Central Public Information Officer

Shot in the Back: PM CARES Hasn’t Given Rs 100 Crore to Develop COVID Vaccines, RTI Reply Says

None of the departments associated with India’s COVID-19 vaccine development efforts received any money from the fund.

New Delhi: Even as the COVID-19 pandemic had its second-worst impact in India, among the world’s countries, and as its vaccine supply has suffered through many ups and downs, the PM CARES Fund, which Prime Minister Narendra Modi set up to deal “with any kind of emergency or distress situation,” failed to allocate the sum of Rs 100 crore it promised for vaccine development.

This came to light in response to a query filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

In response to the application by activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (retd.), the Union health ministry admitted: “So far, as information from [Health and Public Education] Division is concerned, it is stated that no funds have been received from PM CARES Fund for vaccine development.”

Batra received the reply nearly four months after he filed his application, in July 2021, and after multiple reminders filed with various authorities.

A press release from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) dated May 13, 2020, said that the Modi government will provide Rs 3,100 crore to help India’s fight against COVID-19. The release added: “To support the COVID-19 vaccine designers and developers, an amount of Rs 100 crore will be given from PM CARES Fund as a helping hand to catalyse vaccine development, which will be utilised under the supervision of Principal Scientific Advisor.”

Also read: Why PM-CARES Is a ‘Government Fund’ and Well Within RTI Purview

The latter is currently K. VijayRaghavan. The Wire has emailed him for a comment and will update this article as and when he responds.

Batra filed an application under the RTI Act with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the health ministry on July 16, 2021, seeking details of expenses through the PM CARES Fund. Specifically, he asked for “financial year wise total amount of PM CARES Fund received by the Government of India for vaccine development relating to the COVID-19 pandemic”. He also sought the names of public authorities, companies, organisations and entities involved in the vaccine development process.

The Office of CPIO of the COVID-19 Vaccine Administration Cell said on the same day that “no fund has been received from PM Care Fund to this office for ‘vaccine development’.” It also said it was transferring the application to the PMO, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the Department of Biotechnology.

Subsequently, the first appellate authority said the ICMR had “disposed of” of Batra’s query on August 9, adding “ICMR has not received any funds for COVID-19 vaccine development through PM-CARES Fund”. The PMO followed suit on September 10.

The Department of Biotechnology’s status said Batra’s request had been “transferred to other public authority” (sic) on August 9.

In response to the PMO’s unspecific response, Batra filed the first appeal on September 8, 2021. Two days latter, the CPIO of the office said: “so far as this office is concerned, it is stated that PM CARES Fund is not a public authority under the ambit of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

On October 1, 2021, the status on the PMO appellate authority portal was “appeal disposed of”. Batra received a letter on the same day from the CPIO of the PMO stating: “PM CARES Fund is not a public authority under the ambit of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005,” so “no further information could be shared with you”.

Batra was also informed that his application had been transferred to NITI Aayog and the Central Drug Standards Control Organisation (CDSCO).

On September 14, the CDSCO website said it had replied to Batra’s application thus:

“CDSCO is a regulatory agency and regulates quality, safety and efficacy of drugs including vaccines as per New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019 under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and has no role with respect to funding and budget allocation for vaccine development.”

Batra said he’d sent seven reminders to the first appellate authority plus an “urgent” email to the health ministry’s nodal CPIO to intervene – before he received the updates that he did.

Disclose Cabinet Note, Annexure Related To Constitution Amendment for EWS Quota: CIC

The Commission dismissed the social justice ministry’s decision to invoke Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI, calling it “grossly inappropriate”.

New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the government to disclose the Cabinet note along with all relevant correspondence and annexure related to the 103rd Constitution amendment which paved the way for 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society.

The Commission dismissed the argument of the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment citing Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI which exempts from disclosure Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, secretaries and other officers calling it “grossly inappropriate”.

The Section allows that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken and the matter is complete or over, but the ministry still denied the information.

“…no justification was provided for invoking the said exemption. In fact, the CPIO [Central public information officer] merely reproduced the provision of Section 8(1)(i) in his reply to the RTI Application. The said conduct of the CPIO is viewed adversely by the Commission as it is suggestive of his non-application of mind in dealing with matters under the RTI Act,” information commissioner Saroj Punhani noted.

Also read: The Moral and Logical Failures of the Proposed 10% Quota for EWS

Applicant Venkatesh Nayak of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative had challenged that denial on grounds that the Bill has already been passed and the president has also accorded the assent on January 12, 2019, leaving no pending matter related to enactment of the law. “…Appellant believes the matter pertaining to the enactment of the Constitution Amendment Bill is complete. The implementation of the 1% quota for EWS sections of society is also underway,” Nayak argued before the Commission.

He also relied on the order of the then-information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi on June 26, 2012, when he had directed the government to make public all Cabinet notes relating to proposals for new Bills that are to be tabled in parliament and also display them on the website of the department within seven days of tabling the Bill in the house.

Punhani pulled up the social justice ministry’s CPIO (who handles RTI applications) for obstructing the right to information of the appellant by invoking Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act to deny the information. “The CPIO is severely admonished for the inappropriate denial of the information to the Appellant and he is warned to ensure that due diligence is exercised while dealing with the RTI applications in future,” she said.

Also read: ‘Perverting the Constitution’: The Case Against 10% Reservation

Nayak said barely 24 hours before the date and time of hearing, the CPIO sent him a mail showing attachments of 526 scanned pages. “However, I was unable to access them on their Google drive. I brought this to the notice of the CIC during the hearing. The CIC also tried to access the documents, but permission was denied,” he said. Punhani directed the CPIO to provide all the documents on a working Google drive link to Nayak.

“The Commission has noted the prayer of the Appellant regarding the suo motu disclosure of the Cabinet note pertaining to the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 in light of provisions of Section 4(1)(c) & 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act as well as Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act which prescribes that the material on the basis of which Cabinet decisions are taken should be made public after the decision has been taken,” she said in the order which has been sent to the secretary, Ministry of Social Justice.

(PTI)

CIC Fails to Reveal How Centre, President’s Secretariat Proceeded With Ex-HC Judge’s Impeachment

Two CJI’s had reminded PM of the importance of the medical college scam case after Justice Shukla was indicted in January 2018, but no action was taken, and he retired in July 2020.

How and why Justice Shri Narayan Shukla of the Allahabad high court – against whom former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Mishra had recommended impeachment proceedings in January 2018 – was allowed to complete his term and retire on July 17, 2020, may always remain a mystery.

Later in 2019, CJI Ranjan Gogoi had for the first time given permission to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to lodge an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act for his alleged involvement in a medical college scam.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) recently dismissed a petition filed with the president’s secretariat that sought information on eight points pertaining to the letter or recommendation received by the Rashtrapati Bhawan from the CJI with regard to the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Justice Shukla, despite the appellant not having been provided all the details.

In his order, chief information commissioner Y.K. Sinha said Justice Shukla “retired on July 17, 2020, without the Union government having taken any action for his impeachment.” With the appellant, Paras Nath Singh, not appearing before the commission in the latest hearing, he held: “It appears that the quest for the requisite information has become infructuous per se. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as such.”

The query pertained to Justice Shukla against whom a committee, comprising Justice Indira Banerjee, then chief justice of the Madras high court; Justice S.K. Agnihotri, then chief justice of Sikkim high court; and Justice P.K. Jaiswal, judge of the Madhya Pradesh high court, had on January 20 submitted a report concluding that “the aberrations complained of are serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for his removal (as a judge)”.

Thereafter, later in the same month, then CJI Dipak Misra had recommended Justice Shukla’s impeachment. Misra set the impeachment process in motion by writing a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Also read: Rights Group Points Out Flaws in Process of Appointing CIC Chief, Members

The backstory

Justice Shukla, who had joined the Allahabad high court in 2005, found himself in the midst of the impeachment proceedings as his orders in the cases of blacklisted private medical colleges raised eyebrows.

Justice S.N. Shukla. Photo: Allahabad high court

Justice Shukla headed a division bench of the Allahabad high court that passed an order on August 25, 2017, in favour of a banned medical college of the Lucknow-based Prasad Education Trust. In an interim order, this bench restrained the Medical Council of India from de-listing the Prasad Education Trust’s medical college.

In this case, the CBI also filed an FIR on the allegation that a criminal conspiracy was hatched by officials of the Trust along with several persons, including I.M. Quddusi, retired judge of the Orissa high court, to lift the ban on the college from admitting students for a couple of years.

The accused judge headed another division bench that on September 1, 2017, allowed relief to Lucknow-based G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust in defiance of a restraining order of the Supreme Court on August 28, 2017, to stop admissions for the academic session 2017-18.

Thereafter, CJI Misra had in November 2017 held that the division bench, led by Justice Shukla abandoned “the concept of judicial propriety” and went on to “proceed on a path where it was not required to.”

Judiciary’s corruption and PMO’s negligence

Following Misra’s recommendation, the Narendra Modi government did not show any urgency to deal with the case which highlighted corruption in high judicial offices and showed the intent of the senior judiciary to act against the black sheep.

Writing for The Wire, senior advocate of Supreme Court, M.R. Shamshad, referred to how in Justice Shukla’s impeachment case, two consecutive CJIs – Dipak Misra and Ranjan Gogoi – “had to remind the PMO that the allegations were serious and warranted initiation of proceedings for his removal.”

Noting that “the process required for the initiation of impeachment proceedings stood complete as long ago as January 2018”, Shamshad had pointed out that “unfortunately, the judge retired on July 17, 2020, without the Union government having taken any action for his impeachment”.

Also read: ‘No Knowledge’ of How Rs 70-Crore Contract Was Given to UP Organisation, Says Centre

What did the RTI plea say

The RTI application before president’s secretariat was filed on February 3, 2018, just days after CJI Misra recommended the impeachment process. In his petition, Singh asked for “certified copy of the letter/recommendation along with annexure thereto received from the Chief Justice of India, (ii) procedure adopted by the secretariat in the matter and (iii) certified copy of note made or order passed by the president of India on the said letter/recommendation.”

The CIC recorded in his order that the appellant filed a second appeal before the commission on the grounds that the central public information officer (CPIO) has provided incomplete information by simply stating that the letter was under consideration. The CIC order added that the first appellate authority (FAA) has also wrongly denied information on the plea of it being exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act – which pertains to information being available in a fiduciary relationship.

Subsequently, Sinha noted in his order that during a hearing in November 2019, it was submitted by the applicant that submitted the appeal was related to the applicability of RTI Act on the office of the CJI, and the matter was pending adjudication before the constitution bench of the Supreme Court.

As such, he said the adjudication of the matter would have a bearing on the appeal and urged a hearing after the apex court had decided the case. The matter was then adjourned till December 11, 2019.

President’s secretariat’s refusal to reveal details

Singh submitted that as per the constitution bench decision, the information sought by him was disclosable under the RTI Act, 2005. He also stated that he received information to points 1 and 3 but in response to point 2, the FAA denied it citing the ‘fiduciary relationship’ clause.

Sinha observed in his order that “the appellant contended that the copy of the recommendation along with the annexures thereto received by the president from the CJI cannot be held by the respondent in fiduciary capacity as the said communication arises from the resolution relating to the report of the committee on the in-house inquiry conducted in the matter of Justice Narayan Shukla.”

With Singh seeking “complete information”, the president’s secretariat asked for more time.

During the next ‘virtual’ hearing on January 21, this year, the president’s secretariat reiterated the the issue of “breach of confidentiality and fiduciary relationship” and claimed exemption from providing the information on the procedure adopted by it in the impeachment matter.

In view of its stand, the CIC “observed that the office of CJI, along with the Supreme Court, comes under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005, in terms of the order dated November 13, 2013 passed by the apex court in central public information officer, Supreme Court of India versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal” and so “the issue about applicability of RTI Act on the office of the CJI is now decided.”

However, on “whether the information sought is barred from disclosure under any specific provision enumerated under Section 8 of the RTI Act”, the CIC refrained from making any observation saying following Justice Shukla’s retirement “the quest for the requisite information has become infructuous per se.”

In Landmark Case, CIC Directs MoD to Disclose Two Joint Operational Doctrines

Military doctrines do not involve military secrets and must be made accessible to any citizen without having to ask for it.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) earlier this week directed the Heaquarters, Integrated Defence Staff (HQ-IDS), Union Ministry of Defence to disclose the following joint operational doctrines under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act):

a) Joint Doctrine for Perception Management and Psychological Operations; and

b) Joint Doctrine for Land and Air Operations.

In June 2010, the then chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Air Staff (CAS), Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik, had released these operational doctrines. However, the text of these doctrines was not available in the public domain. Now, after seven years, since I sought the information under the RTI Act, the CIC has directed the HQ-IDS to make the complete text of these doctrines public within 15 days.

Military doctrines should be made accessible to public

Official records containing details of military strategy and tactics are usually covered by exemptions relating to national security in RTI laws, which are based on internationally recognised good practice standards. Conversely, military doctrines contain broad-brush information, such as what the military service perceives itself to be, what its mission is, how a mission is to be carried out (without revealing the actual operational strategies and tactics), how a mission been carried out in the past, etc. NATO’s Glossary of Terms and Definitions defines doctrine as: “Fundamental principles by which the military forces guide their actions in support of objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgement in application.” So, military doctrines must be made accessible to any citizen without having to ask for it.

Also read: CIC Pulls Up ICHR For Not Giving Access to Historical Manuscript

In 2010, the official website of the HQ-IDS had displayed the joint doctrines of the USA, UK and France apart from some older doctrines developed by India. The 2017 Joint Doctrine of the Indian Armed Forces was posted on the HQ-IDS website on October 1, 2018, i.e. the date of the hearing in my RTI case. Publishing military doctrines also helps reassure the citizenry about its own safety. It is also a requirement under Section 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

According to the press note released in June 2010, the Joint Doctrine on Perception Management and Psychological Operations provides guidelines “for activities related to perception management… in an internal environment wherein misguided population may have to be brought in to the mainstream.” Some media reports published at the time indicated that this joint doctrine might be used to counter the influence of Left wing extremist groups in some states. Clearly, there is enormous public interest in making this document publicly accessible.

RTI Intervention

In September 2010, after waiting for more than two months (from the date of the press release) for the defence establishment to make the text of the two joint doctrines public, I sent an ordinary letter requesting the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Headquarters, Integrated Defence Staff (HQ-IDS) to proactively disclose them under Section 4(1) of the RTI Act. I also requested them to repair the broken link on their website, which mentioned the Report of the Group of Ministers containing recommendations to reform the national security system. This report had been prepared in the aftermath of events such as the Kargil War and the 2001 attack by armed militants on the parliament. The CPIO did not bother to send any reply to this letter.

Later, in November that year, I sought a copy of the two joint doctrines and the text of the recommendations of the group of ministers through a formal RTI application. The CPIO of HQ-IDS rejected the request for the joint doctrines, stating that they were classified with the label ‘Restricted’ and therefore were covered by Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. Readers will recollect that Section 8(1)(a) contains at least seven grounds for rejecting an RTI application but does not include the reason mentioned by the CPIO. The reason cited by the CPIO while denying knowledge of the report of the group of ministers was that the HQ-IDS was not a repository of that document.

Subsequently, I submitted a first appeal. The First Appellate Authority reiterated the CPIO’s reply and stated that an unclassified version of the joint doctrine relating to perception management may be prepared in future without indicating any time limit. He refused to direct the disclosure of the Joint Doctrine for Land and Air Operations and threw up his hands regarding the link to the Report of the Group of Ministers on National Security.

Then, in 2011, I filed a complaint case against the HQ-IDS and also the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). I requested that the MHA be made a party because the CIC had in 2009 rejected my request for the Manual of Departmental Security Instructions (MoDSI), which contains the criteria and procedure for classifying official documents as ‘top secret’, ‘secret’, ‘confidential’ and ‘restricted’. So I argued that without a copy of the MoDSI, I would not be able to contest the correctness of the classificatory label of ‘restricted’ given to the joint doctrine. I also argued that according to the Government of India Guidelines for Official Websites, it is the webmaster’s responsibility to ensure that all links to external websites are kept alive and broken links are repaired (for the report of the group of minsters). I also sought the CIC’s directions for creating a system of deferred access to official records as the RTI Act does not contain such a provision.

Also read: DU Resorts to Personal Attacks on RTI Activists in Modi Degree Case

Unfortunately, the complaint case went into cold storage for the six years that followed. The file was reconstructed at my request in 2017 and the hearing held a year later. As the complaint case had been filed in 2011, ten months before the Supreme Court distinguished between the complaints and appeals procedures under the RTI Act (Chief Information Commr. & Anr. vs Manipur vs State of Maniour & Anr., December 2011), I also prayed for a conversion of the complaint into an appeal case. As I had already filed a first appeal with the HQ-IDS already, this request for conversion did not pose any difficulty.

During the hearing, the CIC perused the two joint doctrines that the representative of the HQ-IDS had brought along. The CIC has now ruled in favour of disclosure, rejecting the plea of the HQ-IDS as unconvincing and “laboured”. However, the CIC refused to allow my plea for disclosure of MoDSI as it was not included in the original RTI application. The HQ-IDS’s plea that they did not know who held a copy of the Report of the Group of Ministers on Reforming National Security was also accepted. I did not press the CIC otherwise as this requires a separate RTI intervention involving the National Security Council Secretariat, which is excluded under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act from ordinary obligations of transparency. I also did not press for a direction on deferred access to official records as I wanted to wait for the CIC’s decision on the core requests. Perhaps this issue is better taken up in another appropriate case.

Whether the HQ-IDS will comply with the CIC’s direction and disclose the joint doctrines or challenge that decision in the Delhi high court remains to be seen.

Venkatesh Nayak is programme coordinator, access to information, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, an independent NGO based in Delhi.

CIC Pulls Up Paralympic Committee of India for Refusing to Answer RTI Queries

The Committee, a ‘public authority’ receiving Rs 3-5 crore in grants annually, was replying to such queries in the past but has been refusing to disclose expenditure details under the new chairman.

New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has recently pulled up the Paralympic Committee of India (PCI) for not responding to queries under the Right to Information (RTI) Act under its present chairman and has directed it to reply to all RTI appeals including the one filed by its former president. In a significant order on an appeal filed by former president of the PCI Rajesh Tomar, central information commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu held that according to the “rules, regulations and conduct” of acquiescence of the PCI and by “virtue” of its selecting the Indian teams and receiving grants, it is a “public authority under the RTI Act”. The PCI selects Indian teams for regional, national and international competitions and also receives central grants worth crores of rupees.

“The PCI has to be accountable and answerable as public authority under the RTI Act, and it cannot deny the right to information of any citizen, including that of the present appellant who is a former president of PCI,” the Commission held, adding that the PCI also “undoubtedly” qualified as a public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.

During the hearing before the CIC, advocate B.K. Goel had, appearing on behalf of the PCI, submitted that in response to Tomar’s appeal filed on February 8 this year – in which he had sought the details of expenditure under five different heads incurred by the PCI, including the total amount paid up to January 31, 2018 to Justice (Retd.) Kailash Gambhir, who had been appointed Chairman by the Delhi High Court – the Committee had furnished a reply on April 16 wherein it had “denied the information under commercial confidence clause of Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act.” Goel had also submitted a copy of the response.

“PCI sent blank paper in its response to RTI query”

For his part, Tomar had alleged that the PCI had sent him blank papers – and not the one Goel submitted to the CIC – in response to his query. On this, the CIC held that “this allegation of mischief of sending white papers instead of reply cannot be left without enquiry.” In his order, Acharyulu also directed the Chairman of the PCI to inquire into the allegation that the RTI wing of the PCI had deliberately given blank papers in an envelop instead of answer sheets. Acharyulu noted that this amounted to “suppressing the replies” and that the PCI was duty-bound to find out the officer or employee responsible for the said mischief and take appropriate action within a month.

Payment to lawyers cannot be “confidential information”

In his appeal, Tomar had also sought the details of fees paid by the PCI to the lawyers appointed to argue the cases against him. In his order, Acharyulu observed that the Committee and its lawyer, while quoting Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act for not submitting a reply, could not justify the denial of information or explain how revealing the details of lawyers’ fees could affect their business or commerce.

Rao Inderjet Singh, president of the PCI. Credit: PCI

“The PCI being a public authority as recognised by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, performing the public function of selecting teams for state, regional, national and international teams on behalf of India, respective states and regions, cannot deny such information,” Acharyulu said in his order. He further stated that there was “no commerce or confidentiality involved in the payment of fee to advocates” and any such payment cannot be termed “confidential information.”

“It is the duty of the CPIO or public authority to discharge the onus of justifying the denial under Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act,” he added.

Law Commission’s recommendation on BCCI brought up during the hearing

The PCI representative had, while contending that the Committee was not a public authority, also quoted the April 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court in the BCCI case asking the Law Commission to consider whether the cricket body was a public authority under the RTI Act. In response, the Law Commission had in April this year strongly recommended making BCCI a public authority.

Acharyulu noted that advocate Goel had admitted that the PCI was a national sports federation for paralympic sports for India and that, according to MoYAS guidelines and policies, every national sports federation had to be responsive under the RTI Act as a public authority. “He also agreed that MoYAS was granting funds for paralympic sports and that the PCI was selecting team members to represent India in international competitions called Paralympics and also selecting teams for states and regions for state, regional and national teams,” Arharyalu further noted.

Rajesh Tomar was sacked as PCI president in 2015. Credit: Twitter

PCI receives Rs 3-5 crore annual grant

The CIC also noted that the central public information officer of MoYAS Arun Kumar Singh had stated that the ministry had written to the PCI that it “has a duty to provide information in response to RTI requests, because the PCI, being a national sports federation, is a public authority.” Singh had also submitted that “as per the National Sports Development Council, every national sports federation will be a public authority if they receive grants of Rs 10 lakhs or more per year.” In the case of the PCI, he had stated that it was “receiving three to five crore rupees every year” and was thus undoubtedly a public authority as per Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.

Commissioner Acharyulu also recorded Tomar’s submission that when he was president of the PCI, the Committee had acted as a public authority under the RTI Act and had provided information in response to RTI applications. In light of all these facts, the Acharyulu, “The contention of the representative of respondent authority that the PCI is not a public authority is illegal, contradictory and unwarranted, hence rejected.”

Tomar was sacked from post in April 2015

Incidentally, Tomar had been sacked from the post of president of the PCI in April 2015 over lack of proper facilities at the 15th National Paralympic Meet held in Ghaziabad. He had, however, blamed the government for not providing a proper venue to host the event.

CIC Pulls up Telecom Dept for Lack of Transparency on Rs 12,000 Crore Govt Revenue Loss

The Department of Telecommunications had admitted to a Rs 29,000 crore revenue loss caused by six telecos before the Supreme Court.

The Department of Telecommunications had refused to act on a query in the matter. Credit: Reuters

New Delhi: Why should the Narendra Modi government withhold information on a loss of Rs 12,000 crore to the exchequer during the UPA government due to an alleged understating of accounts by six telecom companies between FY 2006-07 and FY 2009-10? With the Department of Telecommunications refusing to act on a query in the matter, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has now issued a show cause notice to its central public information officer (CPIO) demanding to know why action should not be taken against him for denying this information by not attending the hearing.

DoT refuses to part with information on recovery notice, reply of companies

The query had been filed by Harinder Dhingra on June 12, 2017 in which he had sought “a copy of the recovery notice and the reply sent by each telecom companies regarding the demand notice that was issued to six telecom companies (namely Bharti Airtel Ltd., Vodafone India Ltd., Airtel Ltd., Reliance Communication Ltd., Tata Teleservices Ltd. and Idea Cellular Ltd.) for understating their accounts from FY 2006-07 to FY 2009-10, which caused revenue loss of approx. Rs. 12,000 crores,” chief information commissioner R.K. Mathur recorded in his order.

As the department had claimed exemption from disclosure, Dhingra had filed his second appeal before the commission on September 23 on the grounds that information should be provided to him. In the subsequent hearing, while Dhingra was present, the DoT CPIO was not. The appellant submitted that the department had “wrongly denied him the sought for information” by relying on an office memorandum of the Department of Personnel and Training. The RTI applicant submitted that the DoT should have quoted specific provisions of the RTI Act under which they had claimed exemption from disclosure.

‘DoT had admitted to Rs 29,000 crore loss in Supreme Court’

He also told the commission that the respondent in their written submission (affidavit) before the Supreme Court had admitted to a loss of revenue to the tune of Rs 29,000 crore. “In addition, he stated that the disclosure is in larger public interest, therefore, the respondent should supply him copy of the recovery notice and the reply sent by these telecom companies,” Mathur recorded in his order.

After going through the submissions and arguments, the CIC said that the respondent should be personally present before the commission on the next date of hearing along with his written submissions for explaining the case. Adjourning the matter, Mathur directed the deputy registrar to fix a hearing in the matter after 15 days.

Mathur also issued a show cause notice to the CPIO concerned to explain why action should not be taken against him for trying to deny information by not attending the hearing.

Delhi University Official Fined for Rejecting RTI Query on Modi’s Degree

DU’s Central Public Information Officer Meenkshi Sahay said that there was no malice in rejecting the RTI application and that she had to follow the policies laid down by the university.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Credit: Reuters/Amit Dave

New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has slapped a fine of Rs 25,000 on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Delhi University (DU) for rejecting an RTI application seeking Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s graduation degree.

The Information Commissioner, M. Sridhar Acharyulu, in a recent order, pulled up DU CPIO Meenakshi Sahay had said the rejections reminded him of the saying “penny wise, pound foolish”.

The commission was hearing a plea filed by Delhi-based lawyer Mohammad Irsad, whose RTI query seeking inspection of Modi’s degree was rejected on the ground that the Indian Postal Order (IPO) was not marked in favour of the registrar of the university.

The commission, directing the “public authority” to recover an amount of Rs 25,000 from the salary payable to Sahay, said that after hearing the story that thousands of rupees had been spent in a legal battle for a postal order of Rs 10, “the proverb ‘penny wise, pound foolish’ has to be rewritten as ‘rupee wise and thousand foolish’.”

Sahay in her defence argued that there was no malice in rejecting the RTI application and that she had to follow the policies laid down by the university.

The commission did not find any merit or justification in her argument, stating that the fee was not a material factor to throw out an RTI request.

It said it was “vexed with non response” from the CPIO to a number of its notices and thus found it a fit case to impose penalty.

Calling the CPIO’s action “pathetic”, the commissioner said in the order that “such a simple request for information has been dragged to the level of second appeal, building heaps of documents with multiple files”.

The commission also slammed DU for “spending huge amounts of money and consuming precious time of public servants”, including the commission.

It also asked the “public authority”, without defining it, to facilitate sufficient training to the entire staff, including the CPIO, in the matter of RTI law so that they do not reject applications in a routine manner without application of mind.

The commission recommended that officials be provided with the latest books on the RTI Act as well as classic text books on administrative law. It suggested they should also be given the books Right to Know by late professor S.P. Sathe and Five-point Someone: What Not To Do At IIT by Chetan Bhagat.

(IANS)