Sunday, February 20, 2011

For implementation of Section 4(1)(c) & (d) RTI Act through directive under Section 19(8)(a)(iv)

Displaying the only post.[Image]VrashabhThe Copy of the letter written by me is enclosed for ready reference:

Dr. Vrashabh Prasad Jain B-1/23 Sector G Janakipuram, Professor Lucknow-226021 Dated Jan. 7th, 2011
The Chief and other Information Commissioners
Central Information Commission
New Delhi

Hon’ble Sir,
With reference to the CIC’s Directive No CIC/AT/10/000111 dated 15-11-2010 the following points are still to be taken in to consideration for implementation of Section 4 of RTI Act:
1. The above-mentioned directive talks about some part of Section 4, but it does not cover all the aspects covered in Section 4 e.g. it talks Section 4 (1) (a) & (b) it does not talk about Section 4 (1) (c) & (d) which are very crucial with regard to management, maintenance and destruction of record as envisaged in Section 19 (8) (a) (iv) for issuing of direction to public authorities.
2. The above direction is with regard to management and maintenance of record, but it is silent about destruction of record. Meaning thereby, which record is to be maintained and which is not to be maintained and maintenance cannot be complete unless and until it is not clear, which is not to be maintained.
3. Since it is one of the objectives to be achieved by the act is to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and also the 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, therefore the directive must also cover Section 4 (1) (c) & (d) in clear terms.
4. It has also been attested in many cases that the officers working in public authorities knowingly take such decisions which are not reason based and therefore they do not record reasons while making record even in 2010 and these should have been recorded suo-moto mandatorily, thus they obstruct in observance of Section 4(1) (c) & (d) and when an affected person seeks information in this regard, it is informed by PIO as per record that “Reasons Not available on record” and thus unreasonable decisions become the part and parcel of the record of the public authority. This practice of the officers of the public authorities leads towards maintaining unreasonable record and unnecessary burden on the courts and citizens also, which should have been checked by passing the strictures against such officers of the public authority and also by penalty proceedings under Section 20 (1) & (2). The directive should be made clear in this regard also.
5. The directive is also silent on the point whether Transparency Officer as directed could be the part of the penalty proceedings under Section 20 (1) & (2), there should be a clear mention in this regard also in the directive. In case Transparency Officer is kept free from the proceedings under Section 20 (1) & (2), it shall dilute the very purpose of the Act.
In the light of above-mentioned points you are requested to issue modification and clarification or supplementary directive or what-ever order you feel proper to issue.
Yours truly,
(Vrashabh Prasad Jain)
Complainant/Appellant
If any one or organisation supports on the above lines, this applicant shall be oblidged individually

No comments:

Post a Comment