[HumJanenge] COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-020

To:
The Government of India, by
Shri R.K.Girdhar
Under-Secretary/RTI
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block
New Delhi 110011

1) CONFIDENTIAL,
2) SECRET,
3) My Intellectual property,
4) Not to be disclosed to any unauthorised person,
5) Not to be disclosed to any private person whatsoever,
6) Not to be disclosed to Prime Minister or his office,
7) Not to be disclosed to National Advisory Council,
8) Not to be disclosed under Right to Information except to myself,

BY EMAIL:

Date:  25-December-2010
Your Ref: OM dated 10.12.2010 in File No.1/35/2008-IR (draft RTI Rules)
Our Ref:  PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-020
Subject Objections and/or Suggestions to the amendments proposed

Sir,

I refer to the above citations and your subject OM. I am caused to submit the following objection(s) and/or suggestion(s) to the same.
This is separate, distinct and without prejudice to other objections I may submit from time to time within the period allowed..

http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf

I COMMENT on the power to frame Rules conferred on Central Govt by section 27 of the RTI Act insofar as the Constitution of "Benches" by the Commission is concerned as follows:-

1) That it is my case that the Commission is a "body" constituted u/s 12(1) of the Act consisting of the Chief Information Commissioner and as many Information Commissioners as deemed to be necessary.

2) That the background and qualifications for the Information Commissioners varies widely  and includes persons from social sector, sciences etc who have no background or experience in law. In fact, not a single Central Information Commissioner appointed till now has any judicial experience except perhaps as stint as a District Magistrate. The Commission as a body is therefore absolutely unsuited to adjudicating on legal questions or questions of law.

3) That the High Court of Delhi held in WP(C)12714/2009 the Chief Information Commissioner Mr Wajahat Habibullah had arrogated powers to himself to constitute Benches.

4) That Mr Habibullah ignored the legal opinion of the then ASG Mr Gopal Subramaniam  that CIC was a body u/s 12(10 and that no benches could be constituted till the RTI Act itself was amended.

5) That in the meantime the Fundamental Right to Information of the undersigned was abridged because Mr Habibullah corruptly allocated the entire GoNCTD public authorities jurisdiction within the Commission solely to Mr Shailesh Gandhi to deal with all by himself. It is pertinent that the undersigned is a resident of Delhi who had filed several RTI applications pertaining to Delhi prior to Mr Shailesh Gandhi's appointment but none thereafter due to Mr Gandhi's allocation of portfolio. The undersigned regularly apprised Mr Habibullah of certain corrupt practices in Mr Shailesh Gandhi's office and requested him on more than one occasion not to list his matters before Mr Gandhi which Mr Habibullah corruptly ignored. For instance the undersigned had complained with detailed evidence about the fact that some legal interns privately hired and paid for by Mr Gandhi were running a "FIRs for cash" racket in the Commission almost certainly with Mr Gandhi's knowledge. Had the matters been heard as a collegium, a single corrupt Commissioner or their "Registry" such practices could not flourish.

6) That I shall rely on correspondence between the Commission and the DoPT on the issues of constitution of Benches or "Full" Benches etc. I say these fall within the scope of Procedure to be prescribed for disposal of Appeals by  the Commission.. A few of these letter are specified by me thus.
a)  CIC's Letter dt 16.June.2009 addressed to Mr Rahul Sarin/Secy.Personnel
b)  CIC's Draft RTI Rules referred therein sent by letter CIC/Legal/2008/20 dt 13.Nov.2008 to MoP.
c) CIC's letter dated CIC/Legal/2008/03 dated 23.June.2008 to MoP (especially para 7 therein pertaining to National Consumer Forum)
d) D.O No 7/1/06-CIC dt 28.Feb.2007 from Secy/CIC to Secy/MoP (Shri Satyananda Mishra)
e) D.O No. 7/1/06-CIC dt March 15 2007 as above.

That in these circumstances, I SUGGEST that the proposed rules be amended to specify that the Commission must decide all appeals to it collectively or as a collegium like the US Supreme Court. I say that this will also greatly speed up the number of cases which are taken up by the Commission for disposal.

NB:  As the legal questions involved for these Rules are complex, I am formally requesting an opportunity of personal hearing for this before the competent authority. I am also  formally requesting that the opinion of the Law Department/Ministry be obtained on my various objections / suggestions.

Submitted in my individual capacity by

Er. Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
email ID: "sroy.mb@gmail.com"

Chief Patron: "HumJanenge RTI group" mailing list of over 2,500 RTI stakeholders
Website: http://humjanenge.org.in
Mailing List : http://groups.google.com/group/humjanenge/
News Network : http://humjanenge.org.in/news/

CC: to: (for suitable action and direction)
presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
mos-pp@nic.in
secy_mop@nic.in
sarkardk@nic.in
jsata@nic.in
dirrti-dopt@nic.in
diradmn@nic.in
osdrti-dopt@nic.in
usrti-dopt@nic.in
sroy1947@gmail.com