Streamlining the working of CIC, New Delhi.

To                                                                               Date: 22-7-13.
Shri V. Narayanasamy, Hon Minister of State, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pension,

North Block, New Delhi.110001.

Sub: Streamlining the working of CIC, New Delhi.

As per Vision & Mission Of your Ministry, YOUR Ministry has to facilitate pursuit of excellence in governance for the benefit of all citizens and has to foster excellence in governance and pursuit of administrative reforms through improvements in government structures and processes; Promoting citizen-centric governance with emphasis on grievance redressal etc. Your Ministry has to formulate and oversee implementation of common office procedures, Quality Management in Government including laying down norms and standards for processes and Administration & Coordination in looking after the internal administration including RTI and other activities. Your Ministry has taken initiative to bring Information to the Citizens for which you have enacted Right to Information Act 2005, which mandates timely response to citizen requests for government information. Your strategy to achieve this is to streamline the procedures and strengthening of infrastructure for handling Review and revision of RTI Act and Rules and related procedures, as per need; improving performance, bringing efficiency with transparency in public service, while keeping pace with the changing environment in the public service.  Your Ministry believes in attaining excellence through performance and superior client service that reflects your Ministry`s commitment to collaboration and the highest standards of quality.

In view of such a noble Vision & Mission and your campaign for Awareness Generation Programmes and simplifying procedures for filing RTI Application etc, we bring out the following difficulties faced by citizens in working of CIC for getting rectified, as our efforts with CIC have not brought any results:

1.     As per para 11 of your Notification no. GSR 603 dt 31-7-12, Appeals are to be processed by CIC by examining various documents etc. It is observed that in most of the Speaking Orders by ICs/CIC, there is no discussion of any documents sent by Appellant, though in every Notice advising date of Hearing, it is stated that in case of your absence, matter will be decided on the basis of record. Speaking Orders are passed on the basis of whatever is stated by the representative of Public Authority without reading/examining factual position brought out in IInd Appeal and rejoinder. In most of the cases, rejoinders are not registered and put on file at the time of Hearing. Strict provision is required to be made in your Notification dt 31-7-12 to bring out the contention of Appellant in IInd Appeal and Rejoinder in Speaking Orders and then to discuss and examine the contention of representative of Public Authority and give reasoned conclusion by Appellate Authority in his Decisions. If  ICs/CIC are not required to read and examine any papers sent as IInd Appeals by Appellants, their Registrars may be given this duty of bringing out the contention of Appellant to the notice of ICs/CIC during Hearing and to ensure that Speaking Orders include such contentions and reasons given by ICs/CIC rejecting each contention or accepting and directing representatives of CPIO/AA to give information. Annexure A indicating details of a few Speaking Orders ignoring the mention/examination of Appellant`s contention in IInd Appeals is enclosed. Perusal of these Decisions (on web site of CIC) on these cases even by an ordinary person with little commonsense having no deep knowledge of Natural Justice, Human Rights etc will  convince him about futility of these judgments delivered by learned ICs/CIC  for getting simple information from Public Authorities after waiting for 3-4 years of giving Application!!

2.     There is no provision for request/appeal against such Speaking Orders of ICs/CIC, where principles of natural justice are violated and Speaking Orders are passed without examining the contentions of Applicant in IInd Appeal/Complaint/Rejoinder. No action is taken on complaints against such basically faulty Decisions even after 15-20 reminders! In view of this, incorrect and irresponsible Decisions are increasing and citizens are loosing faith in the Act & Government. Preparation of Decisions is perhaps left to Registrars, as they are treated as Chief Executives of Commission on Judicial Side. There is no provision in your Notification about giving IInd Appeals to ICs/CIC for study/reading/examining and as such all papers sent by Appellant in IInd Appeal are just ignored/not taken notice of during Hearing. This results in incorrect Decisions and requires to be looked in to by your Ministry seriously and proper provision made in Notification; otherwise all your efforts to encourage Citizens to use RTI will miserably fail.

3.      As per para 12(2) of Notification, video conferencing is provided but no mention is made about Tele Conferencing, which is cheaper and very convenient, especially for senior citizens. This facility is invariably given by some of the ICs and CIC but some ICs/Registrars are not giving. This may please be included in your Notification and/or give directives to CIC that it should be given in all deserving cases.

4.     In para 6 of your Notification in Mode of Payment of Fees, no mention is made about Decision of Prime Minister to provide service by Postal Department as collection point of Applications/Appeals of whole of Central Government by paying fees to APIOs of Nominated Post Offices. Registrar of CIC does not accept such Applications through APIO of Nominated Post Office. Some other Public Authority also sometimes objects, though they do not reject Applications, as done by CIC Registrar. This facility through APIOs of Nominated Post Offices is very convenient for Citizens for which Citizens are thankful to P.M. & Postal Department and this should be included in your Notification and there should be no argument against this by any of the Public Authority, PSU, and Autonomous Bodies etc, as notified by Postal Department.

5.     As per para 10(3) (b) of your Notification, IInd Appeal will be considered only after Appellant has availed all remedies available to him under the Act. In cases, 

Appeals are required to be processed but CIC directs by letter to A.A. to give reply to Appellant within 15 days and asks Appellant to come up with Fresh IInd Appeal, if AA does not reply or his reply is not satisfactory. This is an incorrect practice making Appellant to spend for typing, zeroxing 4 copies-2 for CIC, 1 for CPIO & AA each again. One page of typing costs to the citizen Rs 10, and Rs 2 per large number of pages for zeroxing, heavy Speed Post charges etc. This practice should be got stopped and instead of practice of writing letter to AA, he should be summoned for Hearing.

6.     As per Notification no.CIC/Legal/2007/006 dt 13-2-08 and minutes of meeting held by CIC on 13-12-11, it was notified for the information of general public that the Appeals and Complaints filed by senior citizens shall be taken up by the Commission on priority basis and norms & procedure for according priority to Appellants in Hearing Appeals/Complaints filed before the Commission were decided in minutes dt 13-12-11. Appeals/Complaints from senior citizens and differently abled persons were to be put up to the Bench of the Commission where such cases are registered. This is not being done for last 5 years and not a single case of senior citizen is given any preference, inspite of showing on top of each Appeal/Complaint that preference is to be given in terms of CIC orders and age is indicated. Wrong information is being given by your Ministry to MPs for Parliamentary Questions that preference is being given, when there is not a single case of preference given for last 5 years and no record is maintained for this. This is serious and may be looked into for laying down proper instructions.

7.     CIC has a very well maintained Web Site and is very useful. There should be provision for ``Query`` on various matters of Act, Procedures etc, as stock reply by Registrars/Joint Secretary etc is that there is no procedure/instructions/no records etc. It is observed that in Status Position for Appeals/Complaints/Letters, date of appeal/complaint/letter given by citizens is not indicated and in many cases, name of Public Authority is also not given, resulting in difficulty to check up whether particular document is received and registered, especially when more than one documents of same date are sent. This may kindly be got rectified, as our efforts with CIC have failed.

8.     It has been notified by CIC that Appeals/Complaints sent by E/Mail will not be processed, if not followed by hard copy. This is correct but other letters/reminders sent by E/Mail are also not considered at all, though this facility is provided at huge public cost. As E/Mails are accepted, either action should be taken thereon or like SIC & ICs of Maharashtra, all E/Mails should be rejected with Failure Notices and/or notified that no one should send E/Mails to CIC office.

9.     As per para 66-67 of Central Secretariat Manual and your repeated instructions, last being 55/20/2012-P&PW© dt 18-2-13, reply to all letters is to be given within one month and where delay is likely, intimation as to when reply will be given has to be sent. When we do not get any reply to our representations to various Ministers by name, we take up non-reply under RTI Applications/Appeals on the understanding that non-reply is slack working of Public Authority requiring streamlining, which is the main aim of RTI Act, 2005. We would request you to examine this for issuing directives to all concerned to reply at least after taking up under RTI Application/Appeal.

10.  Penalties are prescribed in Sec 20 of the Act for not furnishing information in prescribed time limit. This Section is a law and no IC/CIC discusses in Speaking Orders about reasonableness of delays in supply of information, as stipulated in this Section. Penalty is imposed in rare cases and this rule is used as exception, making RTI Act, 2005 ineffective. Some directives to discuss reasonability of delay in Speaking Orders may kindly be issued.

We shall be grateful, if these important aspects are got examined and remedial action taken, giving reply to us in terms of Para 66-67 of Office Manual.

Thanking you,

Yours Sincerely,

(M.V.Ruparelia)

Copy forwarded to Shri  Satyananda Mishra, Cief Information Commissioner, August Kranti Bhawan, B Wing, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 for necessary action.

Annexure A- Statement showing details of Some Recent Decisions in which contention of Appellant in IInd Appeals are not taken note of and opportunity to be heard not given.

Sr No	Date of  IInd Appeal	No & date by CIC	Public Authority	Date of Decision	Date of request to reconsider	Date of Application	Remarks
1	27-12-12 6-2-13	CIC/LS/A/2013/000242 & 000399 dt29-1-13 & 14-2-13.	CIC	27-5-13	19-7-13	20-8-12  21-9-12
2	19-10-11	CIC/SM/A/2011/2469             & 2470  dt 27-10-11	CIC	30-4-12	3-5-12	25-3-11 8-4-12
3	3-2-11	CIC/SM/A/2011/000611 dt 11-2-11	CIC	12-4-12	16-4-12	14-10-10