JS(ATA)/DoPT
Kind Attn: Mr. Manoj Joshi
cc: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
26.04.2013
Dear Sir
Further to my email of 21.04.2013, I am caused to object to the following clauses of the section 4 disclosure guidelines and because this is also a PUBLIC GRIEVANCE on behalf of India Against Corruption.
1) Clause 1.4.1. It is not clear why the public authorities should be compelled to put up each and every RTI request and Appeal on their website. This is an open invitation to get RTI activists murdered, threatened or beaten up.
It may be recalled that the RTI Act's preamble makes it clear that information shall be given to those citizens who desire who have it.The RTI is a special right to be sparsely exercised to control corruption. By this obnoxious clause the DoPT aided by anti-national persons like NCPRI desire that activists and anti-corruption fighters shall be murdered. Kindly withdraw this clause immediately.
2) Clause 1.5.1 What is the point of this clause when all these CAG reports are leaked to the media well on advance. Why do the anti-corruption fighters have to wait in line to read it ? Is the right of a citizen to receive information any less than that of Parliament ? Why are reporters and newspapers not being prosecuted under OSA or for breach of privilege ? Kindly withdraw this clause immediately.
3) Clause 2.2(a). I object to the word"gradually". Kindly replace "gradually" by "immediately",
4) Clause 2.2(h). I suggest this clause be deleted entirely. The EVM experience has shown us that there must always be a verifiable paper trail in the Indian context.
5) Clause 2.2(k). I suggest this clause be deleted entirely. It is not really relevant to RTI and has been thrust in to suit some NGO on the Task Force.
6) For 5 years I was continuously and relentlessly following up with DoPT for clause 3.0 for DoPT's own disclosure. All my correspondence is preserved with me. Kindly inform me why I was not placed on the Task Force. Who was bribed in DoPT to ensure that only NCPRI affiliated NGOs are placed on these Task Force(s) ? Please inform me the names of the concerned DoPT officers within 7 days by return email otherwise I can presume that the Secretary/DoPT has personally and corruptly picked the names.
7) It may kindly be explained to me what is the essential difference between clause 5.0 and the "Transparency Officer" which CIC Mr. A.N.Tiwari had directed and which DoPT objected to ?
8) These guidelines MISERABLY fail to address the REAL problem of poor record management. You cannot have section 4(1)(b), (c) or (d) without 4(1)(a) being 100% implemented.
Kindly amend the guidelines accordingly
Yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
B/59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
To:
JS(ATA)/DoPT
Kind Attn: Mr. Manoj Joshi
cc: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
21-April-2013
Sir
I refer to the RTI Guidelines on suo-moto disclosure. I have carefully noted that these are stated to be based on the proceedings of the Task Force of May 2011 which allegedly included some civil society representatives.
http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02rti/Suo_moto_disclosure-15042013.pdf
It seems all my several objections and public grievance made to you and your predecessor Mr Rajiv Kapoor that the so-called members of civil society organisations of the May 2011 Task Force are bogus and/or fake persons hand-picked by Ms. Aruna Roy (NAC/NCPRI) to push through a foreign financed transparency agenda, have been ignored / overlooked / not considered.
Let me reiterate for your benefit a few of my objections which were not considered while issuing these guidelines :-
1) NCRPI was meant to send 1 representative, they sent 3 (Mr. Venkatesh Nayak, Ms Rakshita and Mr. Nikhil Dey).
2) Satark Nagrik Sangathan is a dummy constituent of NCPRI operating out of a small "scooter garage" measuring 4' x 6' of a DDA flat.
3) JOSH is another constituent of NCPRI, as is MAGP, which is closely associated with NCPRI.
4) "IT for Change"'s connection to NCPRI is unclear
On the other hand there is no dearth of civil society organisations working for RTI which openly disagree with and are not connected to NCPRI and who ought to have been represented.
I would therefore request you to kindly acknowledge my instant grievance and immediately recall your impugned Guidelines. In the alternative I would be left with no alternative but to complain against the officers who allow such blatant lobbying by Ms Aruna Roy to take place for extraneous considerations, and I would do so publicly.
PS; for your ready reference the text of one such complaint I made to Mr. Rajiv Kapoor by email on 9.June.2011 is appended below, and I hope the same was taken into consideration while formulating these guidelines
Sarbajit Roy
National Convenor
India Against Corruption
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel: 011-24334262
<text of email of 9.6.2011>
"To:
Mr Rajeev Kapur
Joint Secretary (ATA), DoPT/GoI
CONFIDENTIAL
Sir
SUBJECT: Concerning section 4 RTI Act Task Force
1) I thank you for the courtesy extended to me when I visited your office today in connection with my grievances regarding PG and RTI matters and consequent perception / accusations of impropriety ./ dishonesty. I am very concerned that no wrong / false accusations are made / perceived to be made.
2) For your ready reference, I am listing a few initial concerns of mine on the OM for composition of the Task Force for section 4 RTI Act implementation, and on which OM public comments are invited.
A) That many (perhaps all) of the 5 NGOs selected for the Task force seem to be hollow / fake organisations, none of which could be located by me in the NGO database maintained by the Planning Commission of India [http://ngo.india.gov.in/ngo_search1_ngo.php] having over 35,000 duly registered VOs / NGOs. It is pertinent that the Planning Commission requires a valid address and copy of the Incorporation Certificate of the NGOs for listing on the website, which further leads me to suspect that some or all of the 5 NGOs are unincorporated or having other deficiencies in their particulars / place of business.
B) That I was informed that some of the "fake" NGOs on the Task Force are demanding that they be "reimbursed" for expenses allegedly incurred by them instead of accepting grants / contracts as funding for their Task Force obligations. I apprehend that such demands will expose your Department to fresh accusations of corruption and money laundering, especially since no tenders (or other transparent procedures) have been followed to select these NGOs. I would humbly suggest that the financial systems / accounting processes / balance sheets of the concerned NGOs be properly assessed before any funds are released / reimbursed to them. It would not be out of place here to mention that I am given to understand that until very recently Mr Shailesh Gandhi (Central Information Commissioner) continued to jointly operate funding systems of the NCPRI running into lakhs of rupees despite the fact that Mr Nikhil Dey is ostensibly the.NCPRI convenor.
C) That many of the NGOs / representatives who attended the first meeting of the Task Force appear to have no verifiable expertise concerning non-compliance / implementation of section 4 of RTI Act. For example Mr Nikhil Dey, Ms Aheli Chowdhury, Ms. Pankti Jog, IT for Change etc have not filed any appeals / complaints at the CIC whatsoever (as per CIC website), and so the average observer (hard pressed to know what other expertise they possess in this field) would trust that the DoPT would proactively arrange that the concerned NGOs detail their expertise in the field citing the appeals / complaints in which they are parties concerning section 4 implementation before the Information Commissions, and which could be disseminated via the website of the DoPT.
D) That there are many expert individuals who are domain experts in the practical problems of section 4 delivery and access. These persons can be easily located from public domain resources such as the decision database of the Central Information Commission or through their prior correspondence / RTIs to the DoPT etc. In my view such affected / expert individuals would be a far better resource to be directly tapped to determine the problems / ambiguties, if any, with section 4 RTI Act, and I am certain (as I know many of them) that they would share their knowledge freely / without charge if properly invited / requested instead of merely asking them to comment on minutes of meeting involving NGOs / CSOs.
E) That my close reading of the OM constituting the Section 4 Task Force shows that it specifically excludes the citizen stakeholders (ie. the statutory clients) from its participatory purview. In the circumstances it would be irregular to expect that aware individuals actively involved in RTI would voluntarily participate in a policy formulation process which deliberately excludes them (except as a token formality / afterthought) and which instead includes ersatz substitutes in their place.
f) There is also the issue of disclosure of information (intellectual property) submitted to the Government in confidence, and whether such submissions in the course of a public consultation / adversarial process can be unilaterally disclosed to private persons / NGOs in the absence of a pre-disclosed policy which prevents plagiarism / IP theft by NGOs / CSOs / other stakeholders. That this is a serious issue is evident from the CIC decision in "CIC/WB/A/2007/00731/LS dt 17.03.2009" titled "Rajinder Singh versus MoUD" where the CIC held that the MoUD could only disclose my pleadings in a court case available with the MoUD to my co-Petitioner Mr Rajinder Singh once the case was finally decided so as to protect my 3rd party rights. The question of whether such submissions / pleadings in this case can be disclosed during the course of adverserial proceedings is very complex and is also the subject of a pending SLP 30152/2010 in the Supreme Court where I am the 2nd Respondent, and for which SLP the DoPT has consented to allow the Attorney General of India to represent the CIC against me. The linkage of the impugned decision to section 4 disclosure / repeated non-compliance is clear from page 5 of the following document [http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/WB-01062009-04.pdf]
G) That notwithstanding the above, I shall certainly submit my own views / experiences on section 4 issues which the Task Force is dealing with and on the expectation that it will be fairly considered
Yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
B/59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069 "
No comments:
Post a Comment