HumJanenge RTI Mailing List

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-011

I generally OBJECT to the following rule proposed.

"4. Request for Information: A person who desires to obtain any information from a public authority under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, shall pay an application fee of Rs. 10/- to the public authority alongwith the application;
Provided that the request for information shall relate only to one subject matter and shall be limited to two hundred and fifty words, excluding the address of the Central Public Information Officer and the address of the applicant."

I say this for the following REASONS

1) The Act does not mandate that a fee must accompany the RTI request. It is optional.

2) The Act does mandate that all fees to be charged must be "reasonable". It is not clear to me how an application fee of a mere Rs.10 only can be considered as reasonable considering the costs involved to process or deal with a RTI request by a pubic authority. Independent estimates put the cost of servicing a RTI request at upwards of Rs 5,000 per request. Such subsidy places a tremendous burden on the exchequer, causes inflation and unduly burdens the honest tax payer. Such tokenism and subsidies help nobody. It is an open secret that even the cost of issuing a receipt / GR-6 / challan and accounting for it are upwards of Rs 500 as has been computed ad notified by the Allahabad High Court for its own fee rules.

I therefore SUGGEST that the application fee of Rs.10 be scrapped entirely, or in the alternative it must be an amount which bears a direct and reasonable relationship with the desired object and the scheme of the Act. I say it is pertinent that Central public authorities like the Reserve Bank of India have now stopped demanding the prescribed application fees in view of the substantial losses being caused which are not budgeted for .

I specifically OBJECT that the Act specifies that the fee must "accompany" the RTI request. This is not the same as "along with" or "alongwith". It is akin to the difference between a "wife" and a "mistress".

Accordingly I SUGGEST that the term :"alongwith" be suitably replaced with "accompany" as in the parent Act.

I specifically OBJECT to the proposed limitation of 1 subject matter per RTI request. I say that here is no such PROVISION in the RTI Act, or at least none that has been conveyed to the objectors. I say that the RTI act merely specifies that requesters must "specify" the information they are requesting and that they must apply to the concerned public authority.
This is conditional upon complete / full section 4 compliance by the public authority. Furthermore the term "subject" is itself subjective and open to interpretation. The "Allocation of business rules" etc. are often vague with Ministries and Departments being frequently changed and subjects re-allocated or amended. There is no clarity on who holds the information or who is the custodian. In the circumstances including this proviso is like putting the cart before the horse, and abdicating the State of its primary obligations under the RTI Act. / Constitution of India.

I therefore SUGGEST that the 1 subject per RTI request rule be postponed till the systemic record management and allocation of business/subject issues are resolved.

I SUPPORT the proposed rule to limit RTI request to 250 words. I would go further to say that it be limited to EXACTLY what a Member of Parliament is allowed to ask during Question Hour, which I am given to understand is 150 words. The same has been implemented already in Karnataka. I say that this is buttressed by section 8 of the RTI Act which already provides that no information which can be denied to Parliament can be denied to a citizen. It would be absurd if MPs who cannot fit their questions within 150 words resort to using RTI Act which permits for 250. The question of supplementary queries / request has also not be properly considered in this proposed Rule and should be incorporated. I also note that MPs on the average are paid about Rs 1,900 per question they ask. I am therefore in equity constrained to SUGGEST / REQUIRE that pubic spirited citizens be likewise reimbursed / paid Rs. 2,000 per RTI request (of maximum 150 words) submitted.

NB: As the legal questions involved for these Rules are complex, I am formally requesting an opportunity of personal hearing for this before the competent authority.

Submitted in my individual capacity by

Er. Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
email ID: "sroy.mb@gmail.com"

Chief Patron: "HumJanenge RTI group" mailing list of over 2,500 RTI stakeholders
Website: http://humjanenge.org.in
Mailing List : http://groups.google.com/group/humjanenge/
News Network : http://humjanenge.org.in/news/

CC: to: (for suitable action and direction)
presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
mos-pp@nic.in
secy_mop@nic.in
sarkardk@nic.in
jsata@nic.in
dirrti-dopt@nic.in
diradmn@nic.in
osdrti-dopt@nic.in
usrti-dopt@nic.in
sroy1947@gmail.com

COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-009

To:
The Government of India, by
Shri R.K.Girdhar
Under-Secretary/RTI
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block
New Delhi 110011

1) CONFIDENTIAL,
2) SECRET,
3) My Intellectual property,
4) Not to be disclosed to any unauthorised person,
5) Not to be disclosed to any private person whatsoever,
6) Not to be disclosed to Prime Minister or his office,
7) Not to be disclosed to National Advisory Council,
8) Not to be disclosed under Right to Information except to myself,

BY EMAIL:

Date: 21-December-2010
Your Ref: OM dated 10.12.2010 in File No.1/35/2008-IR (draft RTI Rules)
Our Ref: PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-009
Subject Objections and/or Suggestions to the amendments proposed

Sir,

I refer to the above citations and your subject OM. I am caused to submit the following objection(s) and/or suggestion(s) to the same.
This is separate, distinct and without prejudice to other objections I may submit from time to time within the period allowed..

http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf

I OBJECT that the Office Memorandum publishes on website of MoP is false and incomplete. I say this because the list of recipients of the OM has been deliberately suppressed from me and the public at large. It is pertinent that other OMs on the Persmin website clearly list the recipients thereof.

I have come to learn from websites of other public authorities that MoP/DoPT had sent them advance copies of these draft Rules to which they have submitted their comments prior to the OM dated 10.12.2010. In particular copies were with CIC, NAC, Mr. Shekhar Singh, Mr.Harsh Mander, Ms Aruna Roy and many other private persons directly or indirectly. I am also concerned that there was breach of Official Secrets Act.

You may take careful notice of the fact that I was the other Co-Respondent with the Central Information Commission ("CIC") in Division Bench Judgment of the the Delhi High Court d/d 22-May-2010 described by me as "Delhi Development Authority versus Central Information Commission and Anr.", where the Hon'ble Court struck down the RTI Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 as being bad in law. The Hon'ble Court has comprehensively dealt with the issue of RTI Rules and requirement to clearly specify the source of power to prescribe rules in its reasoned judgement, which inter-alia struck down the power of CIC to constitute benches on my submissions. It was my case that the CIC is a "body" constituted u/s 12(1) and must decide matters as collegium. These issues are now sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the DoPT is not a party therein.

I therefore SUGGEST that a copy of the OM be served on me separately, and I be provided as equal opportunity to file distinct meaningful objections in my other capacity / locus as Co-Respondent in that matter as the CIC was.

Submitted in my individual capacity by

Er. Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
email ID: "sroy.mb@gmail.com"

Chief Patron: "HumJanenge RTI group" mailing list of over 2,500 RTI stakeholders
Website: http://humjanenge.org.in
Mailing List : http://groups.google.com/group/humjanenge/
News Network : http://humjanenge.org.in/news/

CC: to: (for suitable action and direction)
presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
mos-pp@nic.in
secy_mop@nic.in
sarkardk@nic.in
jsata@nic.in
dirrti-dopt@nic.in
diradmn@nic.in
osdrti-dopt@nic.in
usrti-dopt@nic.in
sroy1947@gmail.com

COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-008

To:
The Government of India, by
Shri R.K.Girdhar
Under-Secretary/RTI
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block
New Delhi 110011

1) CONFIDENTIAL,
2) SECRET,
3) My Intellectual property,
4) Not to be disclosed to any unauthorised person,
5) Not to be disclosed to any private person whatsoever,
6) Not to be disclosed to Prime Minister or his office,
7) Not to be disclosed to National Advisory Council,
8) Not to be disclosed under Right to Information except to myself,

BY EMAIL:

Date: 21-December-2010
Your Ref: OM dated 10.12.2010 in File No.1/35/2008-IR (draft RTI Rules)
Our Ref: PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-008
Subject Objections and/or Suggestions to the amendments proposed

Sir,

I refer to the above citations and your subject OM. I am caused to submit the following objection(s) and/or suggestion(s) to the same.
This is separate, distinct and without prejudice to other objections I may submit from time to time within the period allowed..

http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf

I generally OBJECT that the source of power to the Central Government to frame these impugned draft rules is not clear and/or does not exist . I say this for the following REASONS

i) FOR, the Act defines "prescribed" to mean "prescribed by rules made under this Act by the appropriate Government or the competent authority, as the case may be;"

ii) FOR, section 27(1) of the Act confers upon the Central Government a general power to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act.

iii) FOR section 27(2) of the Act while specifying certain of the aforesaid provisions, concludes that rules may be notified for "any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed."

The combined reading of these clauses necessarily means

A) That Rules can only be notified to carry out the provisions of the Act.
B) That Rules cannot be notified for matters not provided for in the Act or which cannot be prescribed.
C) That section 27 of the Act, which is now claimed to be the source of the power to notify the Rules, is not a blank cheque to the Central Government to dismantle the basic structure of the RTI Act, or to dilute the letter or spirit of the RTI Act in any way.

It is noteworthy that the duly notified RTI rules in force since 2005 only specified sub-section 27(2) as the source of the Central Govt's power to prescribe rules. The present draft rules seek to enlarge the power now as flowing from section 27(1) in addition, but without clearly specifying the PROVISION of the parent Act which requires to be carried out.

It is also pertinent, and you may take careful notice of this singular fact, that I was the other Co-Respondent with the Central Information Commission ("CIC") in Division Bench Judgment of the the Delhi High Court d/d 22-May-2010 described by me as "Delhi Development Authority versus Central Information Commission and Anr.", where the Hon'ble Court struck down the RTI Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 as being bad in law. The Hon'ble Court has comprehensively dealt with the issue of RTI Rules and requirement to clearly specify the source of power to prescribe rules in its reasoned judgement, which inter-alia struck down the power of CIC to constitute benches on my submissions. It was my case that the CIC is a "body" constituted u/s
12(1) and must decide matters as collegium. These issues are now sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the DoPT is not a party therein. Hence also, I view the publication of this present OM as a blatant attempt to influence due course of justice to favour the CIC and to enable CIC to withdraw their pending SLP in the Court. This also constitutes criminal contempt of court as the Hon'ble Court is seized of these matters.

I therefore SUGGEST that a careful examination / review be made clause wise to the source of power of these sundry Rules, and the same may be provided to all objectors to allow us to file meaningful objections..

Submitted in my individual capacity by

Er. Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
email ID: "sroy.mb@gmail.com"

Chief Patron: "HumJanenge RTI group" mailing list of over 2,500 RTI stakeholders
Website: http://humjanenge.org.in
Mailing List : http://groups.google.com/group/humjanenge/
News Network : http://humjanenge.org.in/news/

CC: to: (for suitable action and direction)
presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
mos-pp@nic.in
secy_mop@nic.in
sarkardk@nic.in
jsata@nic.in
dirrti-dopt@nic.in
diradmn@nic.in
osdrti-dopt@nic.in
usrti-dopt@nic.in
sroy1947@gmail.com

COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-007

COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-006

To:
The Government of India, by
Shri R.K.Girdhar
Under-Secretary/RTI
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block
New Delhi 110011

1) CONFIDENTIAL,
2) SECRET,
3) My Intellectual property,
4) Not to be disclosed to any unauthorised person,
5) Not to be disclosed to any private person whatsoever,
6) Not to be disclosed to Prime Minister or his office,
7) Not to be disclosed to National Advisory Council,
8) Not to be disclosed under Right to Information except to myself,

BY EMAIL:

Date: 21-December-2010
Your Ref: OM dated 10.12.2010 in File No.1/35/2008-IR (draft RTI Rules)
Our Ref: PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-006
Subject Objections and/or Suggestions to the amendments proposed

Sir,

I refer to the above citations and your subject OM. I am caused to submit the following objection(s) and/or suggestion(s) to the same.
This is separate, distinct and without prejudice to other objections I may submit from time to time within the period allowed..

http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf

I OBJECT to the following proposed rules

"2(e) "Registrar" mean officers of the Commission so designated and unless otherwise requires includes an Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar;
(f) "Registry" means the Registry of the Commission comprising the Registrar General, Registrar, Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar or Deputy Registrar;"

for the REASON(S) / DEFECT(S) that

(i) the setting up of a "Registry" is not provided for in the RTI Act.

(ii) it offends section 13(6) which only requires the Central Govt to provide the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners with such officers and employees as may be necessary for the efficient performance of their functions under this Act, and the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees appointed for the purpose of this Act shall be such as may be prescribed.
It may be noted that by the Act the officers and employees are to be provided to the Information Commissioners in their individual capacities for "their functions" and not to the Commission as a body.

(iii) It is only open to prescribe the "salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service" of the officers provided. In the guise of prescribing these innocuous items, the basic structure of the RTI Act cannot be destroyed by bureaucratising the Institution of the Commission and delegating/subtracting from the inherent powers of the Commission.

(iv) The functions of the Information Commissioners are already laid down in the Act. It is not open to the Central Govt to circumscribe these powers by specifying the designations and functions of staff officers to these Commissioners.

Hence I SUGGEST that these 2 sub-rules be deleted permanently, or till such time as the the RTI Act is amended to allow the setting up of a Registry.

Submitted in my individual capacity by

Er. Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
email ID: "sroy.mb@gmail.com"

Chief Patron: "HumJanenge RTI group" mailing list of over 2,500 RTI stakeholders
Website: http://humjanenge.org.in
Mailing List : http://groups.google.com/group/humjanenge/
News Network : http://humjanenge.org.in/news/

CC: to: (for suitable action and direction)
presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
mos-pp@nic.in
secy_mop@nic.in
sarkardk@nic.in
jsata@nic.in
dirrti-dopt@nic.in
diradmn@nic.in
osdrti-dopt@nic.in
usrti-dopt@nic.in
sroy1947@gmail.com

COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-005

COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-004

Monday, December 20, 2010

COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-003

COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-002

To:
The Government of India, by
Shri R.K.Girdhar
Under-Secretary/RTI
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block
New Delhi 110011

1) CONFIDENTIAL,
2) SECRET,
3) My Intellectual property,
4) Not to be disclosed to any unauthorised person,
5) Not to be disclosed to any private person whatsoever,
6) Not to be disclosed to Prime Minister or his office,
7) Not to be disclosed to National Advisory Council,
8) Not to be disclosed under Right to Information except to myself,

BY EMAIL:

Date: 20-December-2010
Your Ref: OM dated 10.12.2010 in File No.1/35/2008-IR (draft RTI Rules)
Our Ref: PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-002
Subject Objections and/or Suggestions to the amendments proposed

Sir,

I refer to the above citations and your subject OM. I am caused to submit the following objection(s) and/or suggestion(s) to the same.
This is separate, distinct and without prejudice to other objections I may submit from time to time within the period allowed..

http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf

1) That I am only submitting this communication upon being informed by the office of Jt.Secy/DoPT Shri Rajiv Kapoor that members of the public can also submit their objections / suggestions / comments on the draft Rules published vide the referred OM on website of Personnel Ministry. I spoke to JS/DoPT's office only after reading reports in reputed newspapers that the Govt had invited comments from the public on these Rules.

2) In this context I wish to OBJECT that device of Office Memorandum cannot be utilized to invite comments / objections / suggestions from the public at large. I shall rely upon the definition of "Office Memorandum" as published by your Department in the Manual of Office Procedure.

3) I further OBJECT that this highly irregular practice of using Office Memorandum (instead of a formal and statutory Public Notice) to disclose draft Rules and seek comments has been corruptly done at behest of Shri Rajiv Kapoor so as to facilitate a network of non-Govt employees, former IAS officers, touts and Maoists etc. who are ensconced within an extra-statutory body which I describe and specify as "National Advisory Council" to gain access to privileged and confidential drafts of Govt. and interfere with government process.

4) I SUGGEST and REQUIRE that all the officers of Government who are implicated in the usage of this unlawful procedure be prosecuted under departmental vigilance rules and/or the Official Secrets Act and/or Prevention of Corruption Act etc., and that all members of the public (except me) who cite or quote any portion of these draft rules to which they are not authorised to have access be likewise prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act read with the Indian Penal Code.

5) I further SUGGEST that a formal Public Notice be issued and widely publicised so that the views of all (ie. as many as possible) stakeholders in RTI process may be garnered and considered, and has been assured by Prime Minster to Chairperson UPA..

Submitted in my individual capacity by

Er. Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
email ID: "sroy.mb@gmail.com"

Chief Patron: "HumJanenge RTI group" mailing list of over 2,500 RTI stakeholders
Website: http://humjanenge.org.in
Mailing List : http://groups.google.com/group/humjanenge/
News Network : http://humjanenge.org.in/news/

CC: to: (for suitable action and direction)
presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
mos-pp@nic.in
secy_mop@nic.in
sarkardk@nic.in
jsata@nic.in
dirrti-dopt@nic.in
diradmn@nic.in
osdrti-dopt@nic.in
usrti-dopt@nic.in
sroy1947@gmail.com

COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-001

Archived at and redistributed from [http://hnn-rti-mailing-list.blogspot.com/]