Archive for the ‘RTI’ Category

Corrupt Central Information Commisioner M. M. Ansari

April 4, 2009
Hello Reader,
I had a hearing at CIC for my appeal and the IC was shri M. M. Ansari. I had a very bad experience with this information commissioner and want to appeal/review further. Please oblige me with your RTI expertise.
1. Is there any time bar of appealing against the Decision of a central Information commissioner in High Court. I read The Central Information Commission (Management)Regulations, 2007 and didn’t find any mention of High Court appeal. Where can i find guidelines regarding appealing in the High Court.
2. In the Central Information Commission (Management)Regulations, I read that against the Decision of the Central Information commissioner an appellant can write to Chief central Information Commissioner for “appeal or review” of the decision u/s 23(2). Is it mandatory that we have to approach the chief Central Information Commissioner first, before approaching the Honb’le High Court? If so, can anybody provide me with the sample appeal/review petition?
3. The Central IC M. M. Ansari has not followed any judicial discipline in his order (
Breif facts of the case are:
a) The event, a Round table conference with Men’s Group was conducted on June 25, 2008.
b) The present RTI was filed on June 26, 2008.
c) The CPIO with Women and Child Development ministry (WCD) replied to above RTI on July 28, 2008.
d) The first appeal with Appellate Authority was filed on August 12, 2008.
e) The Appellate Authority replied on August 22, 2008.
f) The 2nd Appeal with CIC was filed on November 11, 2008.
g) After receiving the copy of 2nd Appeal with CIC the WCD ministry supplied some documents via a letter dated December 16, 2008 which was received by me on December 23, 2008.
At the CIC hearing, The IC (Mr. Ansari):
(i) He has not mentioned in his order about neither the first date of hearing (23-02-09) when the respondent deliberately avoided their presence nor about the proceeding of said date.
(ii) In the first ex-parte hearing on 23-02-09, the IC starts arguing that how could we seek info based on newspaper reports. I want to ask what are the means of knowledge to the citizens, Except media, that what a ministry is doing? The news was published and we asked the info based on that. If there was no such happenning, the PIO or first appellate authority in their respective replies must have denied that there is no such event took place on that date. The IC further said you should have filed for inspection of records as you demanded vague information. How could the copies of the official agenda, the suggestions received from various stake-holders and the list of invitees/participants of a round table conference are vague information?
(iii) We explained our grievances and it was decided that at least the reason for 6-months delay in providing the information will be asked.
(iv) In the second hearing on 26-03-09, IC just ignored our repeated request to ask the respondent about the reason of such a long delay in providing the partial information. Mere reply of PIO and first appellate authority (as in para 3 of decision) can not be equated to providing information.
(v) IC himself started defending the respondents that the suggestions and representations received are third party information and PIO has already obliged the appellant by providing the same. How could public comments/suggestions received by a ministry on some review of law could be termed third party information and that is by the IC himself?
(vi) Is the copy of second appeal forwarded to the CPIO and first appellate authority, an another chance to the respondents to provide the information? On an RTI filed on 26th june 2008, and after receiving the copy of second appeal for filing their counter, if the CPIO provides some junk & misleading info on 23rd Dec 2008, and even then IC is not asking the reason for delay, is it not corruption in CIC?
(vii) When we asked the IC, who is going to fix the accountability, you are just saying that “you have got the information , otherwise under official secrets act you would have not even got this”. When I asked, do you have any powers to impose penalty u/s 20(1) or not, he said “_NO_, you challenge and I (ansari) will defend it”.
(viii) In para 4, The reply that ministry is in consultation with statke holders on the suggestions received itself says that info is available but not provided. The appellant had not demanded any action taken report on the suggestions received but just the copy of the suggestions. Why the info at first instance was not given even if the infor was available. How there is “No denial of Information”?
(ix)Para 6:
> The CPIO replied and furnished partial information and for the remaining information the appellant was informed that the suggestions received from various stake-holders were being examined by the respondent in consultation with the National Commission for Women.
Contention: Without verifying, where the CPIO provided info? He just said we are discussing? If the info is not with the ministry and it has been forwarded to the National Commision for Women (NCW), why the CPIO didn’t forwarded the application to NCW as per section 6(3) of RTI, after providing the info the ministry has?
> Clearly, the complete information, as asked for, was not available. Hence, it could not be furnished.
The IC is pronouncing decisions based on presumption even when there is no such reason given by either CPIO or first appellate authority that the info is not available or not prepared at all. Can IC not ask the PIO, why after 6 months of the consulation program, the meetings of minutes are not available? Under section 4(1)(b)(viii) every public authority need to make meeting of minutes.
(x) The IC had not even ordered the respondents to invite us for inspection of records for remaining information. Why we need to file a separate application again for the same, as you all could see from his decision?
(xi) How IC can comment like “Ministry has other works to do, like food programs for children etc…”? IC ansari had crossed his jurisdiction. The way Ansari was protecting the respondents, I smell a foul play here and I do not see any recourse but to seek justice from the Honb’le High court.
(x) Last para:
> As regards the appellant’s allegations against the respondent for not drawing up the formal minutes in respect of the Consultation programme, the appellant is advised to approach the competent authority with a plea to do the needful as per the established practices.
Even on request why ansari not ordered the respondents to prepare formal minutes of meetings and provide to the appellant? Does an IC has power of, require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act:
1. by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records u/s 19(8)(a)(iv) and
2. by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4 u/s 19(8)(a)(vi);
I have other appeals pending to be heard on 16-04-09, against same respondents and with the same IC ansari. Ansari is a corrupt man and as per the Honb’le Suprme court justice Justice Markande Katju “Corrupt should be hanged from lamp post”. We need to hang Ansari, help me. It was a shocking first experience for me.
Please help me by suggesting, On what law points (w.r.t the above mentioned CIC decision) I can challenge ansari’s decision in the Honb’le HC. Please post our vews here.

November 1, 2008


CIC notice to NCW for not responding to women

January 22, 2008 

New Delhi | Friday, Jan 11 2008 IST

The National Commission for Women (NCW) has been served a show cause notice by the Central Information Commission (CIC) for failing to redress grievances of two women.

Complainants Tripta Sayal and Sumati Sayal in a petition to the CIC said their applications seeking information on action taken on a complaint filed before the National Commission for Women on July 7 in 2006 had not been responded to yet.

They said they had submitted the application on January 16 last year.

On not obtaining the information within the prescribed time, the two moved their first appeal before Appellate authority in the National Commission for Women on March 9 last year. When the women still not received a response, they moved an appeal to the CIC on April 18.

The CIC after a hearing on Wednesday directed the Commission to respond to the request for information of the two complainants within 15 working days from the date of receipt of the decision.

”The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), has been further directed to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs 250/- per day from the date when the information fell due ie 16,02,2007 to the date when the information is actually supplied, not exceeding Rs 25,000, be not imposed on them under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act,” the CIC said in a decision delivered on Monday.

— (UNI) — 11DI14.xml