.2.      Has Annx IV been submitted, as required above, for all those pensioners? Provide copy of the letter under which they have been sent. If the annexures had not been sent in one lot give the letter number, date and the number of annexures sent on each date. If the complete lot of annexures have not been sent, give the number of annexures yet to be sent and the reasons for the default.

1.3.      Are all the pensioners being given their pension as per new rates, as of now? If not, give the number of pensioners whose pensions have not been revised till date and the reasons for the failure in revision.

The decision in F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000683 dated 8/12/2010 by A N Tiwari, CIC is available at the website of the Central Information Commission

7.2.Case 2. Alongwith the 2^nd appeal in the above case, the appellant had submitted another 2^nd appeal- rti/sbi pkd-2^nd appeal-070710-curchest dated 7/7/2010- involving the same public authority. These were sent under a covering letter RTI/sbi pkd-2nd appeal-070710-cl dated 07 Jul 2010. There being no action on this 2nd appeal, an application was submitted under the RTI Act to the PIO, CIC on 23.7.2011 with the following requirements:

1.       Refer the following 2nd appeals:

1.1.rti/rlys-passrelinfo-2^nd appeal-280510 dated 28/5/10  *

1.2.rti/sspo pkd-2^nd appeal-280510 dated 28/5/10    *          

1.3.rti/sbi pkd-2^nd appeal-070710-penfix dated 7/7/2010 ** and  

1.4.rti/sbi pkd-2^nd appeal-070710-curchest dated 7/7/2010 **      

* Forwarded thro’ CAPIO, O/o The SSPO Palakkad

** Forwarded by SpeedPost No EL664026435IN on 7/7/10

2.       In the context of the above appeals you are requested to provide the following information:

2.1.  The date of receipt and serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose

2.2.  With resepct to the acknowledgement, the letter number and date, the date on which sent and the serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose and the mode of sending- whether by ordinary post, speed post, registered post with or without acknowledgement due or courier etc

2.3.  With respect to the notice for hearing, the letter number and date, the date on which sent and the serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose and the mode of sending- whether by ordinary post, speed post, registered post with or without acknowledgement due or courier etc

2.4.  The dates and mode- in person, audio conference, video conference etc-of hearing and the names, designations and location of the participants

2.5.  With respect to the orders, the order number and date, the date on which sent and the serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose and the mode of sending- whether by ordinary post, speed post, registered post with or without acknowledgement due or courier etc

2.6.  Also,  with respect to the orders, the url of the order if available on the commission’s website.

2.7.  In the case of appeals where hearings have not been conducted so far, provide the copies of file notings and the statements of the PIO/FAA, if any, received.

Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/002676/SG/18751dated 4 May 2012 by Shailesh Gandhi, IC is available at the website of the Central Information Commission.

7.3.Case 3. The applicant had sought some information regarding some railway overbridges under construction in a particular railway division. Some information was provided on the eve of hearing in the 2^nd appeal and some more after the decision.

Decision in CIC/OK/A/2008/00766-AD dated 19/5/2009 and adjunct to this order dated 16/6/2009 by Annapoorna Dixit, IC are available at the website of the Central Information Commission

7.4.        Case 4. Following the decisions at 7.3 the railways did provide some information. Quoting their letter, an updated status report was sought from the same public authority. The relevant portion of the application is reproduced below:

1.       Ref your letter No W351/1/1/CN/P1/117 dated 12/6/2009.

2.    Please provide the status as on 31 Aug 2013 for all the ROB/RUB in that list.

3.    Also, please provide the following details for the ROB at Ser 76 (the one coming up next to the Palakkad Town Railway Station):

3.1. The width of the bridge at all exit/entry points (a sketch, need not be to scale, may be used to indicate the locations)

3.2. Whether heavy vehicles can ply on it or not.

3.3. Given the turning radius available, the maximum length of any vehicle that can use the ROB, without causing disruption to the uninterrupted flow of traffic on the ROB and the roads serving it.

4.   If any additional ROB/RUB have been sanctioned or are under construction in this sector, please provide those details also.)

Decision No CIC/VS/A/2Ol4/OOO322 dated 8/7/2015 by Vijai Sharma,CIC is available at the web site of the Central Information Commission

7.5.        Case 5. Decision (only one) in (3 complaints) Nos. CIC/RM/C/2014/900160/,   CIC/RM/C/2014/900281, CIC/RM/A/2014/901227 dated 10/6/2016 by Radha Krishna

Mathur, CIC is available at the web site of the Central Information Commission

8.      Personal experiences. List out the applications you have submitted giving the following details: (Minimum 3 to maximum 5 applications only)

8.1.Date of submission of application,

8.2.mode of submitting application fee,

8.3.mode of submitting (by hand/post/courier),

8.4.cost incurred (including fees),

8.5.address of public authority,

8.6.date of reply from PIO,

8.7.date of receipt of this reply,

8.8.date of submission of 1^st appeal,

8.9.address of FAA,

8.10.        cost incurred in submitting 1^st appeal,

8.11.        date of reply from FAA,

8.12.        date of receipt of this reply,

8.13.        date of submission of 2^nd appeal,

8.14.        cost incurred in submitting 2^nd appeal,

8.15.        date of decision of the information commissioner,

8.16.        date of receipt of copy of this reply,

8.17.        if this decision is available at the web site its URL,

8.18.        On a satisfaction scale rate the decision from 0 to 9, 0 being poor and 9 being happy. (2 marks per application followed up till and including 2^nd appeal, subject to a maximum of 10 marks)

9.      Suggestions for effective implementation of RTI Act. Maximum 5 marks @ 1 mark per suggestion. Each suggestion should not be more than 20 words

10.  Suggestions for improving RiThiCa. Maximum 5 marks @ 1 mark per suggestion. Each suggestion should not be more than 20 words

rithica 2016-part 1 results

Have to admit that Part 1 was a flop. A perfect no show!

But that does not have to deter anyone from participating in Part 2. The 10 questions that you have to answer by 2359h on 14 Dec 2016, will be published in the next blog. 

So, let us use this opportunity to conduct a surgical strike for transparency and accountability in governance!

All the best!

RiThiCA-2016: Terms and conditions

ANNOUNCING…………….........For the 1^st time…………………...........

The Right Thinking Citizen Award…RiThiCA 2016!

An initiative of Save Right to Information Campaign

Mission Statement:

Save Right to Information. Use Right to Information Act.

Get information or......

Expose at least three idiots/traitors* among public servants!

1. The Public Information Officer

2. The First Appellate Authority (and the head of public authority where the head of the public authority is not the FAA!) and

3. The Information Commissioner

*An idiot is one who does not know the job s/he is getting paid to do and

a traitor is one who knows it but does not do it!

Terms and Conditions

1.     This is a modest attempt of a group of RTI activists to give life to the only pro-democracy and pro-citizen law in the country.

2.     The prize money is Rs 10,000/- only and this will be only one prize.

3.     Eligibility: Any citizen of India is eligible to participate. The winner will therefore have to provide a copy of his/her Voter’s Identity Card as proof of citizenship.

4.     There is no registration fee. Participants who submit responses through post will be deemed registered and also that they accept the terms and conditions listed herein.

5.     Participants will have to be computer literate and should be able to use internet as the process of selection involves accessing information from websites and posting comments.

6.     All communication will be in English only.

7.     Participants will need an e mail id, a mobile number and a bank account. While the    e mail id is mandatory, the mobile number is required for verification and the bank account is required for transferring the prize money. The bank account number needs to be communicated only by the winner.

8.     The contest will be in two parts, spread over 75 days. The 1^st part will require the participants to critically analyze a blog on Right to Information Act.  The 2^nd part will require contestants to familiarize themselves with the Right to information Act, 2005, answer certain questions, collect/compile some data and analyze some decisions of information commissioners.

The Procedure

9.     In the first part you will be required to go through the blog ‘The (Late) RTI Act’ at http://rithica2016.blogspot.in/2016/10/the-rti-act-is-dead.html  and you will have to list 10 questions that come to your mind on reading it. The questions will have to be posted as comments to the blog and a copy of the same sent through e mail to the Co-ordinator, Save Right to Information Campaign at  rithica2016@gmail.com with ‘RiThiCA-2016: questions’ as the subject. This has to be done by 11 Nov 2016. Responses received after 2359h on 11 Nov 2016 will not be given any marks for Part 1.

10.                         All the questions will be tabulated to track the questions most commonly asked. The 10 most commonly asked pertinent questions will be published as another blog at the same site. Questions that convey the same sense will be treated as one and may be redrafted for clarity. Each one of these 10 questions asked will get the contestant 1 mark. Thus a contestant can earn maximum 10 marks only from this part. But this is not an elimination round.

11.                         In the 2^nd part, 10 questions will be posted as the third blog at the same blog site by 15 Nov 2016. The Onus of looking for this blog on or after 15 Nov 2016 will be tht of the participant.

12.                         Contestants will have to post their answers as comments to the blog and forward a copy of the same to rithica2016@gmail.com with ‘RiThiCA-2016: answers’ as subject. The final date for receipt of answers will be 14 Dec 2016. Responses received after 2359h on 14 Dec 2016 will not be given any marks for Part 2. Answers to certain questions will be published as another blog at the same site by 20 Dec 2016. The responses to questions requiring non-standard answers will be assessed by a team of activists from varied fields and their decision will be final.

13.                         Results will be finalized by 20 Jan 2017.

14.                         Winner will be intimated through e mail and SMS. Subject to confirmation and verification, the prize money will be transferred to the winner’s account on 25 Jan 2017 and the information will be released to the media on 26 Jan 2017.

15.                         Participants are requested to encourage their friends and relations also to participate and make the event successful. The future of RiThiCA depends on you.

All the best and Jai Hind!

The RTI Act is dead!

The (Late) RTI Act

The Right to Information Act has been murdered!

Long live the Right to Information!

The Right to Information Act, 2005 got the President’s assent and became law on 15 Jun 2005. The next 120 days were given to public authorities to organize their records and get ready to provide information to citizens when the law will be available to them to seek such information from 12 Oct 2005. However genetic disorders ensured that this law was born dead. Though no formal death certificate has been issued, people are deluded into believing that it is still something useful. Useful it indeed is, but not for getting any information. Even when the idiots and traitors amoung public servants continue to flout the law and deny information sought the never say die activists in this field have found a new use for this law- to identify atleast three idiots and traitors amoung public servants- the Public Information Officer, the First Appellate Authority (if the head of the public authority is not the FAA, then the head of the public authority also!) and the Information Commissioner!

A wit had quipped long back that India was ruled by her clerks. Today the subversion of the RTI Act proves that he was right. Because, the only people who have gained by this Act are some of the worst idiots and traitors amoung these very clerks who got rehabilitated as information commissioners, post their retirement from regular employment. And it is these very information commissioners who have ensured that the law was still born, as far as the public is concerned!

The very first (Chief) information commissioner to be appointed was Wajahat Habibulla who had retired as a Secretary to the Government of India. Undoubtedly he was from the Indian Administrative Service and the ‘honour’ of proving how much of an idiot/ traitor a member of this cadre could be goes to none other than this country’s 1^st CIC! The events that led to this conclusion are as follows.

Realising how the consumer ‘courts’ established under the Consumer Protection Act were cheating the consumers, NGOs and activists working in this area got together and formed a Save Consumer Courts Action Council (SCCAC)under the leadership of Sri Ayyappan Nair, publisher of a periodical Upabhoktrhu Sabdam (later christened Upabhokthru Jagratha) from Thiruvanathapuram). In a case filed by his Consumer Vigilance Centre against the then President, Hassan Pillai, of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (KSCDRC) the order of the High Court of Kerala (Consumer Vigilance Centre Vs State of Kerala, 2004(3) KLT 1073) clearly observed that the President, a former member of the same court, had mislead the court by stating in his affidavit that he had not declared summer holidays for the Commission when the records showed that he had indeed declared it. SCCAC submitted a complaint on 17/8/2005, to the President, M B Shaw, of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), that Hassan Pillai should be removed from office on this ground (of perjury). There being no response, an application was filed with NCDRC on 24/3/2006 under the RTI Act, seeking information on action taken on the complaint. There being no response to it either, a complaint was filed on 6/5/2006, with the Central Information Commission (as provided in Sec 18(1)(c) the RTI Act). (Meanwhile a letter dated 17/4/2006 was received from the NCDRC directing the complainant to approach the State government. But it should be noted that this letter neither referred to the application under the RTI Act nor could the response be construed as a reply to that application!) And then comes the googly from the CIC! A letter dated 25/7/2006 and signed by its director Nisha Singh said that the complaint (against the central public authority!) was forwarded to the Palat Mohandas, Secretary (actually he was the Chief information Commissioner) of Kerala State information Commission!

The matter was taken up with Wajahat Habibulla and he responded with an e mail on 6/8/2006 stating that he was calling for the records and necessary action would be taken. But no, there was no action taken nor any further communication from the CIC. So a copy of the complaint was submitted again on 14/11/2006. Horror of horrors! The reply, dated 21/2/2007, I got left no room for doubt that these public servants who are living off the taxpayer (and looting him otherwise too) were amoung the biggest idiots and traitors on the land! The reply read as follows: Since the appointments to the state consumer disputes redressal commission are made by the state government the complaint should be filed with the state information commission! (A gentle reminder: the complaint under the RTI Act was filed with the Central Information Commission because there had been no response to the application submitted to the NCDRC, a central public authority!)

Given the repeated nature of the idiotic action of the central information commissioner a complaint was submitted to the President to remove Habibulla under Sec 14(3)(d) of the RTI Act. But since it would have been the same clerical mafia that would have dealt with this complaint also and approaching the court was a remedy worse than the ailment the pursuit for information and justice ended there.

Even before the Right to Information Act , 2005 was enacted by the Central Government many states had enacted some version of much earlier, including some of the most backward states. But Kerala which prided itself as the 1^st fully literate state in the country was not amoung them! Worse, even this central law has been subverted beyond recognition and by none other than the information commissioners, led by its 1^st Chief Information Commissioner, Palat Mohandas, who had been the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala till the previous day! The plight of the RTI Act in the State had started even with the appointment of Palat Mohandas. Grabbing the opportunity to live at taxpayers’ cost for another five years, Palat Mohandas got himself appointed as CIC even while holding the office of the Chief Secretary and when the illegality of the act was questioned publicly the post was left vacant till he retired! He took over as CIC on 21/12/2005 after having left the law on the limb for more than 6 months! And, suffice to say, throughout the next five years, till he demitted office on 1/10/2010, he was only digging nails on the coffin of the law he had been tasked, equipped, empowered and paid to enforce! For their incompetence and treachery, Mohandas and his fellow commissioners were sought to be removed by the Governor under Sec 17(3)(d) of the RTI Act. A complaint was filed by an activist, P M Ravindran, on 7/11/2007 and by a collective on 12/10/2008. But both these were used as the parcel in the game of passing the parcel and finally vanished. But the complaint submitted during the first Public Contact Program held by the then Chief Minister Ommen Chandy was pursued doggedly till a reply dated 1/6/2012, signed by another Mohandas , Under Secretary, General Administration Department, informed that since the information commission was a constitutional authority the government could not interfere in its activities!

I am reproducing herewith Sections 17 and 28 of the RTI Act. Readers should specifically note sections 17(3)(d) and 28(1)(d).

17   (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the Governor on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has on inquiry, reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.

        (2)   The Governor may suspend from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from attending

                the  office during inquiry, the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information      

               Commissioner in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under   

                sub-section (1) until the Governor has passed orders on receipt of the report of the

                Supreme Court on such reference.

        (3)  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Governor may by order

                remove from office the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information

                Commissioner if a State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information

                Commissioner, as the case may be,—

                 (a)  is adjudged an insolvent; or

                 (b)  has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral

                       turpitude; or

                (c)   engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of  his   

                        office; or

                 (d)                 is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body; or

               

                (e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his

                        functions as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information

                        Commissioner.

        (4)  If the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in any

                way, concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the

                Government of the State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or

                emoluments arising therefrom otherwise than as a member and in common with the other

                members of an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be

                deemed to be guilty of misbehaviour.

28   (1)  The competent authority may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry

       out the provisions of this Act.

        (2)  In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules

       may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—

(i)                  the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials to be disseminated under

sub-section (4) of section 4;

              (ii)     the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6;

              (iii)    the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 7; and

              (iv)   any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.

There are two quotes one would like to recollect. The first one, translated from Malayalam, states roughly to the effect that those who do not assert their authority will find themselves being walked all over by scoundrels and the other one states that those who condemn politics as the last refuge of scoundrels are bound to be ruled by scoundrels! Of more pertinence is what an exasperated apex court judge commented ‘criminals like you should be hung from the nearest lamp post, but I do not have the power to pass such an order, hence…’! Now what can one say about politicians who are mere puppets in the hands of their clerks who are idiots ad traitors?

Tailpiece: Uttar Pradhesh had a former high court judge, M A Khan, as its first chief information commissioner. The controversial Chief Minister of UP, Ms Mayavati, got him removed from that office. It was reported later that he committed suicide after almost one year. In Kerala a former DIG of Police, Natarajan, was suspended for interfering in an investigation involving a land deal. For the next three years he did not do even a penny worth of job but Ommen Chandy led Government had paid him Rs 32 lakhs as regular payment during the period of suspension till the date of report!

P M Ravindran

Co ordinator, Save Right to Information Campaign

E mail: rithica2016@gmail.com

Website: http://rithica2016.blogspot.in

SAVE RIGHT TO INFORMATION CAMPAIGN

Mission Statement

Save Right To Information. Use Right To Information Act.

Get information or......

Expose at least three idiots/traitors* among public servants!

1. The Public Information Officer

2. The First Appellate Authority (and the head of public authority

where the head of the public authority is not the FAA!) and

3. The Information Commissioner

*An idiot is one who does not know the job s/he is getting paid to do and a traitor is one who knows it but does not do it!