With active and kind help from Sh Surinderpal advocate and RTI
activist from Ludhiana and member of lawyers for social action, I have
been able to draft a complaint against Mrs Sushma Singh, central
Information commissioner for misusing her office. The complaint is
enclosed herewith:
the members are requested to give in their inputs please.
I hereby express my gratitude to Sh Surinderpal JI for his selfless help.
regards
sandeep
Date: 07.03.2012
To
The Honourable President of India,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi
Petition u/s 14 of the RTI Act, 2005,
To get the conduct of Mrs. Sushma Singh IC, CIC, New Delhi, inquired
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in misusing powers and
exceeding authority as IC, and thus, behaving in a manner unbecoming
of an IC, and remove her from post immediately
and
To suspend Mrs. Sushma Singh from office and prohibit her from
attending office during pendency, against her, of inquiry by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court
Your Excellency,
I hereby draw your kind attention to the conduct of Mrs. Sushma Singh,
IC, CIC, New Delhi:
1. Mrs Singh has not heard majority of complaints filed u/s 18 of the
RTI Act since January 2011. Instead, majority of the complaints filed
by the complainants against the CPIOs for not replying their RTI
applications have been remanded back to the CPIOs/appellate
authorities concerned with direction to the latter to send reply to
the complainant's RTI application. In many other cases, the
complainants have either been directed to file the First Appeal (FA)
in case they are not satisfied with the response or supply of
information by the CPIOs concerned. If a complainant is not satisfied
with the orders of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), then only he
should approach the Commission with fresh second appeal. Some of these
complaints are as below:
Sl. No. Case No. Title of the complaint Date of remanding back
1. CIC/SS/C/2010/000653 Sh PK Mittal vs. PIO and addl DCP (Delhi) 10.01.2011
2. CIC/SS/C/2010/000651 Sh Badri Nath vs. PIO and Addl DCP North
(Delhi Police) 11.01.2011
3. CIC/AT/C/2010/1033/SS Shri S.K. Singal vs Central Coalfields Ltd. 13.01.2011
4. CIC/AT/C/2010/1030/SS Shri Rednam Deepak vs. Visakhapatnam Port
Trust 13.01.2011
5. CIC/AT/C/2010/1261/SS Smt. Kumud Gurav vs. Ministry of Finance,
Deptt. of Revenue 15.02.2011
6. CIC/AT/C/2010/1235/SS Shri Gyanchand Jain vs. O/O Commissioner of
Customs, Mumbai 17.02.2011
7. CIC/SS/C/2011/000047 Mr. K. Manickaraj vs, Ministry of Law &
Justice, New Delhi. 31.03.2011
8. CIC/SS/C/2011/000048 Shri Avinash Kumar vs. Airport Authority of
India 13.04.2011
9. CIC/SS/C/2010/000650 Shri K.S. Ganabady Soupramaniane vs. Dte. of
School Education, Puducherry 11.01.2011
10. CIC/AT/C/2010/987/SS Shri Nagender Lal Das vs Central Coalfields
Ltd. 14.01.2011
11. CIC/AT/C/2010/1074/SS Shri Bharat Nandan Prasad vs Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd. 17.01.2011
12. CIC/SS/C/2011/000018 Shri Pradeep Tiwari vs. M/o Social Justice &
Empowerment 14.02.2011
13. CIC/SS/C/2011/000017 Shri Rajeev T. Singh vs. Kandla Port Trust 14.02.2011
14 CIC/SS/C/2011/000067 Shri V. Sathyaseelan vs. Ministry of Home
Affairs 28.04.2011
Copies of orders are enclosed.
2. A large number of second appeals filed by the appellants on FAA's
failure to pass order on their First Appeal in stipulated time of one
month, was decided by the 'learned' IC. Instead, she converted these
Second Appeals into First Appeals and remanded these back to the FAAs
concerned to decide the same, with directions to the appellants to
compulsorily wait for FAA's decision. She allowed the appellant to
approach the Commission with second appeal only in the situation of
dissatisfaction with FAA's order on first appeal. Some of these cases
are as below:
Sl. No. Case No. Title of the appeal Date of remanding back
1 CIC/AT/C/2010/1041/SS Shri B Bandyopadhyay vs. Commissioner of
Customs, Kolkata 14.01.2011
2 CIC/AT/C/2010/1243/SS Shri Sudershan Kumar vs, Ministry of Road
Transport & Highways 14.02.2011
3 CIC/SS/A/2011/901808 Dr. Praveen Thakan vs Agricultural Services
Recruitment Board 08.02.2012
4 CIC/SS/A/2011/002033 D. V. Singh vs. Dredging Corporation of India
Ltd. 02.02.2012
5 CIC/SS/A/2011/002036 U. Panduranga Rao vs Hindustan Shipyard Ltd 02.02.2012
6 CIC/SS/A/2011/002039 Chandi Ram vs FCI 16.02.2012
7 CIC/SS/A/2011/002077 G.S. Saluja vs Rashtriya Chemicals &
Fertilizers Ltd 15.02.2012
8 CIC/SS/A/2011/002113 Shatrunjay Tripathy vs Petroleum & Explosives
Safety Orgn 14.02.2012
9 CIC/SS/A/2011/002080 G. K. Goyal vs BHEL 13.02.2012
10 CIC/SS/A/2011/001990 DC Mishra vs NBPGR 13.02.2012
Copies of orders are enclosed.
3. Mrs Sushma Singh often rejects the appeals by referring to the term
"voluminous information" in her judgements. Using this word, she
orders the public authority concerned to allow inspection of records
to the appellant for specific number of hours and for allowing
photocopies of some specified number of pages only and that also on
payment of fee. Some of these cases are as below:
Sl. No. Case No. Title of the appeal Date of order
1 CIC/SS/A/2011/001273 Mr. Mahendra Agarwal vs NTPC Ltd., New Delhi 2.2.12
2 CIC/SS/A/2010/00079 Sh. Kirit Shah vs Airport Authority of India, 29.09.10
3 CIC/SS/A/2010/000663 Sh Jagvinder Singh Bisht vs ASRB 7.6.10
4 CIC/SS/A/2011/000128 Shri Chetan Kothari vs Office of the Official
Liquidator, High Court, Mumbai 9.6.11
5 CIC/SS/A/2010/000255 Shri Dilip Kumar Roy vs Ministry of Agriculture
and Cooperation, New Delhi. 29.11.10
Copies of some orders are enclosed herewith.
It is worth mentioning here that I am also personally aggrieved by
Mrs. Sushma Singh in some of my cases i.e. Case No.
CIC/SS/A/2011/901802, 901804, 901807, 901809, 901811, 901812, 901813 &
901830 orders dated 02.03.2012 titled Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs.
Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board. She clubbed all these cases
together and then dubbed the information as voluminous. She
arbitrarily gave discretion to the appellate authority to decide the
reasonability of number of documents to be supplied. The copy of the
order is enclosed.
In Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001731 order dated 24.2.12 (copy enclosed)
citing information as voluminous she directed the appellants to file
fresh applications.
4. She directed the appellants to pay additional fee for getting
information though the mandatory period of 30 days had already
expired. Some of the cases are as under
Sl. No. Case No. Title of the appeal Date of disposal
1 CIC/SS/A/2011/001624 Shri Tej Bahadur Singh vs South Eastern
Coalfields Ltd 01.02.2012
2 CIC/SM /A/2010/001380/SS Vijendra singh vs Bank of Baroda, Gujarat 10.05.2011
3 CIC/SS/A/2010/001223 Sh CL Suman vs IVRI, UP 04.05.2011
4 CIC/SS/A/2011/000435 Mr. Anshuman Gargesh vs Airports Authority of
India, New Delhi 22.12.2011
5 CIC/SS/A/2011/000802 Prof. Suresh Moon vs Indian Institute of Mines
13.01.2012
5. Dismissal of appeals without giving any opportunity to the
appellants: Mrs Sushma Singh dismissed a large number of appeals
without hearing the appellants.
Copies of some of her orders are enclosed herewith:
Sl. No. Case No. Title of the appeal Date of disposal
1 CIC/SS/A/2011/001446/SS Shri Rajinder Singh Mankotia vs, Sashastra
Seema Bal 16.02.2012
2 CIC/SS/A/2011/001318 Shri Mahendra Singh vs CISF 24.02.2012
3 CIC/SS/A/2011/000042 Shri V.D. Sharma vs CRPF 24.02.2012
4 CIC/SS/A/2011/001846 Shri Ashok Kumar vs CRPF 24.02.2012
5 CIC/SS/A/2011/001868 Mr. Taranath Pandey vs Intelligence Bureau,
Ministry of Home Affairs 16.02.2012
It is stunning that Mrs. Sushma is least bothered to respect the legal
provisions or court rulings even, while passing ridiculous, unlawful
and unjustified orders. Some of these provisions and rulings are as
below:
a. The preamble of the RTI Act aims at setting out the practical
regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to
information under the control of public authorities, in order to
promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public
authority;
b. The RTI Act nowhere empowers an IC to convert the complaint u/s 18
of the RTI Act into an application and remand it back to same PIO
against whom the complaint has been filed.
Section 18 (1)(b) of the RTI Act clearly devolves a duty on the
Information Commission to receive and enquire into the complaints from
any persons. This section mandates that the Information Commission is
under legal obligation to receive and inquire into the complaints
received by it. It means, the Commission has no option to refuse the
complaints or to inquire these complaints. The RTI Act nowhere
empowers the IC to act arbitrarily and remand the complaint back to
the CPIO for reply to the RTI application or force the complainant to
compulsorily fulfil the condition of filing First Appeal before the
First Appellate Authority before approaching the Commission with
complaint. The provision is reproduced here for your ready reference:
"18 (1) (a) who has been unable to submit a request to a CPIO either
by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or
because the CAPIO has refused to accept his or her application for
information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the
CPIO or senior officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or
the CIC;
(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;
(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or
access to information within the time limit specified under this Act;
(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she
considers unreasonable;
(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading
or false information under this Act; and
(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining
access to records under this Act.".
c. Similarly, an IC has no authority to remand back the Second Appeal
to the First Appellate Authority who had chosen not to decide the
First Appeal and aggrieved with whom the Appellant has approached the
Commission with second appeal.
It is a stark reality that an applicant/appellant approaches the
Commission only after suffering disappointment at the hands of CPIO
who either did not respond within a month of the application, or
denied the information or supplied deficient information, and the FAA
who has either not decided the FA within one month or the appellant is
not satisfied with the decision.
d. The Act further nowhere empowers an IC to compel inspection,
determine inspection time or supply of specified number of documents,
when the Act and Rules amply provide the other way. Mrs. Sushma Singh
is doing all this with impunity.
e. Further, the RTI Act nowhere prohibits supply of information on
the ground of it being 'voluminous', especially when the applicant is
ready to pay its cost prescribed by the rules made in this respect,
provided the information is offered in stipulated time u/s 7(1) of the
Act. It is only section 7(9) of the Act that puts slight restriction
pertaining to the 'format' not to 'content' of the information sought,
that too, only when it is likely to disproportionately divert the
resources of the Public Authority concerned or is detrimental to
preservation of record. Section 7(9) of the Act is reproduced below
for your ready reference:
"7(9) 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.".
f. In WA No. 2100 of 2007 decided by the Kerala High court on 20
September 2007, the Hon'ble court held:
"In any event, when the Act does not exempt voluminous information
from disclosure, the petitioner cannot deny such information on that
ground. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this
contention also"
g. Section 7(6) of the Act is reproduced below for your ready reference:
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making
request for the information shall be provided the information free of
charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits
specified in sub-section (1).
h. In WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006(C) decided by the Kerala High court on
30 August 2010, it is clearly stated as under:
"The difficulties a public authority may encounter in the matter of
supply of information are no grounds to deny the information, if that
information is available and not exempted from disclosure. Whatever be
the difficulties, unless the information is exempt from disclosure,
the public authority is bound to disclose the same. The facts that the
information is voluminous, if all candidates apply for the information
with the available infrastructure it may not be possible to cope up
with the request, the authority will have to depute additional
manpower to collect and supply the information etc. are not reasons
available to the public authority to deny information to a citizen who
applies for the same. The public authority can only insist on
reasonable fees for supply of the information as per rules prescribed
for the same. As such, the flood gate theory sought to be pressed into
service by the Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission is
not a defence against supply of information under the Right to
Information Act".
i. In WP(C).No. 33718 of 2010(L), the Hon'ble Kerala High Court on 09
March 2011, held:
"Another plea of PSC is nothing but a managerial issue. It is pointed
out that the PSC has to incur the huge expenses and administrative
difficulties, including the deployment of staff exclusively to deal
with such requests and this would result in undue hardship and
clogging of its administrative setup. Once a piece of law is in place,
inconvenience is no excuse to exclude adherence to it. The bounden has
to obey and abide by it. This plea of PSC also does not commend
acceptance".
j. The Hon'ble Apex court in Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 2011 decided on
2 September 2011 has held:
"Public authorities should realize that in an era of transparency,
previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place.
Accountability and prevention of corruption is possible only through
transparency. Attaining transparency no doubt would involve additional
work with reference to maintaining records and furnishing information.
Parliament has enacted the RTI Act providing access to information,
after great debate and deliberations by the Civil Society and the
Parliament. In its wisdom, the Parliament has chosen to exempt only
certain categories of information from disclosure and certain
organizations from the applicability of the Act. As the examining
bodies have not been exempted, and as the examination processes of
examining bodies have not been exempted, the examining bodies will
have to gear themselves to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Additional workload is not a defence. If there are practical
insurmountable difficulties, it is open to the examining bodies to
bring them to the notice of the government for consideration so that
any changes to the Act can be deliberated upon. Be that as it may"
The above facts show that Mrs. Sushma Singh is the self-styled king in
her office. She is passing orders in blatant violation of law and
court rulings. She is worried more about the PIOs and Public
authorities, than the information seekers. She has created her own
self-made laws. She has failed to realise that responsibility of
proper implementation and promotion of the transparency laws is on the
Information Commissions, who are the watch dogs for this purpose. Mrs.
Sushma Singh is least bothered about the RTI Act, for whose
implementation she is heavily paid from public exchequer. An
information Commissioner ought to be the saviour of the Act not its
killer as Mrs. Sushma Singh is. In none of the complaints entrusted to
her Bench, has the 'learned' IC issued notice to the respondent CPIO,
perhaps due to her attachment for them owing to her bureaucratic
background. In fact, she is doing the duty of killing the RTI Act for
the reasons best known to her only.
Keeping in view the above facts and attitude of Mrs. Sushma Singh, I
humbly pray your goodself To get the conduct of Mrs. Sushma Singh IC,
CIC, New Delhi, inquired by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in
misusing powers and exceeding authority as IC, and thus, behaving in a
manner unbecoming of an IC, and remove her from post immediately
I further pray you to suspend Mrs. Singh from office and prohibit her
from attending office during pendency, against her, of inquiry.
I humbly pray for granting me opportunity of personal hearing in any
proceeding in this respect.
A word of acknowledgement shall be appreciated. .
Hoping some tangible action in the interest of the Act and the RTI users.
With thanks,
Yours Faithfully,
(Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
No comments:
Post a Comment