The modern thinking Indian

We are typically more sympathetic to the concerns and feelings of differently abled people (or who used to be called as handicapped people), and one expects that Government departments, who act as enablers for providing support and services to the citizenry of this country, would also act the same way for differently abled citizens. However, it is no surprise that Government departments are as unconcerned to these special citizens as they are towards normal citizens. But now, citizens have a weapon to get what they want, and that is using the power of RTI. The RTI Act enables citizens to get information on many aspects of the workings of the Government, and this includes the status of any item pending with the Government, and so it was in this particular case when the citizen used RTI to get the required action (link to article):

For almost a year, Rudrakshi Pandya, a differently-abled was pushed around when she demanded her right to a family pension after her father, a retired headmaster of a city-based school, died few years ago. Rudrakshi, was entitled by the government for a pension, under Gujarat civil services (pension) rules as she was unable to fend for herself. Interestingly, pension department had all the requisite documents, including Rudrakshi's medical certificate and even the clearance from the district education office.
It was here that Rudrakshi's mentor, Falguni Mehta, filed an RTI application under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, which pertains to information being provided within 48 hours of the application with the pensions department. Mehta wanted to know reasons why Rudrakshi's pension was delayed, officers responsible for the delay, the grounds on which pensions for the differently-abled were rejected since 1980 and what punitive actions would be taken if the officers were found guilty. The case finally came up for hearing before state information commission. State chief information commissioner RN Das ruled in Rudrakshi's favour and directed pensions department to provide information within 48 hours.

One wishes that cases like not come up, since they show the bureaucracy in pretty bad light; however, this is also another depiction of the power of the RTI Act in getting the concerned Government departments to act. Also, recent punishments against officials for denying or delaying information should also act as a warning to Government officials in this regard.

Labels: Benefits, Governance, India, Information, Law, Policy, RTI

The RTI Act has had a major effect on the availability of information, it turned around the concept that information was something that would not be easily available and could be used by the bureaucracy as a way of wielding power. Under the RTI Act, any citizen could ask for information, and they would need to be provided this information (except for a exclusions dealing with security, commercial secrets, and some privacy issues - of course, there is an ongoing dispute where both the President and the courts believe that RTI is not something that applies to their actions and are still pushing back). The process was as simple as filling a form, depositing a fee of Rs. 10, and filing this with the required department.
However, as with any Act, there are ways to make the process more complicated, and this is especially true in the case of Indian citizens living abroad. The actual process of payment of the Rs. 10 fee was always a big problem, with no clear definition of whom to make the actual payment to. So, even though the process was such that one could file the fee in the local currency, there were different rules for different states - as an example, in Uttar Pradesh, the process was to apply and paste treasury stamp for getting copy of State Information Commission's order. Now the nodal agency for RTI, the Central Information Commission has proposed modifying the rules to make it easier for NRI's to use the RTI Act (link to article):

In order to ease RTI application process from abroad, the Central Information Commission has framed new rules enabling NRIs to pay application fees and information costs at the Indian embassies and missions abroad. NRIs will also be able to avail audio-video conference facilities in case of first and second appeals. There will be an easy-to-follow procedure for paying fee against the information in Indian Embassies and audio-video conferencing facility in case of first and second appeals," Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said.
As per the new procedure envisaged, Habibullah said "Embassies may accept only the fee and information cost and provide e-receipts to applicants who can then directly file their RTIs to public authorities in India by email along with proof of payment."
The CIC said, "I will soon meet concerned officials at the Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Personnel and Training other stake holders for this."

If these rules are properly implemented, it will make it much easier for NRI's to be able to use the RTI Act without too much effort; currently the effort involved, especially when dealing with local state governments and courts in non-metros makes it much more difficult to properly utilize the power provided by the RTI Act.

Labels: CIC, Citizen, Information, Law, NRI, RTI

This election (the Indian 2009 election) has seen a much more pronounced push for knowing more about candidates, what their past record, what their wealth levels are. The concept is that an informed decision makes citizens more aware, and if it forces voters to think about the choices they are making, then all the effort has been worth it.
One problem that ordinary people feel is that it is difficult for them to find information about their candidates; or that they don't feel like making the effort to find this information. As a result, there are a number of forums that are trying to make this information (from the disclosures made by candidates while filing their campaign applications) public. Here is one of them:
myneta.info
From the site:
35 States/UTs, 543 Constituencies, 5501 Candidates and counting...
The primary source for the data used for these reports is the sworn affidavits provided by the candidates themselves. Sheer volume of data that has to be read from the affidavits that are often poorly scanned and the lightening speed at which these reports have to be brought out makes it quite difficult to ensure accuracy of every bit of data. In case of any discrepancy in our reports vis a vis the original affidavit of any candidate, the original affidavit should be considered accurate. If you notice any discrepancies between affidavit and our report kindly let us know and we will fix them on our end as soon as possible.

Labels: 2009, Affidavit, Election, India, Information, Lok Sabha, Politics

I normally celebrate every use of RTI, and write about it as much as I can; in the hope that all these articles can make a difference and encourage more people to use this tool to get the information that they desire rather than wait behind the dark wall of babudom. Waiting to get information before the world of RTI was a very very slow and painful process; the successes that I have seen and read about with the use of RTI makes it a very powerful and fairly successful tool (what this means is that if you have seen individual benefits of RTI, please write about it).
One of the essential parts of the RTI Act is about penalizing delays or refusal to provide information. The fines may not seem very significant, but they aren't negligible either (going upto a maximum of Rs. 25,000 per case). Consider the following case where a fine was employed:

NEW DELHI: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has slapped a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the School of Planning and Architecture's public information officer for inaction on a Right to Information appeal for over three months.
In his order, information commissioner O P Kejriwal has directed the PIO, D R Bains, to pay Rs 25,000 for causing a delay of "more than 100 days in providing the required information to the appellant". The appellant had asked for information relating to the action taken against his daughter who was not permitted to sit for an exam due to shortage of attendance.

If you however read the article in more detail, you will still see that there are delays; it needs to be ensured that the enforcing of the penalty clause of the RTI Act should not go the way of normal cases in the judicial system that suffer inordinate delays. Only the prospect of a swift penalty will cause more compliance with the law.

Labels: Governance, Information, Law, Penalty, Punishment, Responsibility, RTI

Slowly, one can see a greater use of the RTI Act. The RTI Act had been pushed for long as the means to allow citizens to get openness from the bureaucracy (seen for long as a place where things were slow, and where citizens would always have to suffer). The RTI Act was meant to let citizens get information on just about any query under the sun (subject some state secrets, and some commercial secrets). It has been going through fits and starts, with many bemoaning the fact that the babudom is trying their best to thwart the implementation of the law; but as the below examples show, the Act is actually doing good in many cases. People are able to request information, and if the concerned official does not provide the information, then there are provisions of fines being levies for this non-compliance:

PATNA: State information commissioner Mohd Shakeel Ahmad, has imposed a fine of Rs 250 per day with a maximum of Rs 25,000 each against deputy collector, land reforms, Rajgir, and the circle officer of Rajgir for not providing information to an applicant, Sanjay Kumar, seeking information under the provision of Right to Information Act.

Now the fine itself may not seem like much, but the provision is that the fine is levied from the salary of the official, and also such fines are typically highlighted in the media, putting pressure on the officers to comply with the orders. Further, it is the provision of such fines that would encourage citizens to query for all the information that they want to obtain, safe in the assumption that either they will get the information, or the officer will be fined for not providing the information.

Labels: Citizen, Empowerment, Information, Law, Policy, RTI

Sometimes the doings of the Indian Government is very mysterious, and many times the doings just don't make sense. Take this example: The deportation of Pakistani human rights campaigner and former Human Rights minister as soon as he arrived at the Indira Gandhi International airport in New Delhi (back to Dubai from here he had arrived). Deportation ? You normally expect that to happen when there is a criminal involved, or if somebody arrives in the country without a visa, and you really don't want to let him inside the country. For those who do not know about the doings of Burney in recent times, here is a bit of background:
The case of Indians in Pakistani jails (and vice-versa) is an emotional issue, one that affects plenty of families on either sides, and one that both Governments deal both as a prestige issue as well as one that is supposed to be of high priority (for reference: Indian diplomats are believed to be less caring about the plight of Indian citizens in foreign jails rather than the diplomats of other countries, specially of the West). A long standing issue has been the one of Indian prisoner of wars from the 1971 war (who are supposedly still in Pakistani jails, but which every Government of Pakistan has denied, and whom Indira Gandhi did not make an all out effort to get back when she released the thousands of Pakistani prisoner of wars from the 1971 war). Another recent issue, highlighted in the media has been the cases of specific Indian prisoners in Pakistani jails, many of whom have been there for some time.
A long background, but serves to highlight the doings of Ansar Burney. He has apparently made an effort to visit jails, and taken up the case of many Indians who have been in Pakistani jails for a long time. The 2 most recent such persons in the limelight have been Kashmira Singh, and Sarabjit Singh. Burney, as the term goes, batted for both of them, and played an active role in the actual release of Kashmira Singh. He even came in for criticism when Kashmira Singh foolishly stated that he was a spy (people in Pakistani criticized him for helping in getting a spy released), but he was unfazed, and has been making statements in favor of Sarabjit Singh.
And then compare the treatment he has suddenly received on arriving in India:

Seemingly intrigued by the deportation of Pakistani human rights activist Ansar Burney on Saturday night, the Ministry of External Affairs has sought details about the action from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The MEA has asked the MHA to state why Burney, who has been fighting for the cause of Indian prisoners in Pakistan, was deported, sources said.
Burney, who came to New Delhi on Friday night to attend a conference on terrorism, was immediately sent back from the Indira Gandhi International Airport to Dubai from where he had arrived. MHA sources said the former Human Rights Minister of Pakistan was sent back because of a 'look-out notice' against him.

This is all the more surprising since Burney had only recently visited India, and met both the Home Minister, Shivraj Patil, and the Foreign Secretary; so such an action is very surprising. Could it because the new Pakistani Government did not like his actions and wanted to humiliate him and got the Indian Government to issue a look-out notice ?

Labels: Information, Investigation, Policy

In the 80's and 90's, a lot of films had the concept of a secret Swiss account held by a politician or a corrupt government official, and the mission always was to either get the corrupt minister in some way or to get details of the secret account. Typically, Swiss banks (as well as banks in many other regions that are known as tax havens and where ill-gotten wealth is hidden) will not reveal data until it can be conclusively proved that there is something illegal involved in all this.
Another haven where such a banking setup exists is the small country of Liechtenstein, a small landlocked country between Austria and Switzerland. It also has a banking setup which is seen as a haven for people seeking to store their money, and hence a target for people wanting to investigate corruption. Now imagine, that the Indian Government can freely obtain such information about bank records; won't any Government jump at the chance to obtain such information and unmask people who have salted away their money.
Well, apparently not the Congress Government. It seems so surprising that the Government is not making any move to request such information that a person could easily suspect that senior Congressmen or people at the very top also find a name in such a list, and hence are hoping that this blows over and they are not unmasked. It is yet another blow to the credibility of this now discredited Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, that a newspaper can openly question as to why the Government is not pursing this information ?

Investigators in India might have their best chance yet to trace those Indians who have stashed away millions in the tiny tax haven of Liechtenstein, a small landlocked country between Austria and Switzerland, provided the Manmohan Singh government asks for the information on offer. The dope on hundreds of rich Indians who have black money parked in Liechtenstein could be made available to the authorities here as the German government, which has obtained a list of account holders at Liechtenstein’s LTG Bank, is willing to part with the names.
Several countries including the US, the UK, Canada, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Ireland have already used the opportunity to zero in on their citizens who have evaded taxes and smuggled their wealth to the principality, the sixth-smallest country in the world. But Transparency International says India has maintained 'a stoic silence over the issue and has not approached the German government for this data'. Suspecting that the government's chariness could stem from fears that influential politicians and industrialists might be compromised by the Liechenstein data, TI has, in a statement, said: "It is alleged that this money belongs to rich and powerful politicians, industrialists and stock brokers and that is why the reluctance on the part of government of India (to get details from Germany)."

This refusal by the Government is very surprising and it is actually causing a great deal of suspicion about the reasons for the Government to not try and get this information. It is very much possible that Congress and allies, not particularly known for their honesty, have hidden wealth over there, and the Government could face a lot of problems if this information is revealed.

Labels: Congress, Corruption, Image, Information, Responsibility

The issue of the separation of powers is becoming a more tricky issue in the Indian context. Earlier, there was a greater separation of powers of the executive, legislature, and the judiciary. It could be argued that the judiciary would keep to its limit earlier and is now encroaching on the powers of the other 2 now, but the fact that most people would admit to is that earlier, instances of corruption and malpractices were far less prevalent in the executive and legislatures, and have become more widespread now.
Whether it be in terms of policy decisions and contracts in the case of the Government/executive, or in the cases of Governments falling / wrong speaker or Governor decisions, the judiciary is being invoked by more people now, and the judiciary is not afraid to step in where it feels that the step taken by the other 2 bodies are wrong in law. This however provokes the other 2 bodies who feel that their powers are supreme in their own areas and even the court system cannot question them.
So what happens in the case of a powerful law such as the RTI Act that mandates that only essential items such as treaties, security matters and trade secrets will remain inviolable, and for everything else, the common citizen is entitled to know details if the citizen asks for it. However, such a openness seems to run foul of both the legislatures and the judiciary which believe that such laws don't apply to them. Read this article for more details:

Amid a raging national debate over the Right to Information Act, the UP assembly has triggered a new controversy by seeking to initiate contempt of the House proceedings against the State Information Commission (SIC) and petitioners who sought information.
The assembly has crossed swords with the commission for the issuance of its notices to furnish information sought by a couple of petitioners under the RTI Act. While one petitioner, Romesh Tiwari, had sought to know — (a) Whether an MLA could bid for a contract? (b) What are the provisions for this? and (c) Whether an MLA becomes liable to lose his or her membership on the basis of the profit earned through the contract? Another petitioner, Motilal had sought information about the proceedings of the Petition Committee of the 13th assembly.

These are seemingly not information that are in any nature secret or can affect state security, but what seems to have got the goat of the UP speaker is the summons issued by the State Information Commission. The House considers its actions inside the legislature body as supreme and nobody has the right to question them until the Speaker allows it, something that will prevent the RTI Act from being implemented in these areas. It is either for the central Parliament or for courts to take this issue further and set the applicable policy.

Labels: Court, Information, Law, Parliament, Politics, Reform, RTI