Sunday, November 28, 2010

Re: [RTI INDIA] Fwd: [rti-times] CIC recommends draft DoPT RTI Rules scrap application fee

Dear CK

So what you are really asking for is an amendment to the RTI Act 2005 itself ??.

What this group is clearly implying is

A) Citizens have no problem with paying for delivery of services in a
time-bound manner, and with inbuilt compensation mechanism in case of
failure of service provider to deliver the goods.

B) Removal of BPL category from the RTI Act. Although it is not
necessary to amend the RTI Act for this because the RTI Act in any
case gives the "appropriate govt" the power to decide who is BPL ( >>
for purposes of RTI Act..<< )

C) Accountability / monitoring to be legislated for all appellates
We really should have a poll on this, once the issues are clear.


On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:25 AM, C K Jam <> wrote:
> I am willing to pay Rs. 500.00 per second appeal (and even a complaint)
> provided:
> 1. The penalty under Sec 20(1) is made mandatory in every case
> (If no penalty, the IC is fined Rs 25,000)
> 2. The appellant / complainant is made a party to the the penalty
> proceedings in each and every case
> 3. The ICs do not keep any appeal / complaint pending beyond 90 days of
> receipt in SIC/CIC
> (For every day delay in the hearing beyond 90 days - the IC pays Rs. 50
> per day to the appellant)
> 4. The time limit to pronounce an order, after the hearing is completed, is
> clearly specified. For each day of delay beyond the specified time, the IC
> pays Rs. 100 per day to the applicant.
> 5. The fees collected by the SIC/CIC do not go towards the payment of
> salaries and other benefits of the ICs - the government appointed them, let
> the government pay them. Why should I pay someone and also suffer him/her ?
> 6. Retirement age of ICs should be 58 years.
> 7. Just like other retired persons, retired IC only get pension - no other
> perquisites.
> 7. No retired Babus are brought in to work as the SIC/CIC staff/officers.
> I am also willing to pay Rs. 100 per first appeal, provided:
> 1. Penalty of Rs. 100 per day on the FAA for every day delay in conducting
> hearing beyond mandated 30 days
> In short I will pay, provided the IC and the FAA are also responsible for
> what they do (in most cases what they do not do).
> RTIwanted
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <>
> To:
> Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 7:55:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Fwd: [rti-times] CIC recommends draft DoPT RTI
> Rules scrap application fee
> Have you considered that there will be a substantial drop in 2nd appeals
> if people have to pay to file 2nd appeals. Also the QUALITY of 2nd appeals
> will improve once people start learning to pay for it.
> What you dont know is that the DoPT has also proposed that the CIC
> must be a self funding body earning its keep out of appeal fees and
> the penalties it imposes.
> Sarbajit
> On 11/29/10, Abhimanyu <> wrote:
>> Rs. 250 for second appeal which sees day light after 6-8 months but no
>> penalty for delay ???
>> penalty for delay MUST be compulsory and shall be Rs. 50,000
>> wake up RTI activists before its too late .
>> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:26 PM, veeresh kumar <>
>> wrote:
>>> In a bold move which is sure to be widely hailed, the Central
>>> Information Commission (CIC) has reportedly recommended to the DoPT
>>> that draft RTI Rules be amended to do away with the application fee
>>> which is to accompany the RTI request.
>>> The CIC has also recommended that upto 5 pages of photocopied
>>> information may be provided free of cost to the applicants.
>>> The other recommendations include,
>>> 3) Beyond 5 pages and upto 20 pages Rs.2 per page copying charge
>>> 4) Beyond 20 pages Rs.5 per page
>>> 5) A maximum limit of 99 pages of copied information per RTI request.
>>> 6) Fee of Rs. 50 for filing a first appeal
>>> 7) Fee of Rs 250 for filing a second appeal to Central Information
>>> Commission.
>>> Informed sources claim the recommendations were approved by the
>>> majority of Information Commissioners, with ICs Shailesh Gandhi and
>>> Annapurna Dixit dissenting.

No comments:

Post a Comment