Respected all ,
Having gone thru the draft of uttar pradesh rajya suchna ayoga (
management ) rules 2008 , I have noticed that these rules are nothing
but a conspiracy of SIC U.P. to kill rti in uttar pradesh . please
find below an open letter emailed to sri gyanendra sharma , the
officiating SCIC u.p. , secretary SIC u.p. and copy sent to the
president of india , the governor & CM of uttar pradesh. U all r
requested to go thru these rules and send ur suggestions to SCIC U. P.
so that rti could be saved in uttar pradesh.
Thanks & regards
Urvashi sharma
============================================================================================================================================
To,
Shri Gyanendra Sharma,
Honb'le the Chief State Information Commissioner ( officiating )
U.P. State Information Commission
6th Floor ,Indira Bhavan ,Ashok Marg ,Lucknow - 226001
E-mail : gyanendrasharma@gmail.com
&
The Secretary
U.P. State Information Commission
6th Floor ,Indira Bhavan , Ashok Marg , Lucknow - 226001
E-mail : sec.sic@up.nic.in
Sub. - SUGGESTIONS TO AMEND UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA SUCHNA AYOGA (
SANCHALAN ) NIYAMAVALI 2008 TO MAKE IT CONFORMING TO RTI ACT 2005
Dear Sir,
1. Kindly refer to the uttar pradesh rajya suchna ayoga ( management )
rules 2008 (hereinafter referred as "rules 2008" }as uploaded on the
website of uttar pradesh state information commission.
2. An indepth look at these rules would reveal that in some of the
rules / subrules , these new rules contradict the mother RTI Act 2005
, a condition which besides being against the spirit of the RTI Act
2005 are not maintainable in the eye of law also.
3. The details are as given below-
- (a) Please refer to section 15(4) of the rti act which clearly
states that for general superintendence , direction and management of
the affairs of SIC rules can be made by SCIC under this act. So no
rule can be made that contradicts the mother act. In the introduction
of the rules 2008 ambiguous language has been used. In place of the
words " OTHER PROVISIONS " , clear details of those other provisions
should be given to make things clear.In RTI act 2005 the main
emphasis is laid down on discharge of clear information.So it is very
much expected that rules made by SIC have crystal clear language.
- ( b) Please refer to rule 1 ( c ) of rules 2008 which states-
- cases registered earlier shall be heard and disposed - off under
rules prevailing at that time & next line says
- these rules 2008 shall be applicable on those old cases in which
some future action has been ordered.
I think these two statements creates undue confusion about cases
registered before implementation of these rules 2008 , this confusion
has to be resolved before implementing these rules.
- ( c) Please refer to rule 2 ( ix ) of rules 2008 which states "
prescribed " means prescribed rules under the act & prescribed rules
under rules 2008. Now it has to be seen that no rule of these new
rules should be contrary to the rule of the mother act. Some of the
rules of these rules 2008 are contrary to the mother act which I shall
elaborate in given points. First make all the rules / subrules of
rules 2008 as per provisions laid down in the RTI act 2005 , only then
to rule 2 ( ix ) of rules 2008 shall be in conformity to the ACT.
- (d) Please refer to rule 2 ( xiv ) of rules 2008 which states
" Representative " means from various parties or their authorized
persons in which advocates shall be included.
In this rule very cleverly the word " various " has been included with
the clearcut intention to help PIOs abstain from hearings and send
advocates as their representatives. This is contrary to rule 19(5) &
20(1) of the act and is legally not sustainable. This is against the
spirit of the act and I am sure if implemented as such , no respondent
shall ever come for hearings and only advocates will appear on the
part of respondents and getting information shall become a distant
dream for the common man. Moreover it shall impose extra burden on
state exchequer in the form of payments made to these advocates. The
SIC should stop entry of advocates as representatives of PIOs & the
word "various parties" should be replaced by " the complainant /
appellant to make this rule conforming to rule 19(5) & 20(1) of the
act.
- (e) The case of rule 2 ( xviii ) is the same as point no. (c ) of
this letter . unless and until the rules 2008 are not conforming to
the RTI Act 2005 , how come words and expressions not conforming to
the mother act but included in these rules 2008 shall be legally
sustainable. So these rules 2008 shall first conform to the mother act
to have this rule legally sustainable.
- (f) in chapter -3 rule 5 there is no clear mention of working
hours of information commissioners , a factor directly concerned with
the speedy delivery of cases. Moreover to alleviate the problem in
rule 6 there is mention of probable 2-4 weeks summer break and 2 weeks
winter break that too when the pendancy of cases is so high in in SIC
U.P.are you going to make it like hon. High court ?
- (g) The RTI Act was made to facilitate a common man to have
information he desires in the simplest possible way and that's why
section 4 , 5 , 6 & 7 of the RTI act are very very friendly to
information seeker and all responsibilities have been fixed with the
PIOs but an indepth look at chapter 4 of rules 2008 would make it
clear that these rules shall snatch the rti tool from the hands of a
common information seeker and it would become very difficult for a
common man to get the information through SIC U. P. Chapter 4 imposes
so much procedural implications on the complainant / appellant that
soon the while filing the complaint/appeal information seeker shall
feel that he is going to file a writ petition in hon'ble high court .
In rule 7 of rules 2008 legal jargons like paperbook etc are used to
complicate the matter for a common-man .
- (h) under rule 8(1) (a) of rules 2008 this is mandatory for the
appellant / complainant to furnish his personal details aprt from his
name and address , a gross violation of the rule 6(2) of the RTI Act
2005 . how can a rule be made against the mother act ?
- ( i ) under rule 8(1) (b) of rules 2008 this is mandatory for the
appellant / complainant to furnish the name of PIO / Appellate
authority. I am sure that even SIC U. P. won't have a list of names of
all the PIOs/ Aas of U. P. How can one expect that a common - man
shall first go from pillar to post of the office to know the NAME of
the pio / aa in the fear that if he does not furnish these names , his
complaint/appeal is liable to be rejected. Please first ensure
compliance from the government offices , only then expect this from
the complainant. There is minor printing mistake. Please replace dhara
19(1) by dhara 19 (3).
- (j) under rule 9 ( b ) & 9 ( e ) of rules 2008 this is mandatory
for the appellant / complainant to furnish self-attested copies of
the decisions of the PIOs / A As .Now the fine point is that in all
government offices , the information is furnished by the concerned
section and generally the PIO / AA sends a photocopy of that
information alongwith his covering letter. So until n unless SIC U. P.
ensures that each and every paper sent by PIO / AA bears his signature
and is duly attested , how can it expect that the information seeker
shall self attest anunattested photocopy furnished by the PIO / AA .
- (k) Rule 11(5) (b) of rules 2008 says registrar can cancel cases
that are not maintainable due to "some " reasons . The word
"some" is ambiguous in nature and is against rule 4(1)(d) of the act.
No decision can be taken arbitrarily. So please elaborate this word
"some " and give details of "specific parameters" based on which
maintainability of the case shall be decided.
- (l)In rule 11 of rules 2008 many ways have been devised to cancel
appeal/complaint on procedural grounds and jargons like " prescribed
proforma " etc. are used that make the implementation of the act
Cumbersome, so far as the information seeker is concerned.
- (m)Rule 12 of rules 2008 that deals with filing of counter by the PIO /
FAA gives a bunch of relaxations to the pio/faa. As per this rule
" after getting the complaint / appeal , the PIO / FAA shall submit
his counter ( if there is some ) alongwith concerned documents.
What is the meaning of " Yadi Koi Ho " . When you have rule 10 of
rules 2008 that complainant/ appellant has to send a copy of complaint
/ appeal to the PIO / FAA and compulsarily furnish attested copy of
the proof of the same to the SIC while filing the complaint / appeal
then why it is not made mandatory to the PIO/FAA to file counter ?
Moreover as per rule 12 of rules 2008 " during hearing in commission
GENERALLY the PIO / FAA shall present his view "
When there is clearcut provision in rule 19(5) & 20(1) it is mandatory
for the PIO / FAA to be present before the commission . So I request
you to replace the word " GENERALLY " BY " COMPULSARILY "to make this
rule conforming to the act.
- (n)Rule 15 (5) of rules 2008 says that the commission shall pass
order on the merits of the case. In these rules nowhere I have found
any mention of "SPEAKING ORDER " . This is okay that the commission
shall decide cases based on merits of the case but until n unless the
order is a speaking one which is mandatory as per section 4(1)d of the
act , the merits of the case does not matter at all because in the
absence of speaking orders , the information commissions get the
liberty of passing orders in autocratic way which is against the act.
So please introduce the word " SPEAKING ORDERS " in these rules 2008
at appropriate place with a view to strengthen the act.
- (o)Rule 15 (6) of the rules 2008 says that if both the petitioner
and the respondent remain absent for two consecutive hearings , the
commission shall assume that no party is interested in the case and
the case MAY be cancelled. I am of the view that this is against the
spirit of the act. If the information seeker has sent letter of
section 6 to pio, complaint/appeal to SIC then how come the
commission is assuming that the information seeker is not interested
in the information , that too when the PIO / FAA is absent for two
consecutive hearings ( a fault for which PIO / FAA should be punished
under the provisions of the act , he is being rewarded by cancelling
the complaint/appeal ) please look into the matter and delete this
portion from this clause to make it as per the spirit of the act.
- (p)Rule 17 of rules 2008 states that anyone appellant/complainant or
any other party can move application to postpone the hearing .This
rule read with the rule 2(xiv) & rule 12 shall make it almost
impossible to get information in cases where corruption of large cases
shall be exposed because either the PIO / FAA shall be busy in meeting
or the PIO / FAA shall be on tour or the PIO / FAA shall be on leave
or the advocate shall have numerous of excuses we often watch in our
movies. If this clause is incorporated as such , it would be
impossible to get information in most of the cases and the very
purpose of the RTI act shall be defeated in UTTAR PRADESH . So please
have a review of the same.As per the act PIO / FAA has to show cause
of delay in discharge of information after 30 days , so how come he
can be given the right to move an application for postponement of the
hearing for which the petitioner shall be in SIC at the expense of his
own valuable TIME & MONEY. Isn't it inhumane ?
- (q) Rule 21 of the rules 2008 states that keeping in view the
facts & circumstances , the commission can order to "VARIOUS PARTIES "
for payment of such compensation , as the commission deems fit. Here
very cleverly the word "VARIOUS PARTIES " has been introduced to take
the information seeker in the trap . This is done in gross violation
of section 19(8)(b) of the act which states that " require the public
authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other
detriment suffered" . Please amend the rule so as to conform to the
provisions of the act.
- (r)Rule 22(4 ) of rules 2008 has no specific mention of fee one has
to pay for to get the copy of the order of the Commission. Please
introduce specific details to resolve doubts in this matter.
Please go through suggestions as made above and veed -out the
unwanted and introduce the required facts with a view that these rules
2008 should not contradict the RTI Act 2005 at all .
Hope a positive response
Thanking you,
Date : 24 - 07 - 2008
Yours Sincerely,
( URVASHI SHARMA )
Social Worker & RTI Activist
456 , BARI BAMAN PURI , BAREILLY - 243003 , UTTAR PRADESH
PH :09305463313
Email:rtimahilamanchup@gmail.com , rtimahilamanchup@yahoo.co.in
COPY FOR NECESSARY ACTION AT THEIR END TO -
1. Honb'le President of india , President house , new delhi , india
2. Honb'le The Governor of Uttar Pradesh , Uttar Pradesh Government
,Lucknow - Uttar Pradesh
3. Honb'le Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh , U. P. Government , Lucknow , U. P.
( URVASHI SHARMA )
