Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Memorandum to introspect and act about Containing the rising Corruption by ensuring Implementation of RTI Act 2005 in “ Letter & Spirit ” at Government Of India level

E-MEMORANDUM 

 

To : 

Sri  Manmohan   Singh                                                                                                                                    The Prime Minister of India 

Government of India , P.M.O. , South Block

New Delhi , India , Pin Code – 110001

"Hon'ble Prime Miister of India Dr. Man Mohan Singh" pmosb@pmo.nic.in ,

 

 

From :

Members of  " YAISHWARYAJ "   and " SURYA " , the Lucknow and Bareilly , Uttar Pradesh , India based AOP ,  involved in Social Activism

 

 

Date :

03rd  of  November , 2010

 

 

Re. : Alarming trend indicated by the Corruption Perception Index figures Released by Transparency International for last 10 years involving both Pre and post Right to Information Act  periods   , Introspection and Action needed at the Government of India Level  to combat the corruption by ensuring Compliance of Right to Information Act  2005 in " letter & spirit "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

On behalf of the Members of  " YAISHWARYAJ "   & " SURYA ", the undersigned have drafted this memorandum to communicate our collective concerns for the alarming situation of  rising Corruption in the Country , as indicated by the data released by Transparency International for last 10 years involving both Pre and post Right to Information Act  periods.

We are alarmed and distressed to learn from the recent newspaper reports and website of the of  Transparency International  that for the year 2010 , India moved up the ladder of corruption despite there being an act called the Right to Information Act 2005 .

 

 

We,  the Social activists from Uttar Pradesh , discussed RTI  Act 2005 vis-à-vis Corruption Perception index Data released by Transparency International and decided to send this memorandum to you with the demand to constitute a committee to study this scenario in the light of implementation of Right to Information Act  2005 in " letter & spirit " since 2005 to date .

The Preamble of the RTI Act 2005 states "And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed; "

 

 

Here emphasis has been laid on the words " to contain corruption " means  prime motive of enacting this act was to contain corruption and the spirit of the act was to diminish it gradually.

 

 

As per Transparency International's annual survey ,India  slipped from 84th position to 87th. It means India has become  more corrupt than year before despite there being  an important tool called " RTI act 2005 " to contain corruption . On a  Scale which ranges from zero (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 10 (thought to have little corruption) , India scored 3.3 in the corruption perception index, which ranks countries on a scale from 10 (highly clean) to 0 (highly corrupt).

 

 

Corruption's ultimate consequences  has  to be borne  by the poor , vulnerable  and deprived section of the society . This section constitutes the largest chunk of India's Population.

 

 

So we collected Corruption Perception Index Data from the Transparency International's Website from year 2001 to 2010. The Time period selected involved both  Pre and post Right to Information Act  periods   .  The data tables are given below –

 

Table – 1

YEAR

COUNTRY

RANK

COUNTRY

C.P.I.

SCORE

CONFIDANCE

RANGE/LOW-HIGH RANGE

SURVEYS

USED

2001

71

INDIA

2.7

2.1 – 3.8

12

2002

71

INDIA

2.7

2.4 – 3.6

12

2003

83

INDIA

2.8

2.1 – 3.6

14

2004

90

INDIA

2.8

2.6 – 3.0

15

2005

88

INDIA

2.9

2.7 – 3.1

14

2006

70

INDIA

3.3

3.1 – 3.6

10

2007

72

INDIA

3.5

3.3 – 3.7

10

2008

85

INDIA

3.4

2.7 – 3.9

10

2009

84

INDIA

3.4

3.2 – 3.6

10

2010

87

INDIA

3.3

3.0 – 3.5

10

 

Table – 2

YEAR

C.P.I. SCORE

2001

2.7

2002

2.7

2003

2.8

2004

2.8

2005

2.9

2006

3.3

2007

3.5

2008

3.4

2009

3.4

2010

3.3

 

 

The C.P.I. data for these 10 years show that  in these ten years India was -

·        the least honest in year 2001 with C.P.I. Score of  2.7,

·        showed no improvement in year 2002 with unchanged C.P.I. Score of  2.7 ,

·        showed  improvement of 3.70% in year 2003 with C.P.I. Score of  2.8 ,

·        showed no improvement in 2004 with unchanged C.P.I. Score of  2.8 ,

·        showed  improvement of 3.57% in year 2005 with C.P.I. Score of  2.9,

·        showed  improvement of 13.79% in year 2006 with C.P.I. Score of 3.3,

·        showed  improvement of 6.06% in year 2007 with C.P.I. Score of 3.5,

·        showed  decline of 2.86% in year 2008 with C.P.I. Score of 3.4,

·        showed no change in 2009 with unchanged C.P.I. Score of  3.4,

·        showed  decline of 2.94% in year 2010 with C.P.I. Score of 3.3,

 

 

The analysis shows that India raised on honesty scale from 2001 to 2007 and is continuously declining from 2008 to date despite there being a strong tool to fight corruption i.e.  " Right to Information Act 2005 " .

The remarkable point of study is that with the advent of RTI act 2005 in the year 2005 , corruption diminished by 13.79% in year 2006 and further by 6.06% in year 2007. From 2008 onwards corruption is showing continuous  increasing trend  thereby raising a question as to for what purpose the RTI act was enacted and if it is serving that purpose or not ?

 

 

We discussed the matter  and we are  of the view that there  is strong need for the Government of India   to introspect as to for what purpose the RTI act was enacted and if it is serving that purpose? If no , then what are the factors responsible for this contradictory situation of rising corruption in India despite there being a strong tool called " Right to Information Act 2005 " ?

We are sending this memorandum to you to look into the matter with desired seriousness , Constitute a Committee having considerable representation of civil societies to analyze the factors responsible for this undesirable situation of rising corruption thereby implying failure of " RTI Act 2005 " in the Country and take other appropriate measures as may deem fit by your office in this regard to safeguard the interests of all the people of the nation .

 Copy being sent for necessary action by E-mail to - Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil ,The President of India, President House , New Delhi , Pin Code – 110001 , India. "Her Excellency President of India Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil"  presidentofindia@rb.nic.in , 

Yours truly ,

 

The Signatories –

 

1-    Urvashi  Sharma

2-    Usha

3-    Prabhuta

4-    Babita Singh

5-    Anjali

6-    Vishal Pandey

7-    Premisagar

8-    Vadam Singh

9-    Ramautar

10-Ram Prakash

11-Vishnu Datt

 


Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Manipur journalists shut down newspapers to protest threats from armed groups

Manipur journalists shut down newspapers to protest threats from armed groups

http://www.ifex.org/india/2010/11/02/manipur_newspapers/

(IFJ/IFEX) - November 1, 2010 - The International Federation of
Journalists (IFJ) stands in solidarity with media workers in Manipur,
in India's North-East, who shut down newspapers last week for the
third time in less than two years to protest persistent threats from
underground armed groups.

According to IFJ sources, the All-Manipur Working Journalists' Union
(AMWJU) declared the mass closure after cadre of the Kangleipak
Communist Party (KCP) visited media houses on October 26 to demand
publication of a statement issued by the party's putative leader.

In the statement, a faction of the KCP claimed responsibility for
killing a local official for alleged criminal activity.

Media outlets were at the same time told by a rival KCP faction that
the statement and the person who issued it had no credibility, and
newspapers would risk retaliation if they published the statement.

"This is not the first time that journalists in Manipur have been
caught in the crossfire between rival groups, each claiming
responsibility for a particular action," IFJ Asia-Pacific Director
Jacqueline Park said.

"The IFJ strongly endorses the AMWJU action and urges all journalists
in Manipur to stand firm in the face of these threats."

The AMWJU organised the state-wide shutdown of newspapers in Manipur
between October 27 and 29 and staged a mass rally on October 28,
presenting a memorandum to the chief minister of Manipur state,
demanding that the rights to free speech and a free press be
respected. A sit-in demonstration at a prominent spot in Imphal,
capital of Manipur, was also held.

Newspapers only resumed publication following expressions of regret
from both KCP factions.

"The AMWJU has led efforts to deal with the multi-faceted threats that
journalists face by adopting a code of conduct for media practitioners
in situations of endemic conflict. This has been an example for many
other journalists' organisations in South Asia", Park said.

"We call on civil society in Manipur to support the struggle of the
state's journalists for a safe and secure environment, so they can
work to fulfil their responsibility to keep the public informed."

--
Urvashi Sharma

RTI Helpmail( Web Based )
aishwaryaj2010@gmail.com

Mobile Rti Helpline
8081898081 ( 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. )

Monday, November 1, 2010

UPSIC summons LU vice-chancellor

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/SIC-summons-LU-vice-chancellor/articleshow/6855544.cms


The UP State Information Commission (UPSIC) has taken a stern view of
the RTI anomalies in Lucknow University (LU). The commission has
directed LU vice-chancellor (V-C) to appear before it in connection
with at least three RTI cases and explain why the cases were not
disposed of. The V-C is also the first appeals authority in these
cases.

The three cases pertain to the complaints made by three RTI applicants
where either they were not provided the information or the first
appeals was not disposed of. The complaints were heard by information
commissioner Gyanendra Sharma.

In connection with one of the first appeals, filed by applicant Mohan
Krishna, the commissioner has issued a show cause notice to the V-C on
why the appeal was not disposed of as per the Right to Information
(RTI) Act. The commission is yet to get V-C's reply.

The commission said it was shocking to learn that despite notices
being sent by the SIC, the university did not take the matter
seriously. "The commission takes it very seriously and orders the V-C
to be present in the commission in the next hearing and explain about
the action taken on the applicant's first appeal," said the
commissioner.

Similarly, in connection with the complaint filed by another applicant
Vikas Kumar, though the first appeals authority of the university (V-C
in this case) heard the appeal, he did not mention the date when the
appeal was heard in his order. The commission has also ordered the
university to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 and Rs 5,000 to two
applicants.

This isn't the first time when the UPSIC has taken note of the lapses
on the part of the state universities as far as implementing the RTI
Act is concerned. In April, the commission had issued show cause
notices to the V-Cs of at least three universities in the state asking
them to explain the failure on their part on the above count.

The universities in question were Uttar Pradesh Technical University
(UPTU), Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and Lucknow
University. The commission was getting lot of complaints from students
regarding delayed or no response from the universities on their
queries about marksheets and certificates.

The SIC took a stern view of it and sent show cause notices to the
V-Cs of the universities asking them to explain why the students were
not being provided information under RTI.
--
Urvashi Sharma

RTI Helpmail( Web Based )
aishwaryaj2010@gmail.com

Mobile Rti Helpline
8081898081 ( 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. )

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Fw: [sackhim] MURDER OF RTI CONSPIRED BY SIC UTTAR PRADESH



--
Urvashi Sharma

RTI Helpmail( Web Based )
aishwaryaj2010@gmail.com

Mobile Rti Helpline
8081898081 ( 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. )

--- On Thu, 24/7/08, urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: [sackhim] MURDER OF RTI CONSPIRED BY SIC UTTAR PRADESH
To: sackhim@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, 24 July, 2008, 5:26 PM

MURDER OF RTI CONSPIRED BY SIC UTTAR PRADESH

Respected all ,
Having gone thru the draft of uttar pradesh rajya suchna ayoga (
management ) rules 2008 , I have noticed that these rules are nothing
but a conspiracy of SIC U.P. to kill rti in uttar pradesh . please
find below an open letter emailed to sri gyanendra sharma , the
officiating SCIC u.p. , secretary SIC u.p. and copy sent to the
president of india , the governor & CM of uttar pradesh. U all r
requested to go thru these rules and send ur suggestions to SCIC U.
P. so that rti could be saved in uttar pradesh.

Thanks & regards

Urvashi sharma
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====
To,
Shri Gyanendra Sharma,
Honb'le the Chief State Information Commissioner ( officiating )
U.P. State Information Commission
6th Floor ,Indira Bhavan ,Ashok Marg ,Lucknow - 226001
E-mail : gyanendrasharma@ gmail.com
&
The Secretary
U.P. State Information Commission
6th Floor ,Indira Bhavan , Ashok Marg , Lucknow - 226001
E-mail : sec.sic@up.nic. in

Sub. - SUGGESTIONS TO AMEND UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA SUCHNA AYOGA (
SANCHALAN ) NIYAMAVALI 2008 TO MAKE IT CONFORMING TO RTI ACT 2005

Dear Sir,

1. Kindly refer to the uttar pradesh rajya suchna ayoga (
management ) rules 2008 (hereinafter referred as "rules 2008" }as
uploaded on the website of uttar pradesh state information commission.
2. An indepth look at these rules would reveal that in some of the
rules / subrules , these new rules contradict the mother RTI Act
2005 , a condition which besides being against the spirit of the RTI
Act 2005 are not maintainable in the eye of law also.
3. The details are as given below-

- (a) Please refer to section 15(4) of the rti act which clearly
states that for general superintendence , direction and management of
the affairs of SIC rules can be made by SCIC under this act. So no
rule can be made that contradicts the mother act. In the
introduction of the rules 2008 ambiguous language has been used. In
place of the words " OTHER PROVISIONS " , clear details of those
other provisions should be given to make things clear.In RTI act
2005 the main emphasis is laid down on discharge of clear
information. So it is very much expected that rules made by SIC have
crystal clear language.
- ( b) Please refer to rule 1 ( c ) of rules 2008 which states-
- cases registered earlier shall be heard and disposed - off under
rules prevailing at that time & next line says
- these rules 2008 shall be applicable on those old cases in which
some future action has been ordered.
I think these two statements creates undue confusion about cases
registered before implementation of these rules 2008 , this confusion
has to be resolved before implementing these rules.
- ( c) Please refer to rule 2 ( ix ) of rules 2008 which states "
prescribed " means prescribed rules under the act & prescribed rules
under rules 2008. Now it has to be seen that no rule of these new
rules should be contrary to the rule of the mother act. Some of the
rules of these rules 2008 are contrary to the mother act which I
shall elaborate in given points. First make all the rules / subrules
of rules 2008 as per provisions laid down in the RTI act 2005 , only
then to rule 2 ( ix ) of rules 2008 shall be in conformity to the
ACT.
- (d) Please refer to rule 2 ( xiv ) of rules 2008 which states
" Representative " means from various parties or their
authorized
persons in which advocates shall be included.
In this rule very cleverly the word " various " has been included
with the clearcut intention to help PIOs abstain from hearings and
send advocates as their representatives. This is contrary to rule 19
(5) & 20(1) of the act and is legally not sustainable. This is
against the spirit of the act and I am sure if implemented as such ,
no respondent shall ever come for hearings and only advocates will
appear on the part of respondents and getting information shall
become a distant dream for the common man. Moreover it shall impose
extra burden on state exchequer in the form of payments made to these
advocates. The SIC should stop entry of advocates as representatives
of PIOs & the word "various parties" should be replaced by " the
complainant / appellant to make this rule conforming to rule 19(5) &
20(1) of the act.
- (e) The case of rule 2 ( xviii ) is the same as point no. (c ) of
this letter . unless and until the rules 2008 are not conforming to
the RTI Act 2005 , how come words and expressions not conforming to
the mother act but included in these rules 2008 shall be legally
sustainable. So these rules 2008 shall first conform to the mother
act to have this rule legally sustainable.
- (f) in chapter -3 rule 5 there is no clear mention of working
hours of information commissioners , a factor directly concerned with
the speedy delivery of cases. Moreover to alleviate the problem in
rule 6 there is mention of probable 2-4 weeks summer break and 2
weeks winter break that too when the pendancy of cases is so high in
in SIC U.P.are you going to make it like hon. High court ?
- (g) The RTI Act was made to facilitate a common man to have
information he desires in the simplest possible way and that's why
section 4 , 5 , 6 & 7 of the RTI act are very very friendly to
information seeker and all responsibilities have been fixed with the
PIOs but an indepth look at chapter 4 of rules 2008 would make it
clear that these rules shall snatch the rti tool from the hands of a
common information seeker and it would become very difficult for a
common man to get the information through SIC U. P. Chapter 4 imposes
so much procedural implications on the complainant / appellant that
soon the while filing the complaint/appeal information seeker shall
feel that he is going to file a writ petition in hon'ble high court .
In rule 7 of rules 2008 legal jargons like paperbook etc are used to
complicate the matter for a common-man .
- (h) under rule 8(1) (a) of rules 2008 this is mandatory for the
appellant / complainant to furnish his personal details aprt from his
name and address , a gross violation of the rule 6(2) of the RTI Act
2005 . how can a rule be made against the mother act ?
- ( i ) under rule 8(1) (b) of rules 2008 this is mandatory for the
appellant / complainant to furnish the name of PIO / Appellate
authority. I am sure that even SIC U. P. won't have a list of names
of all the PIOs/ Aas of U. P. How can one expect that a common - man
shall first go from pillar to post of the office to know the NAME of
the pio / aa in the fear that if he does not furnish these names ,
his complaint/appeal is liable to be rejected. Please first ensure
compliance from the government offices , only then expect this from
the complainant. There is minor printing mistake. Please replace
dhara 19(1) by dhara 19 (3).
- (j) under rule 9 ( b ) & 9 ( e ) of rules 2008 this is mandatory
for the appellant / complainant to furnish self-attested copies of
the decisions of the PIOs / A As .Now the fine point is that in all
government offices , the information is furnished by the concerned
section and generally the PIO / AA sends a photocopy of that
information alongwith his covering letter. So until n unless SIC U.
P. ensures that each and every paper sent by PIO / AA bears his
signature and is duly attested , how can it expect that the
information seeker shall self attest anunattested photocopy
furnished by the PIO / AA .
- (k) Rule 11(5) (b) of rules 2008 says registrar can cancel cases
that are not maintainable due to "some " reasons . The
word "some" is ambiguous in nature and is against rule 4(1)(d) of
the act. No decision can be taken arbitrarily. So please elaborate
this word "some " and give details of "specific parameters" based on
which maintainability of the case shall be decided.
- (l)In rule 11 of rules 2008 many ways have been devised to cancel
appeal/complaint on procedural grounds and jargons like " prescribed
proforma " etc. are used that make the implementation of the act
Cumbersome, so far as the information seeker is concerned.
- (m)Rule 12 of rules 2008 that deals with filing of counter by the
PIO /
FAA gives a bunch of relaxations to the pio/faa. As per this
rule
" after getting the complaint / appeal , the PIO / FAA shall submit
his counter ( if there is some ) alongwith concerned documents.
What is the meaning of " Yadi Koi Ho " . When you have rule 10 of
rules 2008 that complainant/ appellant has to send a copy of
complaint / appeal to the PIO / FAA and compulsarily furnish attested
copy of the proof of the same to the SIC while filing the
complaint / appeal then why it is not made mandatory to the PIO/FAA
to file counter ?
Moreover as per rule 12 of rules 2008 " during hearing in commission
GENERALLY the PIO / FAA shall present his view "
When there is clearcut provision in rule 19(5) & 20(1) it is
mandatory for the PIO / FAA to be present before the commission . So
I request you to replace the word " GENERALLY " BY " COMPULSARILY "to
make this rule conforming to the act.
- (n)Rule 15 (5) of rules 2008 says that the commission shall pass
order on the merits of the case. In these rules nowhere I have found
any mention of "SPEAKING ORDER " . This is okay that the commission
shall decide cases based on merits of the case but until n unless the
order is a speaking one which is mandatory as per section 4(1)d of
the act , the merits of the case does not matter at all because in
the absence of speaking orders , the information commissions get the
liberty of passing orders in autocratic way which is against the act.
So please introduce the word " SPEAKING ORDERS " in these rules 2008
at appropriate place with a view to strengthen the act.
- (o)Rule 15 (6) of the rules 2008 says that if both the petitioner
and the respondent remain absent for two consecutive hearings , the
commission shall assume that no party is interested in the case and
the case MAY be cancelled. I am of the view that this is against the
spirit of the act. If the information seeker has sent letter of
section 6 to pio, complaint/appeal to SIC then how come the
commission is assuming that the information seeker is not interested
in the information , that too when the PIO / FAA is absent for two
consecutive hearings ( a fault for which PIO / FAA should be punished
under the provisions of the act , he is being rewarded by cancelling
the complaint/appeal ) please look into the matter and delete this
portion from this clause to make it as per the spirit of the act.
- (p)Rule 17 of rules 2008 states that anyone appellant/complaina nt
or any other party can move application to postpone the hearing .This
rule read with the rule 2(xiv) & rule 12 shall make it almost
impossible to get information in cases where corruption of large
cases shall be exposed because either the PIO / FAA shall be busy in
meeting or the PIO / FAA shall be on tour or the PIO / FAA shall be
on leave or the advocate shall have numerous of excuses we often
watch in our movies. If this clause is incorporated as such , it
would be impossible to get information in most of the cases and the
very purpose of the RTI act shall be defeated in UTTAR PRADESH . So
please have a review of the same.As per the act PIO / FAA has to show
cause of delay in discharge of information after 30 days , so how
come he can be given the right to move an application for
postponement of the hearing for which the petitioner shall be in SIC
at the expense of his own valuable TIME & MONEY. Isn't it inhumane ?
- (q) Rule 21 of the rules 2008 states that keeping in view the
facts & circumstances , the commission can order to "VARIOUS
PARTIES " for payment of such compensation , as the commission deems
fit. Here very cleverly the word "VARIOUS PARTIES " has been
introduced to take the information seeker in the trap . This is done
in gross violation of section 19(8)(b) of the act which states that "
require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any
loss or other detriment suffered" . Please amend the rule so as to
conform to the provisions of the act.
- (r)Rule 22(4 ) of rules 2008 has no specific mention of fee one has
to pay for to get the copy of the order of the Commission. Please
introduce specific details to resolve doubts in this matter.

Please go through suggestions as made above and veed -out the
unwanted and introduce the required facts with a view that these
rules 2008 should not contradict the RTI Act 2005 at all .

Hope a positive response

Thanking you,
Date : 24 - 07 - 2008
Yours Sincerely,

( URVASHI SHARMA )
Social Worker & RTI Activist
456 , BARI BAMAN PURI , BAREILLY - 243003 , UTTAR PRADESH
PH :09305463313
Email:rtimahilamanchup@ gmail.com , rtimahilamanchup@ yahoo.co. in

COPY FOR NECESSARY ACTION AT THEIR END TO -
1. Honb'le President of india , President house , new delhi , india
2. Honb'le The Governor of Uttar Pradesh , Uttar Pradesh
Government ,Lucknow - Uttar Pradesh
3. Honb'le Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh , U. P. Government ,
Lucknow , U. P.

( URVASHI SHARMA )

__._,_.___
Y! Messenger
Host a free online
conference on IM.
10 Day Club
Share the benefits
of a high fiber diet.
Y! Groups blog
for the latest
scoop on Groups.
.

__,_._,___