headers
lokesh batra | 11 Aug 2012 11:52
Picon
Favicon

Amended RTI Rules Promulgated [2 Attachments]

 
[Attachment(s) from lokesh batra included below]

RTI RULES Amended
 
 
Recall I had issued ALERT on the subject on 15 July 2012 (see my post in trail with few attachments):
 
 
Remember 18 months ago on 10th December 2010, DoPT had promulgated "Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules"  that generated lot of heat. Than there was deafning silence.
 
 
Till DoPT replied to my recent RTI of 07 June 2012 that file is with PMO since 11 January 2012. On 11 July 2012 I filed an RTI in PMO to know more about it. Rest is history.  
 
 
 
After I filed an RTI in PMO on 11 July 2012 (where the file was held since 11 January 2012 for PM nod) Govt moved fast and promulgated Amendment to RTI Rules. (RTI response from PMO still awaited. Now CPIO will tell me file is back in DoPT.)
 
 
At this stage I sent my ALERT post : Are we going to get sudden Announcement of "RTI RULES Amended" ?
 
 
YES IT HAS COME TRUE
(Read HT Story of 11 August 2012 below)
 
 
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Govt-puts-limits-on-your-right-to-information/Article1-911648.aspx
 
 
Govt puts limits on your right to information
 
 
Aloke Tikku, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, August 10, 2012
 
 
Now there is a limit to how many questions you can ask under the right to information law.
 
 
The government has introduced a 500-word limit for RTI applications under new rules notified last week and decided to make applicants pay for the postage too if the charges exceed Rs. 50. The Right to Information Rules, 2012 has been in the works for 21 months that saw civil society accuse the government of curbing its right through the backdoor.
 
 
Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) had taken up negotiations with the government on behalf of the civil society. As part of a compromise formula, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), however, has agreed to give up the move to bar applicants from raising more than one subject.
 
 
It was part of the same deal that the NAC agreed to the 500-word limit but emphasised that applications exceeding this limit should not be rejected. The July 31 notification, however, does not explicitly incorporate this disclaimer, leaving applicants at the mercy of government departments.
 
 
Incidentally, the NAC had declared less than four months ago that the new rules “have been put in abeyance”. But the Prime Minister’s Office – which had been holding on to the file since January – appears to have cleared the restrictions.
 
 
Maharashtra CM Prithviraj Chavan, who had pushed the original proposal as the central minister in 2010, has implemented a similar set of “retrograde” rules in the state.
 
 
The new rules also make it mandatory for poorest citizens to produce a BPL certificate every time they seek information to get fee exemption.
 
 
The only positive news is an enabling provision to let applicants pay online if this facility is available with public authorities. Once this facility is set up when the postal department launches online postal orders, NRIs would be able to use the transparency law.
 
 
----------------------
 
 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: xxxxxx 
Cc: xxxx
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 7:09 PM
Subject: ALERT: What's RTI Rules file doing in PMO?

ALERT :What's RTI Rules file doing in PMO?
 
 
I filed an RTI on 07 June 2012 in DOPT to know the status of "Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules" promulgated by DoPT on 10 December 2010. 

 
DoPT in response intimated:
 
 
(a) DoPT File on "Proposed Amendments to RTI Rules" is in PMO since 11 January 2012. 
 
 
(b) The folder on the subject containing Citizens' Suggestion on "Proposed Amendments to RTI Rules" is missing in DoPT. This was told to me even over a year ago when I went to inspect said file on 18 February 2011
 
I have since filed an RTI in PMO on 11 July 2012. (See Attachment PMO RTI (Rules) dt 11 July 2012.
 
 
LETS BE ON ALERT: Are we going to get sudden Announcement of "RTI RULES Amended" ?
 
 
RECAP:
 
 
On 10 December 2010,  DoPT quietly posted on its website (over Weekend) their OM No. 1/35/2008-IR "Proposing Amendment to RTI Rules". DoPT Sought Public Comments by 27 December 2010.
 
 
Alert Citizens' immediately sent ALARM. 
 
 
This generated tremendous heat, criticism both from Media and Civil Society. NAC members & NCPRI held meetings and sent strong opposition to Amendments proposed by DoPT.
 
 
In consultation with others, I carried out Comprehensive Analyses of Proposed Rules Viz Existing Rules. (See attachment (Analyses of Amendment to RTI Rules & Comments).
 
 
On 27 December 2010 the last date for filing comments I forwarded my comments along with Comprehensive Analyses.
 
 
On 29 December 2010, I filed an RTI. (SEE two attachments RTI DoPT - 29 December 2010 & DoPT response on RTI reg Rules)
 
 
On 18 Feb 2011, I carried out file inspection in DoPT and received attached copies in March 2011 (See attachment DoPT file on RTI Rules - Latest Notings-10 March 2011).
 
 
During file inspection I came across a note spelling out views of  Former Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Shri A.P. Shah demolishing the number of key proposals of DoPT especially on Section 6(3) and limitation of words to 250. (SEE attachment Justice AP Shah, Former CJ, Delhi High Court) 
 
 
Earlier DoPT issued another  internal Circular OM.F.1/35/2009-IR  to Ministries/Public Authorities seeking their Comments on Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules. Specific mention was made of limiting RTI to One Subject & 250 Words.    
 
 
It was obvious DoPT tried garning support from Public Authorities  after Public rejected the amendment. (See attachment DoPT OM 27 Dec 2010)
 
 
INTERESTING PART
 
 
Crazy response received from DoPT on my RTI of 29 December 2010 after I sent my comments.
 
 
An RTI was filed on 29 December 2010... seeking information with reference to :(a) DoPT OM No. 1/35/2008-IR dated 10 December 2010 on `Amendment to RTI Rules (b) My email letter dated 27 December 2010 regarding forwarding my comments (by Email) (See below this mail). 
 
 
Few Salient Queries viz DoPT Responses
 
 
Point (a) of my Query:
 
"The date when my above mentioned letter of 27 December 2010 (with its 29 pages enclosure) is diarised in DoPT. Please provide me diary number and also file No. on which it has been placed and being processed."
 
CPIO DoPT Response on Point (a) :
 
"Due to Administrative reasons the communication under reference was not diarised and it was placed in folder."
 
My Comments on DoPT response on Point (a)
 
By not maintaining records of communication received, the public authority (DoPT) is not only flouting the office procedure of record maintenance but also violating the section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act below.
 
Read below section 4(1)(a) of RTI Act 2005.
 
4(1)Every public authority shall—
 
(a)maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;
 
Point (b) of my Query :
 
"In response to DoPT's OM of 10 December 2010 mentioned above, please provide information on total number of comments received in DoPT of which how many received by (a) by Emails and how many (b) by post or fax and how many (c) hand delivered?"
 
CPIO DoPT Response on point (b) :
 
"In the light of the extant provisions under sub-section 9 of section 7 of the RTI Act. 2005 the information can not be provided. However you are welcome to have inspection of these responses."
 
My Comments on DoPT response on Point (b)
 
Section 7(9) of RTI Act reads:
 
"An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question."
 
My take : The said query is seeking information in terms of NUMBER of responses received in the public authority, it is not understood how it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or can become detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question?
 
Point (c) of my Query :
 
Please provide me list of file/files with reference number(s) on which the comments received in response to said DoPT’s OM of 10 Dec 2010, are being processed.
 
CPIO DoPT Response on Point (c)
 
F.No.1/35/2009-IR
 
Point (d) of my Query :
 
Please intimate the laid down procedure/policy of government (DoPT) (if any) for processing the comments received in response to said DoPT's OM of 10 Dec 2010.
 
CPIO DoPT Response on Point (d)
 
"No specific procedure/policy has been laid down for processing the comments to the said OM."
 
Point (e) of my Query :
 
I would also like to inspect all the files concerned with the said issue including the one where the requirement of amending RTI Rules was triggered and processed and consequently said DoPT OM of 10 Dec 2010 issued. At that stage, I will take attested copies of the relevant documents and notings in the file(s) as required. Please inform the date and time for the inspection of the files.
 
CPIO DoPT Response on Point (e)
 
Friday 18th February 2011 at 03.30 p.m.
 
My Comments on DoPT response on Point (e)
 
As per schedule given by CPIO in his RTI response I visited DoPT to inspect file(s) and the folder containg my comments/public comments received by emails.
 
Folders containg public comments not made available.
 
While the file F.No.1/35/2009-IR was made available for inspection, the so called 'FOLDER'
containg my my comments/public comments was not made available for inspection. The excuse given is that the said folder was with Director(RTI) and not available due to shifting of some offices.
 
Since 18 Feb 2011, inspite of many telephonic reminders...CPIO has one answer that folder has not been received in his office.
 
Even the attested copies of 49 Pages of File Notings and Justice Shah comments on file requested by me have been received by me on 08 March 2011 by ordinary Dak.
 
Some time I wonder if the comments sent by me and Public by Email, were ever down loaded by DoPT.
 
 
Below in trail you may like to read my archive mails of 11 December 2010 sending my initial comments and also of 27 December 2010 sending final comments by Emails.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------
---- Forwarded Message ----
From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
Cc: secy_mop-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; jsata-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; dirrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; Lokesh Batra <lkbatra-QOiod4cnrWAN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 3:06:40 PM
Subject: Comments on Amendment to RTI Rules by Commodore Lokesh K Batra (Retd.)

By Email only
(Signed and scanned copy of this Email letter attached as pdf file)
 
 
27 December 2010                                                 Total : 03 pages
 
Shri R.K. Girdhar
Under Secretary (RTI)
Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
Room No. 7 ‘B’,
North Block,
New Delhi - 110001
 
 
Tele: 011-23092759, E-mail : usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org 
 
 
Cc:  secy_mop-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; jsata-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; dirrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org 
 
 
                    Sub : Comments : Amendment to RTI Rules 
 
 
Dear Sir,
 
 
1.    Kindly refer to DoPT OM No. 1/35/2008-IR dated 10 December 2010 on the above subject.
 
 
2.       My first comments on the proposed RTI Rules were mailed to you on December 11, 2010 (see below). I still hold the same views that notification gets limited to only those who are Internet friendly and two weeks time given to spread the message among citizens by RTI campaigner and get their views and in specific from rural areas, is not at all adequate. Recommend the date for forwarding comments be extended.
 
 
3.       I have since carried out a comprehensive Analyses of Relevant 'Sections of the RTI Act' Viz 'Existing Rules' Viz. 'Proposed Rules', all reproduced at one place along with my Comments, making it easy to understand the impact of the 'Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules'. A pdf file consisting of my 29 pages Analyses and my Comments/ observation/Recommendations, is attached.
 
 
4.       While details are given in my attached document, I am of the view that the proposed amendments have far reaching implications towards diluting the RTI act. Few of my observations are given in succeeding paragraphs.
 
 
5.       Though the Act is Aam Aadmi friendly … proposed Rules make it Government friendly. Some of the Rules being framed are not only contravening the provisions of RTI Act but also killing the true spirit of the RTI Act, enshrined in its Preamble.
 
 
6.       Serious Implications of Proposed Rules : Beside placing restrictions of one subject and 250 words RTI, and additional cost of providing information and postal charges beyond Rs.10/- for PIO response. The proposed RTI Rules, if implemented will not only have far reaching implications but also lead to end of the road for the RTI Act.
 
 
To Quote Few:
 
 
(a) The facility for filing RTIs through the designated APIOs of the Post Offices spread across the country, by paying RTI fee in the post office, will no more be available. Proposed Rule contravenes RTI Section 6(1)(b) by stating RTI fee is to be paid only to APIO of public authority.
 
 
(b) The Commissions are being now rigidly structured like Courts that will make life difficult for Aam Aadmi to follow his/her appeal. Either people will stop filing appeals or it will generate breed of professionals (Agents) charging consultancy fee. 
 
 
(c) The act says information is to be provided as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 30 days. The limit set for Rs.10/- for postal charges means information will be sent by ordinary post under certificate of posting. This means delays in getting information beyond stipulated 30 days. Provided the response letter does not get lost in ordinary Dak (post). That will add to controversial exchange of letters between applicant and public authority and lose of time and cost.
 
 
(d) The new rule suggesting payment of Fee though electronic means is subject to Public Authority having facility for receiving fee through electronic means.
 
 
In September 2010 the Secretary, Department of Posts, in response to letter from the Secretary DoPT of 16 August 2010, had offered facility of electronic payment of RTI Fee thru their virtual post offices; DoPT is yet to accept it. If Department of Posts takes the responsibility, it will be secure and the department with largest spread of post offices will be easily accessible and also accountable.
 
 
(e) Proposed rigid procedure for filing First Appeal to an officer senior to PIO of the same Public authority being introduced. Will lead to unnecessary paper work and cost to ‘Aam Aadmi’ wasting national resources.
 
 
Much Serious Implications
 
 
(f)  The proposed Rules for Appeal to Commission has been made in favour of public authorities and taken away the existing rights/privileges of Aam Aadmi.
 
 
For Example:
 
(i) Commissions being located in New Delhi, the citizens’ have to travel to Delhi from across the country for attending hearings and that too at personal cost while CPIOs travel at tax-payers cost. It was expected that Commissioners can take decision based on the case filed by an Appellant. 
 
 
Therefore, in existing Rule, the Citizens’ were given choice to attend, send authorised representative or Opt not to attend.
 
 
In proposed Rule, the Option for ‘Aam Aadmi’ not to attend hearing has been withdrawn. Now either people will stop filing appeals or it will generate breed of professionals (Agents) charging consultancy fee who will represent an appellant, during hearings.
 
 
(ii) The existing Rule permitted ‘Aam Aadmi’ to take assistance for presenting the case during hearing has been seen withdrawn in proposed Rules. 
 
 
Instead a new Rule has been introduced violating the provision of RTI Act, Section-19(5) that says "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request." 
 
 
In proposed Rule, the CPIO need not be present during hearing in Commission and instead public authority can depute a representative or any other official. The result will be Lawyers could represent the CPIOs at tax-payers cost or very junior official will be deputed by public authority, contravening the act.
 
 
This is biggest anomaly in new Rules. Now an ‘Aam Aadmi’ who may be an illiterate could be facing Lawyers, as now under new Rules Appellant/complainant is not allowed to take assistance during hearing for presenting his/her case.
 
 
(iii) The facility for hearing through Audio Conference stands withdrawn. Even hearing thru Video conference will be subject to Commission’s’ approval.
 
 (g) There are many other anomalies in the Proposed Rules. Here, I have highlighted few glaring ones that in my perception will kill RTI act.
 
 
(h) Additional Rules: On the other hand there are many issues missing in proposed Rules those require formulation of Rules.
 
 
7.       Two pdf files consisting of (a) signed and scanned copy of this three pages E-mail letter of 27 December 2010 and (b) my 29 pages Analyses and Comments/ observation/Recommendations, respectively are attached.
 
 
8.       All my communications are in public domain.
 
 
9.       Would appreciate acknowledging the receipt of this E-mail letter along with two attachments. 
 
 
Thanking you,
 
Yours’ Sincerely,
 
Lokesh
{Commodore Lokesh. K. Batra (Retd.)}
BringChangeNow
xxxxxxxx
 
From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
Cc: secy_mop-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; jsata-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; dirrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
Sent: Sat, December 11, 2010 5:43:20 PM
Subject: First Comments on Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules

11 December 2010
 
 
Shri R.K. Girdhar
Under Secretary (RTI)
Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
Room No. 7 ‘B’, North Block,
Central Secretariate
New Delhi - 110001 
 
 
Tele: 011-23092759, E-mail : usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org 
 
 
          Sub :  First Comments : Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules 
 
 
Dear Shri Giridhar ji,
 
 
1.    Kindly refer to DoPT OM dated 10 December 2010 on above subject, my first comments on the proposed RTI Rules are given in succeding paragraphs.
 
 
2.    I am glad that Govt has sought  comments from Civil Society is in accordance with Section-4(1)(c) of the RTI Act.
 
 
3.    However this notification gets limited to only those who are Internet friendly and that too only two weeks time given to spread the message among citizens by RTI campaigner and get their views.
 
 
4.    What about views from the rest and rural areas. Certainly not giving wide coverage to notification is a violation of Sections 4(2) to 4(4) of RTI Act?
 
 
5.    I am also surprised that there is no PRESS RELEASE issued so far.
 
 
6.    On first look I can say that the proposed rules are not people friendly and it is going to dilute the Act . We need to analyse not only CHANGES but also OMISSIONS in the proposed RTI Rules.
 
 
7.    Will post comprehensive comments in due course.
 
 
Thanking you, 
 
Yours’ Sincerely,
{Commodore Lokesh. K. Batra (Retd.)}
Social & RTI Activist
BringChangeNow
H-02, Sector-25, Jalvayu Vihar
Noida-201301 (UP)                    
 
 Phone :0120 – 2538939,  Email IDs :  batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQ@public.gmane.orgm










__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from lokesh batra

2 of 2 File(s)

DoPT
PMO
Recent Activity:
    .

    __,_._,___
    Permalink | Reply |
    headers
    urvashi sharma | 11 Aug 2012 13:46
    Picon

    Re: Amended RTI Rules Promulgated

     

    batraji,

    its really painful to see that the government is playing such a dirty
    game with the citizen of india.

    i wonder what is NAC doing right now?

    regards

    urvashi

    On 8/11/12, lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
    >
    >
    > RTI RULES Amended
    >
    >
    >
    > Recall I had issued ALERT on the subject on 15 July 2012 (see my post in
    > trail with few attachments):
    >
    >
    > Remember 18 months ago on 10th December 2010, DoPT had promulgated "Proposed
    > Amendment to RTI Rules" that generated lot of heat. Than there was deafning
    > silence.
    >
    >
    > Till DoPT replied to my recent RTI of 07 June 2012 that file is with PMO
    > since 11 January 2012. On 11 July 2012 I filed an RTI in PMO to know more
    > about it. Rest is history.
    >
    >
    >
    > After I filed an RTI in PMO on 11 July 2012 (where the file was held since
    > 11 January 2012 for PM nod) Govt moved fast and promulgated Amendment to RTI
    > Rules. (RTI response from PMO still awaited. Now CPIO will tell me file is
    > back in DoPT.)
    >
    >
    > At this stage I sent my ALERT post : Are we going to get sudden Announcement
    > of "RTI RULES Amended" ?
    >
    >
    > YES IT HAS COME TRUE
    > (Read HT Story of 11 August 2012 below)
    >
    >
    > http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Govt-puts-limits-on-your-right-to-information/Article1-911648.aspx
    >
    >
    > Govt puts limits on your right to information
    >
    >
    > Aloke Tikku, Hindustan Times
    > New Delhi, August 10, 2012
    >
    >
    > Now there is a limit to how many questions you can ask under the right to
    > information law.
    >
    >
    > The government has introduced a 500-word limit for RTI
    > applications under new rules notified last week and decided to make
    > applicants
    > pay for the postage too if the charges exceed Rs. 50. The Right to
    > Information Rules, 2012 has been in the works for 21 months that saw civil
    > society accuse the government of curbing its right through the backdoor.
    >
    >
    > Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) had taken up negotiations
    > with the government on behalf of the civil society. As part of a compromise
    >
    > formula, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), however, has
    > agreed to
    > give up the move to bar applicants from raising more than one subject.
    >
    >
    > It was part of the same deal that the NAC agreed to the 500-word limit but
    > emphasised that applications exceeding this limit should not be rejected.
    > The
    > July 31 notification, however, does not explicitly incorporate this
    > disclaimer,
    > leaving applicants at the mercy of government departments.
    >
    >
    > Incidentally, the NAC had declared less than four months ago that the new
    > rules “have been put in abeyance”. But the Prime Minister’s Office – which
    > had
    > been holding on to the file since January – appears to have cleared the
    > restrictions.
    >
    >
    > Maharashtra CM Prithviraj Chavan, who had pushed the original proposal as
    > the
    > central minister in 2010, has implemented a similar set of “retrograde”
    > rules in
    > the state.
    >
    >
    > The new rules also make it mandatory for poorest citizens to produce a BPL
    > certificate every time they seek information to get fee exemption.
    >
    >
    > The only positive news is an enabling provision to let applicants pay online
    >
    > if this facility is available with public authorities. Once this facility is
    > set
    > up when the postal department launches online postal orders, NRIs would be
    > able
    > to use the transparency law.
    >
    >
    > ----------------------
    >
    >
    > ----- Forwarded Message -----
    > From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
    > To: xxxxxx
    > Cc: xxxx
    > Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 7:09 PM
    > Subject: ALERT: What's RTI Rules file doing in PMO?
    >
    >
    > ALERT :What's RTI Rules file doing in PMO?
    >
    >
    > I filed an RTI on 07 June 2012 in DOPT to know the status of "Proposed
    > Amendment to RTI Rules" promulgated by DoPT on 10 December 2010.
    >
    >
    > DoPT in response intimated:
    >
    >
    > (a) DoPT File on "Proposed Amendments to RTI Rules" is in PMO since 11
    > January 2012.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>(b) The folder on the subject containing Citizens' Suggestion on
    >>>> "Proposed Amendments to RTI Rules"is missing in DoPT. This was told to
    >>>> me even over a year ago when I went to inspect said file on 18 February
    >>>> 2011
    >
    > I have since filed an RTI in PMO on 11 July 2012. (See Attachment PMO RTI
    > (Rules) dt 11 July 2012.
    >
    >
    > LETS BE ON ALERT: Are we going to get sudden Announcement of "RTI RULES
    > Amended" ?
    >
    >
    > RECAP:
    >
    > On 10 December 2010, DoPT quietly posted on its website (over Weekend)
    > their OM No. 1/35/2008-IR "Proposing Amendment to RTI Rules". DoPT Sought
    > Public Comments by 27 December 2010.
    >
    >
    > Alert Citizens' immediately sent ALARM.
    >
    >
    > This generated tremendous heat, criticism both from Media and Civil Society.
    > NAC members & NCPRI held meetings and sent strong opposition to Amendments
    > proposed by DoPT.
    >
    >
    > In consultation with others, I carried out Comprehensive Analyses of
    > Proposed Rules Viz Existing Rules. (See attachment (Analyses of Amendment to
    > RTI Rules & Comments).
    >
    >
    > On 27 December 2010 the last date for filing comments I forwarded my
    > comments along with Comprehensive Analyses.
    >
    >
    > On 29 December 2010, I filed an RTI. (SEE two attachments RTI DoPT - 29
    > December 2010 & DoPT response on RTI reg Rules)
    >
    >
    > On 18 Feb 2011, I carried out file inspection in DoPT and received attached
    > copies in March 2011 (See attachment DoPT file on RTI Rules - Latest
    > Notings-10 March 2011).
    >
    >
    > During file inspection I came across a note spelling out views of Former
    > Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Shri A.P. Shah demolishing the
    > number of key proposals of DoPT especially on Section 6(3) and limitation of
    > words to 250.(SEE attachment Justice AP Shah, Former CJ, Delhi High Court)
    >
    >
    > Earlier DoPT issued another internal Circular OM.F.1/35/2009-IR to
    > Ministries/Public Authorities seeking their Comments on Proposed Amendment
    > to RTI Rules. Specific mention was made of limiting RTI to One Subject & 250
    > Words.
    >
    >
    > It was obvious DoPT tried garning support from Public Authorities after
    > Public rejected the amendment. (See attachment DoPT OM 27 Dec 2010)
    >
    >
    > INTERESTING PART
    >
    >
    > Crazy response received from DoPT on my RTI of 29 December 2010 after I sent
    > my comments.
    >
    >
    > An RTI was filed on 29 December 2010... seeking information with reference
    > to :(a) DoPT OM No. 1/35/2008-IR dated 10 December 2010 on `Amendment to RTI
    > Rules (b) My email letter dated 27 December 2010 regarding forwarding my
    > comments (by Email) (See below this mail).
    >
    >
    > Few Salient Queries viz DoPT Responses
    >
    >
    > Point (a) of my Query:
    >
    > "The date when my above mentioned letter of 27 December 2010 (with its 29
    > pages enclosure) is diarised in DoPT. Please provide me diary number and
    > also file No. on which it has been placed and being processed."
    >
    > CPIO DoPT Response on Point (a) :
    >
    > "Due to Administrative reasons the communication under reference was not
    > diarised and it was placed in folder."
    >
    > My Comments on DoPT response on Point (a)
    >
    > By not maintaining records of communication received, the public authority
    > (DoPT) is not only flouting the office procedure of record maintenance but
    > also violating the section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act below.
    >
    > Read below section 4(1)(a) of RTI Act 2005.
    >
    > 4(1)Every public authority shall—
    >
    > (a)maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the
    > form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure
    > that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a
    > reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and
    > connected through a network all over the country on different systems so
    > that access to such records is facilitated;
    >
    > Point (b) of my Query :
    >
    > "In response to DoPT's OM of 10 December 2010 mentioned above, please
    > provide information on total number of comments received in DoPT of which
    > how many received by (a) by Emails and how many (b) by post or fax and how
    > many (c) hand delivered?"
    >
    > CPIO DoPT Response on point (b) :
    >
    > "In the light of the extant provisions under sub-section 9 of section 7 of
    > the RTI Act. 2005 the information can not be provided. However you are
    > welcome to have inspection of these responses."
    >
    > My Comments on DoPT response on Point (b)
    >
    > Section 7(9) of RTI Act reads:
    >
    > "An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is
    > sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public
    > authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the
    > record in question."
    >
    > My take : The said query is seeking information in terms of NUMBER of
    > responses received in the public authority, it is not understood how it
    > would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or can
    > become detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question?
    >
    > Point (c) of my Query :
    >
    > Please provide me list of file/files with reference number(s) on which the
    > comments received in response to said DoPT’s OM of 10 Dec 2010, are being
    > processed.
    >
    > CPIO DoPT Response on Point (c)
    >
    > F.No.1/35/2009-IR
    >
    > Point (d) of my Query :
    >
    > Please intimate the laid down procedure/policy of government (DoPT) (if any)
    > for processing the comments received in response to said DoPT's OM of 10 Dec
    > 2010.
    >
    > CPIO DoPT Response on Point (d)
    >
    > "No specific procedure/policy has been laid down for processing the comments
    > to the said OM."
    >
    > Point (e) of my Query :
    >
    > I would also like to inspect all the files concerned with the said issue
    > including the one where the requirement of amending RTI Rules was triggered
    > and processed and consequently said DoPT OM of 10 Dec 2010 issued. At that
    > stage, I will take attested copies of the relevant documents and notings in
    > the file(s) as required. Please inform the date and time for the inspection
    > of the files.
    >
    > CPIO DoPT Response on Point (e)
    >
    > Friday 18th February 2011 at 03.30 p.m.
    >
    > My Comments on DoPT response on Point (e)
    >
    > As per schedule given by CPIO in his RTI response I visited DoPT to inspect
    > file(s) and the folder containg my comments/public comments received by
    > emails.
    >
    > Folders containg public comments not made available.
    >
    > While the file F.No.1/35/2009-IR was made available for inspection, the so
    > called 'FOLDER'
    > containg my my comments/public comments was not made available for
    > inspection. The excuse given is that the said folder was with Director(RTI)
    > and not available due to shifting of some offices.
    >
    > Since 18 Feb 2011, inspite of many telephonic reminders...CPIO has one
    > answer that folder has not been received in his office.
    >
    > Even the attested copies of 49 Pages of File Notings and Justice Shah
    > comments on file requested by me have been received by me on 08 March 2011
    > by ordinary Dak.
    >
    > Some time I wonder if the comments sent by me and Public by Email, were ever
    > down loaded by DoPT.
    >
    >
    > Below in trail you may like to read my archive mails of 11 December 2010
    > sending my initial comments and also of 27 December 2010 sending final
    > comments by Emails.
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------
    > ---- Forwarded Message ----
    > From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
    > To: usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
    > Cc: secy_mop-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; jsata-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; dirrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; Lokesh Batra
    > <lkbatra-QOiod4cnrWAN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
    > Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 3:06:40 PM
    > Subject: Comments on Amendment to RTI Rules by Commodore Lokesh K Batra
    > (Retd.)
    >
    >
    > By Email only
    > (Signed and scanned copy of this Email letter attached as pdf file)
    >
    >
    > 27 December 2010 Total : 03
    > pages
    >
    > Shri R.K. Girdhar
    > Under Secretary (RTI)
    > Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
    > Room No. 7 ‘B’,
    > North Block,
    > New Delhi- 110001
    >
    >
    > Tele: 011-23092759, E-mail : usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
    >
    >
    > Cc: secy_mop-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; jsata-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; dirrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
    >
    >
    > Sub : Comments : Amendment to RTI Rules
    >
    >
    > Dear Sir,
    >
    >
    > 1. Kindly refer to DoPT OM No. 1/35/2008-IR dated 10 December 2010 on the
    > above subject.
    >
    >
    > 2. My first comments on the proposed RTI Rules were mailed to you on
    > December 11, 2010 (see below). I still hold the same views that notification
    > gets limited to only those who are Internet friendly and two weeks time
    > given to spread the message among citizens by RTI campaigner and get their
    > views and in specific from rural areas, is not at all adequate. Recommend
    > the date for forwarding comments be extended.
    >
    >
    > 3. I have since carried out a comprehensive Analyses of Relevant
    > 'Sections of the RTI Act' Viz 'Existing Rules' Viz. 'Proposed Rules', all
    > reproduced at one place along with my Comments, making it easy to understand
    > the impact of the 'Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules'. A pdf file consisting
    > of my 29 pages Analyses and my Comments/ observation/Recommendations, is
    > attached.
    >
    >
    > 4. While details are given in my attached document, I am of the view
    > that the proposed amendments have far reaching implications towards diluting
    > the RTI act. Few of my observations are given in succeeding paragraphs.
    >
    >
    > 5. Though the Act is Aam Aadmi friendly … proposed Rules make it
    > Government friendly. Some of the Rules being framed are not only
    > contravening the provisions of RTI Act but also killing the true spirit of
    > the RTI Act, enshrined in its Preamble.
    >
    >
    > 6. Serious Implications of Proposed Rules : Beside placing
    > restrictions of one subject and 250 words RTI, and additional cost of
    > providing information and postal charges beyond Rs.10/- for PIO response.
    > The proposed RTI Rules, if implemented will not only have far reaching
    > implications but also lead to end of the road for the RTI Act.
    >
    >
    > To Quote Few:
    >
    >
    > (a) The facility for filing RTIs through the designated APIOs of the Post
    > Offices spread across the country, by paying RTI fee in the post office,
    > will no more be available. Proposed Rule contravenes RTI Section 6(1)(b) by
    > stating RTI fee is to be paid only to APIO of public authority.
    >
    >
    > (b) The Commissions are being now rigidly structured like Courts that will
    > make life difficult for Aam Aadmi to follow his/her appeal. Either people
    > will stop filing appeals or it will generate breed of professionals (Agents)
    > charging consultancy fee.
    >
    >
    > (c) The act says information is to be provided as expeditiously as possible
    > and in any case within 30 days. The limit set for Rs.10/- for postal charges
    > means information will be sent by ordinary post under certificate of
    > posting. This means delays in getting information beyond stipulated 30 days.
    > Provided the response letter does not get lost in ordinary Dak (post). That
    > will add to controversial exchange of letters between applicant and public
    > authority and lose of time and cost.
    >
    >
    > (d) The new rule suggesting payment of Fee though electronic means is
    > subject to Public Authority having facility for receiving fee through
    > electronic means.
    >
    >
    > In September 2010 the Secretary, Department of Posts, in response to letter
    > from the Secretary DoPT of 16 August 2010, had offered facility of
    > electronic payment of RTI Fee thru their virtual post offices; DoPT is yet
    > to accept it. If Department of Posts takes the responsibility, it will be
    > secure and the department with largest spread of post offices will be easily
    > accessible and also accountable.
    >
    >
    > (e) Proposed rigid procedure for filing First Appeal to an officer senior to
    > PIO of the same Public authority being introduced. Will lead to unnecessary
    > paper work and cost to ‘Aam Aadmi’ wasting national resources.
    >
    >
    > Much Serious Implications
    >
    >
    > (f) The proposed Rules for Appeal to Commission has been made in favour of
    > public authorities and taken away the existing rights/privileges of Aam
    > Aadmi.
    >
    >
    > For Example:
    >
    > (i) Commissions being located in New Delhi, the citizens’ have to travel to
    > Delhi from across the country for attending hearings and that too at
    > personal cost while CPIOs travel at tax-payers cost. It was expected that
    > Commissioners can take decision based on the case filed by an Appellant.
    >>
    >>
    >>Therefore, in existing Rule, the Citizens’ were given choice to attend,
    >> send authorised representative or Opt not to attend.
    >>
    >>
    >>In proposed Rule, the Option for ‘Aam Aadmi’ not to attend hearing has been
    >> withdrawn. Now either people will stop filing appeals or it will generate
    >> breed of professionals (Agents) charging consultancy fee who will
    >> represent an appellant, during hearings.
    >>
    >>
    >>(ii) The existing Rule permitted ‘Aam Aadmi’ to take assistance for
    >> presenting the case during hearing has been seen withdrawn in proposed
    >> Rules.
    >>
    >>
    >>Instead a new Rule has been introduced violating the provision of RTI Act,
    >> Section-19(5) that says "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that
    >> a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public
    >> Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may
    >> be, who denied the request."
    >>
    >>
    >>In proposed Rule, the CPIO need not be present during hearing in Commission
    >> and instead public authority can depute a representative or any other
    >> official. The result will be Lawyers could represent the CPIOs at
    >> tax-payers cost or very junior official will be deputed by public
    >> authority, contravening the act.
    >>
    >>
    >>This is biggest anomaly in new Rules. Now an ‘Aam Aadmi’ who may be an
    >> illiterate could be facing Lawyers, as now under new Rules
    >> Appellant/complainant is not allowed to take assistance during hearing for
    >> presenting his/her case.
    >>
    >>
    >>(iii) The facility for hearing through Audio Conference stands withdrawn.
    >> Even hearing thru Video conference will be subject to Commission’s’
    >> approval.
    >>
    > (g) There are many other anomalies in the Proposed Rules. Here, I have
    > highlighted few glaring ones that in my perception will kill RTI act.
    >
    >
    > (h) Additional Rules: On the other hand there are many issues missing in
    > proposed Rules those require formulation of Rules.
    >
    >
    > 7. Two pdf files consisting of (a) signed and scanned copy of this
    > three pages E-mail letter of 27 December 2010 and (b) my 29 pages Analyses
    > and Comments/ observation/Recommendations, respectively are attached.
    >
    >
    > 8. All my communications are in public domain.
    >
    >
    > 9. Would appreciate acknowledging the receipt of this E-mail letter
    > along with two attachments.
    >
    >
    > Thanking you,
    >
    > Yours’ Sincerely,
    >
    > Lokesh
    > {Commodore Lokesh. K. Batra (Retd.)}
    > BringChangeNow
    > xxxxxxxx
    >
    >
    > ________________________________
    > From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
    > To: usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
    > Cc: secy_mop-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; jsata-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; dirrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
    > Sent: Sat, December 11, 2010 5:43:20 PM
    > Subject: First Comments on Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules
    >
    >
    > 11 December 2010
    >
    >
    > Shri R.K. Girdhar
    > Under Secretary (RTI)
    > Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
    > Room No. 7 ‘B’, North Block,
    > Central Secretariate
    > New Delhi- 110001
    >
    >
    > Tele: 011-23092759, E-mail : usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
    >
    >
    > Sub : First Comments : Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules
    >
    >
    > Dear Shri Giridhar ji,
    >
    >
    > 1. Kindly refer to DoPT OM dated 10 December 2010 on above subject, my
    > first comments on the proposed RTI Rules are given in succeding paragraphs.
    >
    >
    > 2. I am glad that Govt has sought comments from Civil Society is in
    > accordance with Section-4(1)(c) of the RTI Act.
    >
    >
    > 3. However this notification gets limited to only those who are Internet
    > friendly and that too only two weeks time given to spread the message among
    > citizens by RTI campaigner and get their views.
    >
    >
    > 4. What about views from the rest and rural areas. Certainly not giving
    > wide coverage to notification is a violation of Sections 4(2) to 4(4) of RTI
    > Act?
    >
    >
    > 5. I am also surprised that there is no PRESS RELEASE issued so far.
    >
    >
    > 6. On first look I can say that the proposed rules are not people
    > friendly and it is going to dilute the Act . We need to analyse not only
    > CHANGES but also OMISSIONS in the proposed RTI Rules.
    >
    >
    > 7. Will post comprehensive comments in due course.
    >
    >
    > Thanking you,
    >
    > Yours’ Sincerely,
    > {Commodore Lokesh. K. Batra (Retd.)}
    > Social & RTI Activist
    > BringChangeNow
    > H-02, Sector-25, Jalvayu Vihar
    > Noida-201301 (UP)
    >
    > Phone :0120 – 2538939, Email IDs : batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org

    --
    - Urvashi Sharma
    Right to Information Helpline 8081898081
    Helpline Against Corruption 9455553838
    http://yaishwaryaj-seva-sansthan.hpage.co.in/

    __._,_.___
    Recent Activity:
      .

      __,_._,___
      Permalink | Reply |
      headers
      Vikram Simha | 11 Aug 2012 13:57
      Picon
      Favicon

      Re: Amended RTI Rules Promulgated

       

      I read that this Ammendement was notified on 31st july 2012 if so is it to call for objections or have they gazetted it without calling objections ?
      Normally they provide 15 days for objections to be filed and in very extraordinary situations 30 days

      N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.

      --- On Sat, 11/8/12, urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

      From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
      Subject: Re: [AntiBriberyCampaign] Amended RTI Rules Promulgated
      To: antibriberycampaign <at> yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, 11 August, 2012, 5:16 PM

       
      batraji,

      its really painful to see that the government is playing such a dirty
      game with the citizen of india.

      i wonder what is NAC doing right now?

      regards

      urvashi

      On 8/11/12, lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
      >
      >
      > RTI RULES Amended
      >
      >
      >
      > Recall I had issued ALERT on the subject on 15 July 2012 (see my post in
      > trail with few attachments):
      >
      >
      > Remember 18 months ago on 10th December 2010, DoPT had promulgated "Proposed
      > Amendment to RTI Rules" that generated lot of heat. Than there was deafning
      > silence.
      >
      >
      > Till DoPT replied to my recent RTI of 07 June 2012 that file is with PMO
      > since 11 January 2012. On 11 July 2012 I filed an RTI in PMO to know more
      > about it. Rest is history.
      >
      >
      >
      > After I filed an RTI in PMO on 11 July 2012 (where the file was held since
      > 11 January 2012 for PM nod) Govt moved fast and promulgated Amendment to RTI
      > Rules. (RTI response from PMO still awaited. Now CPIO will tell me file is
      > back in DoPT.)
      >
      >
      > At this stage I sent my ALERT post : Are we going to get sudden Announcement
      > of "RTI RULES Amended" ?
      >
      >
      > YES IT HAS COME TRUE
      > (Read HT Story of 11 August 2012 below)
      >
      >
      > http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Govt-puts-limits-on-your-right-to-information/Article1-911648.aspx
      >
      >
      > Govt puts limits on your right to information
      >
      >
      > Aloke Tikku, Hindustan Times
      > New Delhi, August 10, 2012
      >
      >
      > Now there is a limit to how many questions you can ask under the right to
      > information law.
      >
      >
      > The government has introduced a 500-word limit for RTI
      > applications under new rules notified last week and decided to make
      > applicants
      > pay for the postage too if the charges exceed Rs. 50. The Right to
      > Information Rules, 2012 has been in the works for 21 months that saw civil
      > society accuse the government of curbing its right through the backdoor.
      >
      >
      > Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) had taken up negotiations
      > with the government on behalf of the civil society. As part of a compromise
      >
      > formula, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), however, has
      > agreed to
      > give up the move to bar applicants from raising more than one subject.
      >
      >
      > It was part of the same deal that the NAC agreed to the 500-word limit but
      > emphasised that applications exceeding this limit should not be rejected.
      > The
      > July 31 notification, however, does not explicitly incorporate this
      > disclaimer,
      > leaving applicants at the mercy of government departments.
      >
      >
      > Incidentally, the NAC had declared less than four months ago that the new
      > rules “have been put in abeyance”. But the Prime Minister’s Office – which
      > had
      > been holding on to the file since January – appears to have cleared the
      > restrictions.
      >
      >
      > Maharashtra CM Prithviraj Chavan, who had pushed the original proposal as
      > the
      > central minister in 2010, has implemented a similar set of “retrograde”
      > rules in
      > the state.
      >
      >
      > The new rules also make it mandatory for poorest citizens to produce a BPL
      > certificate every time they seek information to get fee exemption.
      >
      >
      > The only positive news is an enabling provision to let applicants pay online
      >
      > if this facility is available with public authorities. Once this facility is
      > set
      > up when the postal department launches online postal orders, NRIs would be
      > able
      > to use the transparency law.
      >
      >
      > ----------------------
      >
      >
      > ----- Forwarded Message -----
      > From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
      > To: xxxxxx
      > Cc: xxxx
      > Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 7:09 PM
      > Subject: ALERT: What's RTI Rules file doing in PMO?
      >
      >
      > ALERT :What's RTI Rules file doing in PMO?
      >
      >
      > I filed an RTI on 07 June 2012 in DOPT to know the status of "Proposed
      > Amendment to RTI Rules" promulgated by DoPT on 10 December 2010.
      >
      >
      > DoPT in response intimated:
      >
      >
      > (a) DoPT File on "Proposed Amendments to RTI Rules" is in PMO since 11
      > January 2012.
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>(b) The folder on the subject containing Citizens' Suggestion on
      >>>> "Proposed Amendments to RTI Rules"is missing in DoPT. This was told to
      >>>> me even over a year ago when I went to inspect said file on 18 February
      >>>> 2011
      >
      > I have since filed an RTI in PMO on 11 July 2012. (See Attachment PMO RTI
      > (Rules) dt 11 July 2012.
      >
      >
      > LETS BE ON ALERT: Are we going to get sudden Announcement of "RTI RULES
      > Amended" ?
      >
      >
      > RECAP:
      >
      > On 10 December 2010, DoPT quietly posted on its website (over Weekend)
      > their OM No. 1/35/2008-IR "Proposing Amendment to RTI Rules". DoPT Sought
      > Public Comments by 27 December 2010.
      >
      >
      > Alert Citizens' immediately sent ALARM.
      >
      >
      > This generated tremendous heat, criticism both from Media and Civil Society.
      > NAC members & NCPRI held meetings and sent strong opposition to Amendments
      > proposed by DoPT.
      >
      >
      > In consultation with others, I carried out Comprehensive Analyses of
      > Proposed Rules Viz Existing Rules. (See attachment (Analyses of Amendment to
      > RTI Rules & Comments).
      >
      >
      > On 27 December 2010 the last date for filing comments I forwarded my
      > comments along with Comprehensive Analyses.
      >
      >
      > On 29 December 2010, I filed an RTI. (SEE two attachments RTI DoPT - 29
      > December 2010 & DoPT response on RTI reg Rules)
      >
      >
      > On 18 Feb 2011, I carried out file inspection in DoPT and received attached
      > copies in March 2011 (See attachment DoPT file on RTI Rules - Latest
      > Notings-10 March 2011).
      >
      >
      > During file inspection I came across a note spelling out views of Former
      > Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Shri A.P. Shah demolishing the
      > number of key proposals of DoPT especially on Section 6(3) and limitation of
      > words to 250.(SEE attachment Justice AP Shah, Former CJ, Delhi High Court)
      >
      >
      > Earlier DoPT issued another internal Circular OM.F.1/35/2009-IR to
      > Ministries/Public Authorities seeking their Comments on Proposed Amendment
      > to RTI Rules. Specific mention was made of limiting RTI to One Subject & 250
      > Words.
      >
      >
      > It was obvious DoPT tried garning support from Public Authorities after
      > Public rejected the amendment. (See attachment DoPT OM 27 Dec 2010)
      >
      >
      > INTERESTING PART
      >
      >
      > Crazy response received from DoPT on my RTI of 29 December 2010 after I sent
      > my comments.
      >
      >
      > An RTI was filed on 29 December 2010... seeking information with reference
      > to :(a) DoPT OM No. 1/35/2008-IR dated 10 December 2010 on `Amendment to RTI
      > Rules (b) My email letter dated 27 December 2010 regarding forwarding my
      > comments (by Email) (See below this mail).
      >
      >
      > Few Salient Queries viz DoPT Responses
      >
      >
      > Point (a) of my Query:
      >
      > "The date when my above mentioned letter of 27 December 2010 (with its 29
      > pages enclosure) is diarised in DoPT. Please provide me diary number and
      > also file No. on which it has been placed and being processed."
      >
      > CPIO DoPT Response on Point (a) :
      >
      > "Due to Administrative reasons the communication under reference was not
      > diarised and it was placed in folder."
      >
      > My Comments on DoPT response on Point (a)
      >
      > By not maintaining records of communication received, the public authority
      > (DoPT) is not only flouting the office procedure of record maintenance but
      > also violating the section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act below.
      >
      > Read below section 4(1)(a) of RTI Act 2005.
      >
      > 4(1)Every public authority shall—
      >
      > (a)maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the
      > form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure
      > that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a
      > reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and
      > connected through a network all over the country on different systems so
      > that access to such records is facilitated;
      >
      > Point (b) of my Query :
      >
      > "In response to DoPT's OM of 10 December 2010 mentioned above, please
      > provide information on total number of comments received in DoPT of which
      > how many received by (a) by Emails and how many (b) by post or fax and how
      > many (c) hand delivered?"
      >
      > CPIO DoPT Response on point (b) :
      >
      > "In the light of the extant provisions under sub-section 9 of section 7 of
      > the RTI Act. 2005 the information can not be provided. However you are
      > welcome to have inspection of these responses."
      >
      > My Comments on DoPT response on Point (b)
      >
      > Section 7(9) of RTI Act reads:
      >
      > "An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is
      > sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public
      > authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the
      > record in question."
      >
      > My take : The said query is seeking information in terms of NUMBER of
      > responses received in the public authority, it is not understood how it
      > would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or can
      > become detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question?
      >
      > Point (c) of my Query :
      >
      > Please provide me list of file/files with reference number(s) on which the
      > comments received in response to said DoPT’s OM of 10 Dec 2010, are being
      > processed.
      >
      > CPIO DoPT Response on Point (c)
      >
      > F.No.1/35/2009-IR
      >
      > Point (d) of my Query :
      >
      > Please intimate the laid down procedure/policy of government (DoPT) (if any)
      > for processing the comments received in response to said DoPT's OM of 10 Dec
      > 2010.
      >
      > CPIO DoPT Response on Point (d)
      >
      > "No specific procedure/policy has been laid down for processing the comments
      > to the said OM."
      >
      > Point (e) of my Query :
      >
      > I would also like to inspect all the files concerned with the said issue
      > including the one where the requirement of amending RTI Rules was triggered
      > and processed and consequently said DoPT OM of 10 Dec 2010 issued. At that
      > stage, I will take attested copies of the relevant documents and notings in
      > the file(s) as required. Please inform the date and time for the inspection
      > of the files.
      >
      > CPIO DoPT Response on Point (e)
      >
      > Friday 18th February 2011 at 03.30 p.m.
      >
      > My Comments on DoPT response on Point (e)
      >
      > As per schedule given by CPIO in his RTI response I visited DoPT to inspect
      > file(s) and the folder containg my comments/public comments received by
      > emails.
      >
      > Folders containg public comments not made available.
      >
      > While the file F.No.1/35/2009-IR was made available for inspection, the so
      > called 'FOLDER'
      > containg my my comments/public comments was not made available for
      > inspection. The excuse given is that the said folder was with Director(RTI)
      > and not available due to shifting of some offices.
      >
      > Since 18 Feb 2011, inspite of many telephonic reminders...CPIO has one
      > answer that folder has not been received in his office.
      >
      > Even the attested copies of 49 Pages of File Notings and Justice Shah
      > comments on file requested by me have been received by me on 08 March 2011
      > by ordinary Dak.
      >
      > Some time I wonder if the comments sent by me and Public by Email, were ever
      > down loaded by DoPT.
      >
      >
      > Below in trail you may like to read my archive mails of 11 December 2010
      > sending my initial comments and also of 27 December 2010 sending final
      > comments by Emails.
      >
      > ----------------------------------------------------------
      > ---- Forwarded Message ----
      > From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
      > To: usrti-dopt <at> nic.in
      > Cc: secy_mop-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; jsata-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; dirrti-dopt <at> nic.in; Lokesh Batra
      > <lkbatra-QOiod4cnrWAN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
      > Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 3:06:40 PM
      > Subject: Comments on Amendment to RTI Rules by Commodore Lokesh K Batra
      > (Retd.)
      >
      >
      > By Email only
      > (Signed and scanned copy of this Email letter attached as pdf file)
      >
      >
      > 27 December 2010 Total : 03
      > pages
      >
      > Shri R.K. Girdhar
      > Under Secretary (RTI)
      > Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
      > Room No. 7 ‘B’,
      > North Block,
      > New Delhi- 110001
      >
      >
      > Tele: 011-23092759, E-mail : usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
      >
      >
      > Cc: secy_mop-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; jsata-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; dirrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
      >
      >
      > Sub : Comments : Amendment to RTI Rules
      >
      >
      > Dear Sir,
      >
      >
      > 1. Kindly refer to DoPT OM No. 1/35/2008-IR dated 10 December 2010 on the
      > above subject.
      >
      >
      > 2. My first comments on the proposed RTI Rules were mailed to you on
      > December 11, 2010 (see below). I still hold the same views that notification
      > gets limited to only those who are Internet friendly and two weeks time
      > given to spread the message among citizens by RTI campaigner and get their
      > views and in specific from rural areas, is not at all adequate. Recommend
      > the date for forwarding comments be extended.
      >
      >
      > 3. I have since carried out a comprehensive Analyses of Relevant
      > 'Sections of the RTI Act' Viz 'Existing Rules' Viz. 'Proposed Rules', all
      > reproduced at one place along with my Comments, making it easy to understand
      > the impact of the 'Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules'. A pdf file consisting
      > of my 29 pages Analyses and my Comments/ observation/Recommendations, is
      > attached.
      >
      >
      > 4. While details are given in my attached document, I am of the view
      > that the proposed amendments have far reaching implications towards diluting
      > the RTI act. Few of my observations are given in succeeding paragraphs.
      >
      >
      > 5. Though the Act is Aam Aadmi friendly … proposed Rules make it
      > Government friendly. Some of the Rules being framed are not only
      > contravening the provisions of RTI Act but also killing the true spirit of
      > the RTI Act, enshrined in its Preamble.
      >
      >
      > 6. Serious Implications of Proposed Rules : Beside placing
      > restrictions of one subject and 250 words RTI, and additional cost of
      > providing information and postal charges beyond Rs.10/- for PIO response.
      > The proposed RTI Rules, if implemented will not only have far reaching
      > implications but also lead to end of the road for the RTI Act.
      >
      >
      > To Quote Few:
      >
      >
      > (a) The facility for filing RTIs through the designated APIOs of the Post
      > Offices spread across the country, by paying RTI fee in the post office,
      > will no more be available. Proposed Rule contravenes RTI Section 6(1)(b) by
      > stating RTI fee is to be paid only to APIO of public authority.
      >
      >
      > (b) The Commissions are being now rigidly structured like Courts that will
      > make life difficult for Aam Aadmi to follow his/her appeal. Either people
      > will stop filing appeals or it will generate breed of professionals (Agents)
      > charging consultancy fee.
      >
      >
      > (c) The act says information is to be provided as expeditiously as possible
      > and in any case within 30 days. The limit set for Rs.10/- for postal charges
      > means information will be sent by ordinary post under certificate of
      > posting. This means delays in getting information beyond stipulated 30 days.
      > Provided the response letter does not get lost in ordinary Dak (post). That
      > will add to controversial exchange of letters between applicant and public
      > authority and lose of time and cost.
      >
      >
      > (d) The new rule suggesting payment of Fee though electronic means is
      > subject to Public Authority having facility for receiving fee through
      > electronic means.
      >
      >
      > In September 2010 the Secretary, Department of Posts, in response to letter
      > from the Secretary DoPT of 16 August 2010, had offered facility of
      > electronic payment of RTI Fee thru their virtual post offices; DoPT is yet
      > to accept it. If Department of Posts takes the responsibility, it will be
      > secure and the department with largest spread of post offices will be easily
      > accessible and also accountable.
      >
      >
      > (e) Proposed rigid procedure for filing First Appeal to an officer senior to
      > PIO of the same Public authority being introduced. Will lead to unnecessary
      > paper work and cost to ‘Aam Aadmi’ wasting national resources.
      >
      >
      > Much Serious Implications
      >
      >
      > (f) The proposed Rules for Appeal to Commission has been made in favour of
      > public authorities and taken away the existing rights/privileges of Aam
      > Aadmi.
      >
      >
      > For Example:
      >
      > (i) Commissions being located in New Delhi, the citizens’ have to travel to
      > Delhi from across the country for attending hearings and that too at
      > personal cost while CPIOs travel at tax-payers cost. It was expected that
      > Commissioners can take decision based on the case filed by an Appellant.
      >>
      >>
      >>Therefore, in existing Rule, the Citizens’ were given choice to attend,
      >> send authorised representative or Opt not to attend.
      >>
      >>
      >>In proposed Rule, the Option for ‘Aam Aadmi’ not to attend hearing has been
      >> withdrawn. Now either people will stop filing appeals or it will generate
      >> breed of professionals (Agents) charging consultancy fee who will
      >> represent an appellant, during hearings.
      >>
      >>
      >>(ii) The existing Rule permitted ‘Aam Aadmi’ to take assistance for
      >> presenting the case during hearing has been seen withdrawn in proposed
      >> Rules.
      >>
      >>
      >>Instead a new Rule has been introduced violating the provision of RTI Act,
      >> Section-19(5) that says "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that
      >> a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public
      >> Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may
      >> be, who denied the request."
      >>
      >>
      >>In proposed Rule, the CPIO need not be present during hearing in Commission
      >> and instead public authority can depute a representative or any other
      >> official. The result will be Lawyers could represent the CPIOs at
      >> tax-payers cost or very junior official will be deputed by public
      >> authority, contravening the act.
      >>
      >>
      >>This is biggest anomaly in new Rules. Now an ‘Aam Aadmi’ who may be an
      >> illiterate could be facing Lawyers, as now under new Rules
      >> Appellant/complainant is not allowed to take assistance during hearing for
      >> presenting his/her case.
      >>
      >>
      >>(iii) The facility for hearing through Audio Conference stands withdrawn.
      >> Even hearing thru Video conference will be subject to Commission’s’
      >> approval.
      >>
      > (g) There are many other anomalies in the Proposed Rules. Here, I have
      > highlighted few glaring ones that in my perception will kill RTI act.
      >
      >
      > (h) Additional Rules: On the other hand there are many issues missing in
      > proposed Rules those require formulation of Rules.
      >
      >
      > 7. Two pdf files consisting of (a) signed and scanned copy of this
      > three pages E-mail letter of 27 December 2010 and (b) my 29 pages Analyses
      > and Comments/ observation/Recommendations, respectively are attached.
      >
      >
      > 8. All my communications are in public domain.
      >
      >
      > 9. Would appreciate acknowledging the receipt of this E-mail letter
      > along with two attachments.
      >
      >
      > Thanking you,
      >
      > Yours’ Sincerely,
      >
      > Lokesh
      > {Commodore Lokesh. K. Batra (Retd.)}
      > BringChangeNow
      > xxxxxxxx
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
      > To: usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
      > Cc: secy_mop-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; jsata-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; dirrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
      > Sent: Sat, December 11, 2010 5:43:20 PM
      > Subject: First Comments on Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules
      >
      >
      > 11 December 2010
      >
      >
      > Shri R.K. Girdhar
      > Under Secretary (RTI)
      > Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
      > Room No. 7 ‘B’, North Block,
      > Central Secretariate
      > New Delhi- 110001
      >
      >
      > Tele: 011-23092759, E-mail : usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
      >
      >
      > Sub : First Comments : Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules
      >
      >
      > Dear Shri Giridhar ji,
      >
      >
      > 1. Kindly refer to DoPT OM dated 10 December 2010 on above subject, my
      > first comments on the proposed RTI Rules are given in succeding paragraphs.
      >
      >
      > 2. I am glad that Govt has sought comments from Civil Society is in
      > accordance with Section-4(1)(c) of the RTI Act.
      >
      >
      > 3. However this notification gets limited to only those who are Internet
      > friendly and that too only two weeks time given to spread the message among
      > citizens by RTI campaigner and get their views.
      >
      >
      > 4. What about views from the rest and rural areas. Certainly not giving
      > wide coverage to notification is a violation of Sections 4(2) to 4(4) of RTI
      > Act?
      >
      >
      > 5. I am also surprised that there is no PRESS RELEASE issued so far.
      >
      >
      > 6. On first look I can say that the proposed rules are not people
      > friendly and it is going to dilute the Act . We need to analyse not only
      > CHANGES but also OMISSIONS in the proposed RTI Rules.
      >
      >
      > 7. Will post comprehensive comments in due course.
      >
      >
      > Thanking you,
      >
      > Yours’ Sincerely,
      > {Commodore Lokesh. K. Batra (Retd.)}
      > Social & RTI Activist
      > BringChangeNow
      > H-02, Sector-25, Jalvayu Vihar
      > Noida-201301 (UP)
      >
      > Phone :0120 – 2538939, Email IDs : batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org

      --
      - Urvashi Sharma
      Right to Information Helpline 8081898081
      Helpline Against Corruption 9455553838
      http://yaishwaryaj-seva-sansthan.hpage.co.in/
      __._,_.___
      Recent Activity:
        .

        __,_._,___
        Permalink | Reply |
        headers
        lokesh batra | 11 Aug 2012 17:06
        Picon
        Favicon

        Urgent: 2012 RTI Rules attached [1 Attachment]

         
        [Attachment(s) from lokesh batra included below]

        Further to my earlier post.
         
         
        I am attaching a pdf file on G.Notification on RTI Rules 2012 dated 31 July 2012
         
         
        Beside 500 word restriction  and postal charges beyond Rs.50/- .
         
         
        Following observation made:
         
         
        (a) If the appeal to CIC has discrepancy.. it will be returned to Appellant for completion and return.
         
         
        (b)First Appeal is mandatory. (My take : What happens to Section 18 about complaints)
         
         
        (c) Option for Appellant not to attend appeal in CIC has been withdrawn.
         
         
        (My take: Either you find some one to represent you or have video facility ... you have to attend 2nd appeal... will it be possible for people living across the country and even abroad? Its a crazy joke on people).
         
         
         
        Please go thru RTI Rules attached... you may find more areas of concern.
         
         
        Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.)
         

        ----------------------
        RTI RULES Amended
         
         
        Recall I had issued ALERT on the subject on 15 July 2012 (see my post in trail with few attachments):
         
         
        Remember 18 months ago on 10th December 2010, DoPT had promulgated "Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules"  that generated lot of heat. Than there was deafening silence.
         
         
        Till DoPT replied to my recent RTI of 07 June 2012 that file is with PMO since 11 January 2012. On 11 July 2012 I filed an RTI in PMO to know more about it. Rest is history.  
         
         
         
        After I filed an RTI in PMO on 11 July 2012 (where the file was held since 11 January 2012 for PM nod) Govt moved fast and promulgated Amendment to RTI Rules. (RTI response from PMO still awaited. Now CPIO will tell me file is back in DoPT.)
         
         
        At this stage I sent my ALERT post : Are we going to get sudden Announcement of "RTI RULES Amended" ?
         
         
         
        YES IT HAS COME TRUE
        (Read HT Story of 11 August 2012 below)
         
         
        http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Govt-puts-limits-on-your-right-to-information/Article1-911648.aspx
         
         
        Govt puts limits on your right to information
         
         
        Aloke Tikku, Hindustan Times
        New Delhi, August 10, 2012
         
         
        Now there is a limit to how many questions you can ask under the right to information law.
         
         
        The government has introduced a 500-word limit for RTI applications under new rules notified last week and decided to make applicants pay for the postage too if the charges exceed Rs. 50. The Right to Information Rules, 2012 has been in the works for 21 months that saw civil society accuse the government of curbing its right through the backdoor.
         
         
        Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) had taken up negotiations with the government on behalf of the civil society. As part of a compromise formula, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), however, has agreed to give up the move to bar applicants from raising more than one subject.
         
         
        It was part of the same deal that the NAC agreed to the 500-word limit but emphasised that applications exceeding this limit should not be rejected. The July 31 notification, however, does not explicitly incorporate this disclaimer, leaving applicants at the mercy of government departments.
         
         
        Incidentally, the NAC had declared less than four months ago that the new rules “have been put in abeyance”. But the Prime Minister’s Office – which had been holding on to the file since January – appears to have cleared the restrictions.
         
         
        Maharashtra CM Prithviraj Chavan, who had pushed the original proposal as the central minister in 2010, has implemented a similar set of “retrograde” rules in the state.
         
         
        The new rules also make it mandatory for poorest citizens to produce a BPL certificate every time they seek information to get fee exemption.
         
         
        The only positive news is an enabling provision to let applicants pay online if this facility is available with public authorities. Once this facility is set up when the postal department launches online postal orders, NRIs would be able to use the transparency law.
         
         
        ----------------------
         
         
        ----- Forwarded Message -----
        From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
        To: xxxxxx 
        Cc: xxxx
        Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 7:09 PM
        Subject: ALERT: What's RTI Rules file doing in PMO?

        ALERT :What's RTI Rules file doing in PMO?
         
         
        I filed an RTI on 07 June 2012 in DOPT to know the status of "Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules" promulgated by DoPT on 10 December 2010. 

         
        DoPT in response intimated:
         
         
        (a) DoPT File on "Proposed Amendments to RTI Rules" is in PMO since 11 January 2012. 
         
         
        (b) The folder on the subject containing Citizens' Suggestion on "Proposed Amendments to RTI Rules" is missing in DoPT. This was told to me even over a year ago when I went to inspect said file on 18 February 2011
         
        I have since filed an RTI in PMO on 11 July 2012. (See Attachment PMO RTI (Rules) dt 11 July 2012.
         
         
        LETS BE ON ALERT: Are we going to get sudden Announcement of "RTI RULES Amended" ?
         
         
        RECAP:
         
         
        On 10 December 2010,  DoPT quietly posted on its website (over Weekend) their OM No. 1/35/2008-IR "Proposing Amendment to RTI Rules". DoPT Sought Public Comments by 27 December 2010.
         
         
        Alert Citizens' immediately sent ALARM. 
         
         
        This generated tremendous heat, criticism both from Media and Civil Society. NAC members & NCPRI held meetings and sent strong opposition to Amendments proposed by DoPT.
         
         
        In consultation with others, I carried out Comprehensive Analyses of Proposed Rules Viz Existing Rules. (See attachment (Analyses of Amendment to RTI Rules & Comments).
         
         
        On 27 December 2010 the last date for filing comments I forwarded my comments along with Comprehensive Analyses.
         
         
        On 29 December 2010, I filed an RTI. (SEE two attachments RTI DoPT - 29 December 2010 & DoPT response on RTI reg Rules)
         
         
        On 18 Feb 2011, I carried out file inspection in DoPT and received attached copies in March 2011 (See attachment DoPT file on RTI Rules - Latest Notings-10 March 2011).
         
         
        During file inspection I came across a note spelling out views of  Former Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Shri A.P. Shah demolishing the number of key proposals of DoPT especially on Section 6(3) and limitation of words to 250. (SEE attachment Justice AP Shah, Former CJ, Delhi High Court) 
         
         
        Earlier DoPT issued another  internal Circular OM.F.1/35/2009-IR  to Ministries/Public Authorities seeking their Comments on Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules. Specific mention was made of limiting RTI to One Subject & 250 Words.    
         
         
        It was obvious DoPT tried garning support from Public Authorities  after Public rejected the amendment. (See attachment DoPT OM 27 Dec 2010)
         
         
        INTERESTING PART
         
         
        Crazy response received from DoPT on my RTI of 29 December 2010 after I sent my comments.
         
         
        An RTI was filed on 29 December 2010... seeking information with reference to :(a) DoPT OM No. 1/35/2008-IR dated 10 December 2010 on `Amendment to RTI Rules (b) My email letter dated 27 December 2010 regarding forwarding my comments (by Email) (See below this mail). 
         
         
        Few Salient Queries viz DoPT Responses
         
         
        Point (a) of my Query:
         
        "The date when my above mentioned letter of 27 December 2010 (with its 29 pages enclosure) is diarised in DoPT. Please provide me diary number and also file No. on which it has been placed and being processed."
         
        CPIO DoPT Response on Point (a) :
         
        "Due to Administrative reasons the communication under reference was not diarised and it was placed in folder."
         
        My Comments on DoPT response on Point (a)
         
        By not maintaining records of communication received, the public authority (DoPT) is not only flouting the office procedure of record maintenance but also violating the section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act below.
         
        Read below section 4(1)(a) of RTI Act 2005.
         
        4(1)Every public authority shall—
         
        (a)maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;
         
        Point (b) of my Query :
         
        "In response to DoPT's OM of 10 December 2010 mentioned above, please provide information on total number of comments received in DoPT of which how many received by (a) by Emails and how many (b) by post or fax and how many (c) hand delivered?"
         
        CPIO DoPT Response on point (b) :
         
        "In the light of the extant provisions under sub-section 9 of section 7 of the RTI Act. 2005 the information can not be provided. However you are welcome to have inspection of these responses."
         
        My Comments on DoPT response on Point (b)
         
        Section 7(9) of RTI Act reads:
         
        "An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question."
         
        My take : The said query is seeking information in terms of NUMBER of responses received in the public authority, it is not understood how it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or can become detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question?
         
        Point (c) of my Query :
         
        Please provide me list of file/files with reference number(s) on which the comments received in response to said DoPT’s OM of 10 Dec 2010, are being processed.
         
        CPIO DoPT Response on Point (c)
         
        F.No.1/35/2009-IR
         
        Point (d) of my Query :
         
        Please intimate the laid down procedure/policy of government (DoPT) (if any) for processing the comments received in response to said DoPT's OM of 10 Dec 2010.
         
        CPIO DoPT Response on Point (d)
         
        "No specific procedure/policy has been laid down for processing the comments to the said OM."
         
        Point (e) of my Query :
         
        I would also like to inspect all the files concerned with the said issue including the one where the requirement of amending RTI Rules was triggered and processed and consequently said DoPT OM of 10 Dec 2010 issued. At that stage, I will take attested copies of the relevant documents and notings in the file(s) as required. Please inform the date and time for the inspection of the files.
         
        CPIO DoPT Response on Point (e)
         
        Friday 18th February 2011 at 03.30 p.m.
         
        My Comments on DoPT response on Point (e)
         
        As per schedule given by CPIO in his RTI response I visited DoPT to inspect file(s) and the folder containg my comments/public comments received by emails.
         
        Folders containg public comments not made available.
         
        While the file F.No.1/35/2009-IR was made available for inspection, the so called 'FOLDER'
        containg my my comments/public comments was not made available for inspection. The excuse given is that the said folder was with Director(RTI) and not available due to shifting of some offices.
         
        Since 18 Feb 2011, inspite of many telephonic reminders...CPIO has one answer that folder has not been received in his office.
         
        Even the attested copies of 49 Pages of File Notings and Justice Shah comments on file requested by me have been received by me on 08 March 2011 by ordinary Dak.
         
        Some time I wonder if the comments sent by me and Public by Email, were ever down loaded by DoPT.
         
         
        Below in trail you may like to read my archive mails of 11 December 2010 sending my initial comments and also of 27 December 2010 sending final comments by Emails.
         
        -----------------------------------------------------------
        ---- Forwarded Message ----
        From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
        To: usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
        Cc: secy_mop-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; jsata-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; dirrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; Lokesh Batra <lkbatra-QOiod4cnrWAN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
        Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 3:06:40 PM
        Subject: Comments on Amendment to RTI Rules by Commodore Lokesh K Batra (Retd.)

        By Email only
        (Signed and scanned copy of this Email letter attached as pdf file)
         
         
        27 December 2010                                                 Total : 03 pages
         
        Shri R.K. Girdhar
        Under Secretary (RTI)
        Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
        Room No. 7 ‘B’,
        North Block,
        New Delhi - 110001
         
         
        Tele: 011-23092759, E-mail : usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org 
         
         
        Cc:  secy_mop-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; jsata-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; dirrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org 
         
         
                            Sub : Comments : Amendment to RTI Rules 
         
         
        Dear Sir,
         
         
        1.    Kindly refer to DoPT OM No. 1/35/2008-IR dated 10 December 2010 on the above subject.
         
         
        2.       My first comments on the proposed RTI Rules were mailed to you on December 11, 2010 (see below). I still hold the same views that notification gets limited to only those who are Internet friendly and two weeks time given to spread the message among citizens by RTI campaigner and get their views and in specific from rural areas, is not at all adequate. Recommend the date for forwarding comments be extended.
         
         
        3.       I have since carried out a comprehensive Analyses of Relevant 'Sections of the RTI Act' Viz 'Existing Rules' Viz. 'Proposed Rules', all reproduced at one place along with my Comments, making it easy to understand the impact of the 'Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules'. A pdf file consisting of my 29 pages Analyses and my Comments/ observation/Recommendations, is attached.
         
         
        4.       While details are given in my attached document, I am of the view that the proposed amendments have far reaching implications towards diluting the RTI act. Few of my observations are given in succeeding paragraphs.
         
         
        5.       Though the Act is Aam Aadmi friendly … proposed Rules make it Government friendly. Some of the Rules being framed are not only contravening the provisions of RTI Act but also killing the true spirit of the RTI Act, enshrined in its Preamble.
         
         
        6.       Serious Implications of Proposed Rules : Beside placing restrictions of one subject and 250 words RTI, and additional cost of providing information and postal charges beyond Rs.10/- for PIO response. The proposed RTI Rules, if implemented will not only have far reaching implications but also lead to end of the road for the RTI Act.
         
         
        To Quote Few:
         
         
        (a) The facility for filing RTIs through the designated APIOs of the Post Offices spread across the country, by paying RTI fee in the post office, will no more be available. Proposed Rule contravenes RTI Section 6(1)(b) by stating RTI fee is to be paid only to APIO of public authority.
         
         
        (b) The Commissions are being now rigidly structured like Courts that will make life difficult for Aam Aadmi to follow his/her appeal. Either people will stop filing appeals or it will generate breed of professionals (Agents) charging consultancy fee. 
         
         
        (c) The act says information is to be provided as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 30 days. The limit set for Rs.10/- for postal charges means information will be sent by ordinary post under certificate of posting. This means delays in getting information beyond stipulated 30 days. Provided the response letter does not get lost in ordinary Dak (post). That will add to controversial exchange of letters between applicant and public authority and lose of time and cost.
         
         
        (d) The new rule suggesting payment of Fee though electronic means is subject to Public Authority having facility for receiving fee through electronic means.
         
         
        In September 2010 the Secretary, Department of Posts, in response to letter from the Secretary DoPT of 16 August 2010, had offered facility of electronic payment of RTI Fee thru their virtual post offices; DoPT is yet to accept it. If Department of Posts takes the responsibility, it will be secure and the department with largest spread of post offices will be easily accessible and also accountable.
         
         
        (e) Proposed rigid procedure for filing First Appeal to an officer senior to PIO of the same Public authority being introduced. Will lead to unnecessary paper work and cost to ‘Aam Aadmi’ wasting national resources.
         
         
        Much Serious Implications
         
         
        (f)  The proposed Rules for Appeal to Commission has been made in favour of public authorities and taken away the existing rights/privileges of Aam Aadmi.
         
         
        For Example:
         
        (i) Commissions being located in New Delhi, the citizens’ have to travel to Delhi from across the country for attending hearings and that too at personal cost while CPIOs travel at tax-payers cost. It was expected that Commissioners can take decision based on the case filed by an Appellant. 
         
         
        Therefore, in existing Rule, the Citizens’ were given choice to attend, send authorised representative or Opt not to attend.
         
         
        In proposed Rule, the Option for ‘Aam Aadmi’ not to attend hearing has been withdrawn. Now either people will stop filing appeals or it will generate breed of professionals (Agents) charging consultancy fee who will represent an appellant, during hearings.
         
         
        (ii) The existing Rule permitted ‘Aam Aadmi’ to take assistance for presenting the case during hearing has been seen withdrawn in proposed Rules. 
         
         
        Instead a new Rule has been introduced violating the provision of RTI Act, Section-19(5) that says "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request." 
         
         
        In proposed Rule, the CPIO need not be present during hearing in Commission and instead public authority can depute a representative or any other official. The result will be Lawyers could represent the CPIOs at tax-payers cost or very junior official will be deputed by public authority, contravening the act.
         
         
        This is biggest anomaly in new Rules. Now an ‘Aam Aadmi’ who may be an illiterate could be facing Lawyers, as now under new Rules Appellant/complainant is not allowed to take assistance during hearing for presenting his/her case.
         
         
        (iii) The facility for hearing through Audio Conference stands withdrawn. Even hearing thru Video conference will be subject to Commission’s’ approval.
         
         (g) There are many other anomalies in the Proposed Rules. Here, I have highlighted few glaring ones that in my perception will kill RTI act.
         
         
        (h) Additional Rules: On the other hand there are many issues missing in proposed Rules those require formulation of Rules.
         
         
        7.       Two pdf files consisting of (a) signed and scanned copy of this three pages E-mail letter of 27 December 2010 and (b) my 29 pages Analyses and Comments/ observation/Recommendations, respectively are attached.
         
         
        8.       All my communications are in public domain.
         
         
        9.       Would appreciate acknowledging the receipt of this E-mail letter along with two attachments. 
         
         
        Thanking you,
         
        Yours’ Sincerely,
         
        Lokesh
        {Commodore Lokesh. K. Batra (Retd.)}
        BringChangeNow
        xxxxxxxx
         
        From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
        To: usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
        Cc: secy_mop-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; jsata-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org; dirrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
        Sent: Sat, December 11, 2010 5:43:20 PM
        Subject: First Comments on Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules

        11 December 2010
         
         
        Shri R.K. Girdhar
        Under Secretary (RTI)
        Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
        Room No. 7 ‘B’, North Block,
        Central Secretariate
        New Delhi - 110001 
         
         
        Tele: 011-23092759, E-mail : usrti-dopt-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org 
         
         
                  Sub :  First Comments : Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules 
         
         
        Dear Shri Giridhar ji,
         
         
        1.    Kindly refer to DoPT OM dated 10 December 2010 on above subject, my first comments on the proposed RTI Rules are given in succeding paragraphs.
         
         
        2.    I am glad that Govt has sought  comments from Civil Society is in accordance with Section-4(1)(c) of the RTI Act.
         
         
        3.    However this notification gets limited to only those who are Internet friendly and that too only two weeks time given to spread the message among citizens by RTI campaigner and get their views.
         
         
        4.    What about views from the rest and rural areas. Certainly not giving wide coverage to notification is a violation of Sections 4(2) to 4(4) of RTI Act?
         
         
        5.    I am also surprised that there is no PRESS RELEASE issued so far.
         
         
        6.    On first look I can say that the proposed rules are not people friendly and it is going to dilute the Act . We need to analyse not only CHANGES but also OMISSIONS in the proposed RTI Rules.
         
         
        7.    Will post comprehensive comments in due course.
         
         
        Thanking you, 
         
        Yours’ Sincerely,
        {Commodore Lokesh. K. Batra (Retd.)}
        Social & RTI Activist
        BringChangeNow
        H-02, Sector-25, Jalvayu Vihar
        Noida-201301 (UP)                    
         
         Phone :0120 – 2538939,  Email IDs :  batra_lokesh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org












        __._,_.___

        Attachment(s) from lokesh batra

        1 of 1 File(s)

        RTI Rules 2012 dated 31 July 2012.pdf
        Recent Activity:
          .

          __,_._,___
          Permalink | Reply |

          Gmane