RIGHT TO INFORMATION - 2009 - Indian Social Institute

departments will take a stand that their subordinate offices are separate public authorities and hence
people seeking to know information from the subordinate offices should apply directly to those offices."
Pandian said he would move the High Court on appeal against the state information commission order.
(Times of India 2/3/09)
'Follow RTI or face the consequences' (1)
Mumbai: In what can be termed as a veiled warning to public information officers across the state, chief
information commissioner Suresh Joshi has urged state chief secretary Johny Joseph to ensure that
public servants uphold the spirit of implementation of the RTI Act. In a letter dated February 25, 2009,
Joshi warns public information officers (PIO) to implement RTI Act in its true spirit or face action. Talking
to DNA, state chief information commissioner (SCIC) Dr Suresh Joshi said the reason for writing his letter
was to make the state as perfect as possible. "We get the maximum RTI applications in the world and
there is no reason why we should not be judged as the most transparent state. PIOs are the fulcrum of
the act. If they do not discharge their responsibilities properly, then there is a fine. If PIOs do not give
information on time, it means he is a wilful defaulter. He cannot then say that he did not know the act or
that he/she was not trained. We will strictly implement the procedure of the act," he said. After
approximately four years of the act's existence, the general complaint is that PIOs tend to delay
disbursing info, often claiming a lack of knowledge of the act. Joshi letter, comprising the points that RTI
activist had lobbied for, states that PIOs and the first appellate authorities must be proactive in disbursing
information. The letter adds that in case of any confusion in the application, the PIOs should not hesitate
in calling the applicants for clarity. The letter comes after a meeting Joshi held with all the state
secretaries in small groups over 10 days, during which Joshi told the secretaries about the need to
implement the act faster. Chief secretary Johny Joseph confirmed he had received a letter from Joshi and
that a circular from Joshi had been sent to all the heads of departments. "Basically, they are instructions
why there should not be any delay in the implementation of the act. They in turn will be sending that to all
the PIOs." DNA 2/3/09)
Judges' appointment does not come under RTI: Centre (1)
New Delhi (PTI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday stayed a Central Information Commission order
after the Centre on Wednesday pleaded that documents relating to appointment and transfer of judges
could not be revealed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Challenging the order of CIC which had
asked the government to disclose documents and file-notings on appointment of Chief Justice of
Himachal Pradesh, Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra pleaded that such informations are beyond
the purview of RTI Act. "Correspondence exchanged between constitutional authorities is beyond the
purview of the Act and the commission erred in law by directing to disclose it," the government said in its
petition. Justice S Ravindra Bhat, after hearing his contention, stayed the CIC order and issued notice to
the RTI applicant on whose plea the Commission had passed the direction. The Commission on January
19 had directed the Centre to disclose all information and file notings on appointment of Chief Justice of
Himachal Pradesh Jagdish Bhalla, whose promotion file was returned by former President APJ Abdul
Kalam. (The Hindu 4/3/09)
HC aligns its RTI rules with CIC guidelines (1)
NEW DELHI: After drawing heavy criticism for framing RTI rules that went against the parent Act, the
Delhi High Court, in a major climbdown, has amended some of the rules. Most notably, it has done away
with the requirement that RTI applicants show how they are an "affected party'' while seeking information,
a caveat forbidden by the Act. A notification to this effect has been issued and figures on HC's website
from Thursday. The move is an attempt to allign HC's special RTI rules with the parent Act. TOI had, in
December last year, reported that a judges' committee of HC was reviewing the rules as the Chief Justice
had admitted some of the HC provisions ran contrary to the Act. HC's rules on information sharing have
been repeatedly held to be "in direct conflict with RTI Act'' by the Central Information Commission in its
rulings and has come under severe criticism by RTI activists. In its amendment exercise, HC has deleted
Clause 4 (IV) of RTI rules that permitted it to allow access of information only to "affected persons'' and
deny to those who don't explain their locus on why such an information is required. HC has also tinkered
with Section 5 (A) that exempted it from revealing any information which is "not already in the public
domain''. This meant HC could deny information to a seeker on the ground it was available elsewhere, a
rule frowned upon by transparency advocates. The third key allignment lies in Rule 4 (I) that till now gave