RIGHT TO INFORMATION - 2009 - Indian Social Institute

gave an opinion on his RTI plea, then was also a part of CIC bench that heard his appeal against JNMF's
refusal to disclose information. HC had then asked Habibullah to "consider the appropriateness of his
participation'' in hearing the appeal, suggesting the CIC convene a three commissioner bench to
reconsider the case. Now, apart from appointing a PIO, the trust will also have to furnish the information
asked by Manhas in the RTI. (Times of India 3/6/09)
Govt officer fined for delay in providing info under RTI (1)
New Delhi The CIC has slapped a maximum penalty of Rs 25,000 on an employee of the Ministry of
Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions for not providing information to an RTI applicant on time.
The applicant Mahendra Kumar Gupta had sought some information from Kendriya Bhandar, which is
under the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions. But the Central Public Information
Officer of the department R K Singh provided the information after a delay of 215 days. The information
was to be provided by September 27, 2007, as per provisions of RTI Act. The commission in its order
imposed penalty of Rs 250 per day not exceeding Rs 25,000 as per the provision of RTI Act and directed
the Kendriya Bhandar chairperson to recovered it from Singh's salary either directly or through deducting
Rs 5,000 per month. The CIC in its earlier hearing had directed the department to show cause as to "why
a penalty of Rs 250 per day from the date when information fell due September 27, 2007 to the date
when the information is actually supplied, April 30, 2008, not exceeding Rs 25,000 should not be
imposed." (Indian Express 5/6/09)
Scepticism over move to amend RTI Act (1)
JAIPUR: The vanguards of the country’s transparency movement have expressed apprehension over the
possibility of an amendment in the existing Right to Information Act, 2005. The rather vexing reference to
a “suitable amendment” to the Act had come during the President’s Address in Parliament this past week.
The cause of concern is the chance of any dilution of the Act to the disadvantage of the nation which can
do with a little more of transparency in government functioning. “We don’t think it needs any amendment.
If they want to carry out changes, let it be known to others also,” said Magsaysay Award winner Aruna
Roy, who pioneered the movement for Right to Information, here over the weekend. “The big question is:
if there is such a move, why it is not transparent The present law is based on a draft approved by
various people’s movements,” said Ms. Roy addressing the media with fellow activists on RTI and the
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme . President Pratibha Patil’s reference to the RTI Act came
in her address as part of the United Progressive Alliance Government’s action plan for the next hundred
days. The rather innocuous sounding point said: “Strengthening the Right to Information by suitably
amending the law to provide for disclosure by government in all non-strategic areas.” The point
interestingly followed the one on NREGA which said: “Increasing transparency and public accountability
of NREGA by enforcing social audit and ensuring grievance redressal by setting up district level
ombudsman.” “In the proposal for amendments there is always a scope for suspicion as to why there is
such a move. In case they need to amend the law they should come out in the open about it,” Mr. Roy
pointed out. “The scepticism over any such move is due to the fact that when they tried to do it last time it
turned out to be an attempt at watering down the law. They tried to tamper with the very basics of the
Act,” Nikhil Dey of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan pointed out. “We feel what is needed is strong action
under the existing RTI Act. Both the RTI and NREGA are laws complementing each other. Without
transparency there is no accountability. The effective implementation of NREGA too needs transparency,”
Ms. Roy argued. In fact, what the Government should work on at present was framing of rules for RTI to
remove the ambiguities, she said. (The Hindu 7/6/09)
Mayawati reverses move to ban information disclosure (1)
Lucknow, June 07, 2009: In the face of protest threats, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati on Sunday
partially reversed her move to deny certain disclosures under the Right to Information Act. The reversal
followed widespread criticism of the June 2 notification, which, among other things, had disallowed
disclosing information relating to complaints against ministers or notings and endorsements on secretariat
files. While the notification denied information under 14 heads, nine of them stand removed now. "There
are only five areas about which information would not be made available under the RTI Act. These are -
information relating to appointment of governors, ministers and high court judges, code of conduct for
ministers and material for monthly demi-official letter to be sent to the president of India on behalf of the
governor," Cabinet Secretary Shashank Shekhar Singh told a press conference here. Asked if the state