FUNCTIONING OF THE CIC IS UNDER CLOUD FOR THE LAST 9 YEARS on account of working against the explicit Provisions of the RTI act. The RTI Act came into existence 15th June 2005 with the explicit stipulation under Section 1 (3) that the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 4, and sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 5, Section 12, 13,, 15, 16, 24, 27 and 28 shall come into force at once and the remaining provisions of this Act shall come into force on the ²(one hundred and twentieth day) of its enactment. As I have observed for the last nine years, the CIC itself has not complied with the following mandatory requirement under clause (b) of Section 4 (1) of the RTI Act:- 1. Not published the powers and duties of its officers and employees under clause b (ii). 2. The procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability as mandatory under clause b (iii) of the Act 3. Publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decision which affect public as mandatory under clause (c) of the RTI Act. 4. Provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected person as mandatory under clause (d) of Section 4 (1) of the RTI Act. It is very surprising to state that neither the CIC has ensured the compliance of the said clause nor the compliance from the Public Authorities to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions. 5. The CIC is not ensuring the compliance of Section 6 (2) from the Public Authority, indulged in requiring reasons for requesting the information from the applicant. 6. The CIC has extended maximum exemption to the Public Authority for not providing the information to the applicant under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act whereas it is mandatory to transfer the application within 5 days from the receipt of application to the concerned Public authority. 7. In such cases where a Public Authority fails to comply time limits specified under Section 7 (1), the CIC is not ensuring from the Public Authority to provide information to the applicant free of charge. 8. The CIC is not ensuring the compliance of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act from the Public Authority if the CPIO/PIO does not provide the information in the form in which it is requested. 9. The CIC is not ensuring the compliance of Section 8 (3) of the RTI Act for providing the information relating to any matter occurred twenty years before the date on which any request is made by the applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act. 10. The CIC is also not ensuring the compliance of Section 10 (2) of the RTI Act from the Public Authority before scheduling hearing of appeal. 11. The CIC is not taking any initiative on the complaint of the applicant for inquiring into the matters under Section 18 (2), (3) and (4) relating to issues, earmarked under clause (b), (c), (d) & (e) of sub-section 18 (1), of the RTI Act. 12. The CIC is extending the maximum prescribed time limit to the First Appellate Authority against the explicit provision of Section 19 (6) of the RTI Act. 13. The CIC is also not extending the mandatory protection of clause (a) & (b) of Section 19 (8) of the RTI Act to the applicant. 14. The CIC is also is also not giving any notice of its decision, mandatory under Section 19 (9) and also not following the prescribed procedure wile deciding the appeal in accordance with the prescribed procedure under Section 19 (10) of the RTI Act. 15. The CIC is also not imposing any penalty to the concerned Public Authority despite the fact the authority concerned knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information and destroyed information which was the subject of the information as explicitly laid down under Section 20 (2) of the RTI Act. 16. The CIC authorities are not extending the protection of Section 23 despite the fact that the second appeal of the applicant is hot heard nor perused by the concerned Information Commissioner under forgery and criminal conspiracy. The CIC is taking the excuse of Regulation 23 of the CIC (Management) Regulations, 2007 and 2008 despite the same are quashed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 17. The CIC is not paying any cognizance regarding ensuring the information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human right violation as mandatory under Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act. 18. The CIC itself indulged in not providing the copy of the appeal, referred in the decision of Information Commissioner despite of repeated request, on the pretext of the decision of Hon’ble Goa High Court on an irrelevant issue of promotion on an ex-cadre post. Thereafter, the Director of CIC has advised me to go through record retention and destruction policy of the Commission, notwithstanding the fact the issue of the applicant is still under dispute. It is ridiculous to state that if the CIC take the excuse of destruction of records, every Public Authority shall not provide information on such pretext. 19. The Commission is also not preparing the report on the implementation of the provisions of the Act every year and forward a copy thereof to the Government concerned as mandatory under Section 25 (1) of the RTI Act. My above observations will reveal that none of the provisions of the RTI Act have been implemented till date. 20. Similarly, the Commission has declined of preparing any report regarding the numbers of appeals referred to the Central Information Commission for review, nature of appeals and the outcome of the appeals, mandatory to submit to the Government every year as mandatory under clause (c) of Section 25 (3) of the RTI Act. From the forgoing facts, it is evident that the CIC authorities are hopelessly failed to implement the explicit provisions of the RTI Act till date. It is mainly because; the UPA Government has appointed such Information Commissioners who were closed to the Ministers. All the Information Commissioners are retired personnel and they have hardly any scope of promotion and further extension, hence not interested to waste their time in attaining proficiency by studying the RTI Act in detail. They have hardly any legal background of the RTI Act and are fully dependent on the advice of Registry officials, who are not able to interpret even Section 23 of the RTI Act. The promulgation of the CIC (Management) Regulations is the manifestation of the legal competence of the Commission and now wasted much of time in promulgating the RTI Rules, 2012 against Section 30 (1) of RTI Act only because to deviate from implementation of the explicit provisions of the RTI Act as mandatory under Section 1 (3) of the RTI Act. I am studying the RTI Act for the last eight years but hardly attained full proficiency of the Act. The RTI Act itself provides for a bona fide methodology in concluding an early and fair decision through introducing a précised format by taking recourse of clause (d) of Section 4 (1), Section 6 (3), Section 7 (9) and Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act which will facilitate in deciding the appeals within a short span of time. J S Rawat
Posted on: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:05:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015