Tag: RTI

  • MP man gets 40000-page reply to RTI plea, brings documents home in SUV 

    By PTI

    INDORE: The sports utility vehicle of a man in Indore in Madhya Pradesh was completely packed with 40,000 pages he received as reply to his Right to Information Act plea connected to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Moreover, Dharmendra Shukla also did not have pay the stipulated Rs 2 per page since his plea was not answered within one month.

    “I had submitted an RTI plea with the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO) of Indore seeking details of tenders and bill payments connected to procurement of medicines, equipment and allied materials during the COVID-19 pandemic period,” Shukla said on Saturday.

    Since he was not provided the information within one month, he approached the first appellate officer Dr Sharad Gupta, who accepted the plea and directed that he be given the information free of cost, Shukla added.

    “I took my SUV to ferry the documents and the entire vehicle got packed. Only the driver’s seat remained free,” he said.

    When contacted, appellate officer and Regional Joint Director of the state health department Dr Sharad Gupta said he had ordered that the information be given free of cost.

    Gupta said he had directed the CMHO to take appropriate action against the personnel due to whom the state exchequer lost Rs 80,000 since the information was not given in time.

    INDORE: The sports utility vehicle of a man in Indore in Madhya Pradesh was completely packed with 40,000 pages he received as reply to his Right to Information Act plea connected to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Moreover, Dharmendra Shukla also did not have pay the stipulated Rs 2 per page since his plea was not answered within one month.

    “I had submitted an RTI plea with the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO) of Indore seeking details of tenders and bill payments connected to procurement of medicines, equipment and allied materials during the COVID-19 pandemic period,” Shukla said on Saturday.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    Since he was not provided the information within one month, he approached the first appellate officer Dr Sharad Gupta, who accepted the plea and directed that he be given the information free of cost, Shukla added.

    “I took my SUV to ferry the documents and the entire vehicle got packed. Only the driver’s seat remained free,” he said.

    When contacted, appellate officer and Regional Joint Director of the state health department Dr Sharad Gupta said he had ordered that the information be given free of cost.

    Gupta said he had directed the CMHO to take appropriate action against the personnel due to whom the state exchequer lost Rs 80,000 since the information was not given in time.

  • Railways earns additional Rs 1500 crore from senior citizens by suspending ticket concession: RTI

    The total revenue from senior citizen travellers during the period is Rs 3,464 crore, which includes an additional Rs 1,500 crore earned due to the suspension of the concession.

  • Over 17 lakh people contracted HIV in India in last 10 years by unprotected sex: RTI reply

    HIV transmission by unprotected sex was recorded in 2.4 lakh people in 2011-12, while the number reduced to 85,268 in 2020-21.

  • CIC rejects appeal seeking details of SC collegium meeting on December 12, 2018

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Central Information Commission has dismissed an RTI appeal seeking the agenda of the Supreme Court collegium meeting on December 12, 2018, which has been referred to by former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in his recent autobiography.

    According to the autobiography ‘Justice for the Judge’, the names of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog, the then Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, and Justice Rajendra Menon, the then Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, had received nod for the elevation to the Supreme Court in the collegium meeting on December 12, 2018.

    The matter allegedly got leaked after which the issue was kept in abeyance by Justice Gogoi till January, 2019 because of winter break which started on December 15, 2018, the book said.

    In January 2019, a new collegium got constituted, after the retirement of Justice Madan Lokur.

    The new collegium in its resolution on January 10, 2019 did not clear the names of Justice Nandrajog and Justice Menon for elevation to the Supreme Court, according to the book.

    The agenda of and decisions taken at the meeting on December 12, 2018 were not made public.

    Activist Anjali Bhardwaj through her RTI petition filed before the Supreme Court wanted copies of the agenda, decisions taken and resolutions passed in the December 12, 2018 meeting.

    The Supreme Court Central Public Information Officer refused information, citing a stay granted by the apex court on the disclosure of issues such as appointment of judges.

    It also cited exemption clauses Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act, saying disclosure may result in contempt of court, and 8(1)(e) (information held in fiduciary capacity) and 8(1)(j) (information being personal in nature) to deny the information.

    In her appeal before the first appellate authority of the SC, Bhardwaj said there was no reason why decisions of December 12, 2018 meeting were not uploaded on the apex court website.

    She said she was not seeking third party information but is seeking resolutions of the Supreme Court collegium which are otherwise placed in the public domain.

    The first appellate authority (FAA) referred to the resolution passed on January 10, 2019 meeting of the collegium where a reference was made to the December 12 meeting.

    “The Collegium comprising the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court viz.Mr.Justices Madan B.Lokur, A.K.Sikri, S.A.Bobde and N.V.Ramana met on Wednesday, 12th December, 2018 to discuss the Agenda viz., (1) to consider and recommend names for appointment as Judges in the Supreme Court and (2) to consider proposals for transfer of Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts.”

    “The then Collegium on 12th December, 2018 took certain decisions. However, the required consultation could not be undertaken and completed as the winter vacation of the Court intervened. By the time the Court re-opened, the composition of the Collegium underwent a change. After extensive deliberations on 5th / 6th January, 2019, the newly constituted Collegium deemed it appropriate to have a fresh look at the matter and also to consider the proposals in the light of the additional material that became available,” the Supreme Court FAA order said, citing relevant portion of the collegium resolution on January 10, 2019.

    The question that required answer is whether on December 12, 2018 resolutions were passed by the collegium of the Supreme Court as claimed by Bhardwaj, it said.

    “The answer finds place in the resolution passed by Collegium on January 10, 2019 which is published on Supreme Court website,” the FAA order said.

    Bhardwaj approached the Central Information Commission challenging the order of FAA of the Supreme Court.

    After hearing both sides, Chief Information Commissioner Y K Sinha held that it is clear that the agenda of December 12, 2018 meeting of the collegium has been mentioned in the resolution dated January 10, 2019, which answered demand for the agenda of the meeting.

    “The Commission concurs with the order of the FAA and holds that in the absence of any resolution passed in the meeting dated December 12, 2018, no available information as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act exists on record which can be disclosed to the appellant,” Sinha said.

    He said the outcome of the fate of the meeting held on December 12, 2018 has been discussed in the resolution dated January 10, 2019, hence no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

  • PM CARES ventilators found faulty in Srinagar hospital, says RTI

    Express News Service

    SRINAGAR:  Ventilators supplied under the PM CARES Fund to the SMHS hospital in Srinagar were found defective, faulty and not fit to support patient care, according to an RTI response.

    The Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine had received 37 ventilators which were put in trial, the hospital said, responding to the query filed by RTI activist Balvinder Singh.

    “All these ventilators were returned to Medical Superintendent SMHS hospital due to compressor/heat up problems, which resulted in sudden shutdown of these ventilators. These ventilators do not support the patient care management,” the department head said.

    Three Agva ventilators were non-functional because of problems such as display not working properly and problems in generating tidal volume, the response said. Similarly, two DHAMAN-III ventilators were put on trial at the Srinagar hospital.

    “After a trial run, it was found that the tidal volume was not generated. Besides, the required flow rate could not be delivered to the patients and, hence, these are not feasible for patient care. These ventilators stop automatically, putting patients at risk.” 

    Tidal volume is the amount of air that moves in or out of the human lungs with each respiratory cycle. Both Agva and DHAMAN-III are indigenous products.

    Singh said he had filed a similar RTI at GMC Jammu to know the fate of ventilators supplied under the PM CARES fund but officials didn’t provide exact details.

    “GMC Jammu has shown that only 13 ventilators out of 179 are defective and not working.”

    The Jammu-based RTI activist urged the J&K Chief Justice to order the chief secretary for constituting a panel of experts to inspect all such ventilators supplied under the PM CARES fund in the Union Territory. 

  • Gujarat HC suspends life term awarded to former BJP MP Dinu Solanki in RTI activist murder case

    By PTI

    AHMEDABAD: Stating that his conviction was not likely to be sustained, the Gujarat High Court on Thursday suspended the life sentence awarded to former BJP MP Dinu Bogha Solanki by a special court in the murder case of RTI activist Amit Jethwa.

    Granting bail to Solanki, Justice Paresh Upadhyay said the special CBI court’s judgement was “erroneous and unsustainable” as the trial was based “on assumptions and presumptions and also conjunctures and surmises”.

    The trial against Solanki was largely based on circumstancial evidence, the high court said, adding that this evidece “not only leads to many other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused, (but) even false implication of the applicant can not be ruled out.”

    RTI activist Amit Jethwa was shot dead outside the Gujarat High Court in 2010.

    In July 2019, the trial court here sentenced Solanki and six others to life imprisonment for killing Jethwa after he tried to expose the illegal mining in the Gir forest region.

    Solanki, currently lodged at the Sabarmati Central Jail here, challenged the CBI court’s verdict, and sought suspension of his sentence while his appeal was heard.

    The high court took into consideration the fact that Solanki, who was a sitting MP of the BJP in 2010, was named as prime accused only in 2013 after the CBI took over the probe.

    Neither the Special Investigation Team nor state CID-Crime had named him as an accused earlier, the HC noted.

    “We have no hesitation to arrive at the conclusion that, the conviction under section 302 (murder) of IPC with the aid of section 120-B (conspiracy) is less likely to be sustained.

    For all the above reasons, the sentence imposed by the CBI Court needs to be suspended and the applicant needs to be granted bail, during pendency of appeal,” the high court said.

    The CBI court “fell in error by taking into consideration irrelevant aspects. the conviction recorded by the CBI court is principally based on assumptions and presumptions and the same is ex-facie (on the face of it) unsustainable,” it added.

    The HC granted Solanki bail on the condition of surrendering the passport and not leaving the country without prior permission of the court.

  • PM CARES Fund does not go in the Consolidated Fund of India: Centre tells Delhi HC

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The PM CARES Fund is not a Government of India fund and the amount collected by it does not go to the Consolidated Fund of India, the Delhi High Court has been informed.

    An affidavit filed by an Under Secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) who is discharging his functions in the PM Cares Trust on honorary basis, has said the trust functions with transparency and its funds are audited by an auditor — a chartered accountant drawn from the panel prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

    The affidavit was filed in response to a petition seeking a direction to declare the PM CARES Fund a ‘State’ under the Constitution to ensure transparency in its functioning.

    A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Amit Bansal has fixed the matter for further hearing on September 27.

    “To ensure transparency, the audited report is put on the official website of the trust along with the details of utilisation of funds received by the trust,” says the affidavit filed by Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Under Secretary at the PMO.

    “I state that when the petitioner is claiming to be a public-spirited person and seeking to pray for various reliefs only for transparency, it does not matter whether PM Cares is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India,” the officer said in the affidavit.

    Irrespective of whether the trust is a ‘State’ or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or whether it is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI), it is not permissible to disclose third party information, .

    It said that all donations received by the trust are received via online payments, cheques or Demand Drafts and the amount received is audited with the audited report and the expenditure of trust fund displayed on the website.

    “The trust functions on the principles of transparency and public good in larger public interest like any other charitable trust and, therefore, cannot have any objection in uploading all its resolutions on its website to ensure transparency,” it said, while reiterating that  “the trust’s fund is not a fund of Government of India and the amount does not go in the Consolidated Fund of India.”

    The officer said he is discharging his functions in the PM Cares Trust on honorary basis which is a charitable trust not created by or under the Constitution or by any law made by the Parliament or by any State legislature.

    “Despite being an officer of the Central government, I am permitted to discharge my functions in PM Care Trust on an honorary basis,” he said.

    The court was hearing a petition filed by Samyak Gangwal who has said that the PM CARES Fund is a ‘State’ as it was formed by the Prime Minister on March 27, 2020 to extend assistance to the citizens of India in the wake of the public health emergency — the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic.

    His counsel had told the court that if it is found that the PM CARES Fund is not ‘State’ under the Constitution, usage of the domain name ‘gov’, the Prime Minister’s photograph, state emblem etc has to be stopped.

    The petition said that the Trustees of the fund are the Prime Minister, Defence Minister, Home Minister and the Finance Minister and immediately after the formation of the fund, the Centre through its high government functionaries represented that the fund was set up and operated by the Government of India.

    To ensure transparency and accountability, the plea has sought a direction for periodic auditing of PM CARES website and disclosure of the details of donations received by it.

    In his alterative prayers, Gangwal has sought to direct the Centre to publicise that the PM CARES Fund is not a fund of the Government of India and to restrain PM CARES from using ‘Prime Minister of India’ or ‘Prime Minister’, including its abbreviations its name, on its website, Trust Deed and other official or unofficial communications and advertisements.

    On March 9, the court had said it was not inclined to issue notice on the plea as the Centre was already represented through counsel who may file their written submissions.

    The petitioner has also filed another petition to declare PM CARES as a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which is being heard together with the first plea.

    This petition challenges a June 2, 2020 order of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), PMO, refusing to provide documents sought by him on the ground that PM Cares Fund is not a public authority under the RTI Act.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented PMO, had opposed the petition, stating that it was not maintainable and that he would file a response explaining why it should not be entertained.

  • Tuberculosis claimed 1390 lives in Uttarakhand in four years, finds RTI query

    By Express News Service

    DEHRADUN: Close to 1390 persons lost their lives to tuberculosis between 2015-2018 in the hill state, revealed data from the Uttarakhand health department. 

    The numbers were a result of the RTI query filed by a lawyer, following which he submitted the data along with a complaint to the Uttarakhand Human Rights Commission. 

    “After I got the data, I filed a complaint with the commission about the deaths. Tuberculosis is no longer incurable and these deaths could have been averted. Somewhere, the government lacked,” said Rajendra Prasad the lawyer.

    The commission has issued a notice to the state health department officials seeking an explanation for the death of these people. The next hearing in the matter has been scheduled for November 25, 2021.

    The highest number of deaths in these four years took place in Haridwar with 260 people losing their lives to TB followed by Dehradun (210), Udham Singh Nagar (194), Nainital (161), Pauri (110), Chamoli (109), Tehri (76), Almora (64), Bageshwar (53), Pithoragarh (48), Champawat (41), Rudraprayag (34) and Uttarkashi (30). 

    According to the data published in TB India Report 2018, more than 45 cases of TB were registered every day in Uttarakhand in 2017. The number of cases had increased by 10% in 2017 compared to the previous year. As many as 16,760 cases were registered in 2017, up by 1,679 from the 15,081 cases that were registered in 2016.

    A total of 13,012 cases were reported from government hospitals while 3,748 cases were reported from private clinics and hospitals. 

    In a notification on March 16, 2018, the Centre had made it mandatory for all chemists and hospitals to reveal details of TB patients, including the medication taken by them, to the health department. Those failing to do so could face a jail term up to two years with or without a fine. The move was meant to push more private hospitals to contain the disease, of which India has the maximum number of patients.

  • SC asks states to file status reports on vacancies, pendency of cases in information commissions

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed states to file status reports giving details of the numbers of vacancies and pending pleas in the State Information Commissions (SICs) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

    A bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari on July 7 had sought report from the Centre and states on the compliance with its 2019 verdict asking them to ensure time-bound filling up of posts of Information Commissioners at CIC and state panels under the transparency law.

    In an important verdict on transparency law, the apex court had come out with a slew of directions on February 15, 2019 and ordered that the selection process to fill vacancies at the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) should begin two months before they arise and the search committee should select people of eminence from various fields and not be limited to bureaucrats.

    Earlier, the court had noted that the Centre’s last status report on compliance was filed over a year ago and asked Additional Solicitor General Madhvi Divan to file a fresh one on the status of vacancies, the steps taken to fill them and observance of other directions.

    “Respondents, Union of India and states, are directed to file the latest status and compliance reports within four weeks from today. List after four weeks. Petitioner (RTI activist Anjali Bhadwaj) is also permitted to file an additional affidavit in the meantime,” the bench had said in its order.

    The top court was hearing the plea of the RTI activist seeking implementation of the 2019 verdict on appointments to the CIC and SICs under the Act.

    Bhardwaj has also sought a direction to government authorities on implementation of the top court’s order asking them to appoint information commissioners.

    Bhushan had said an application has been filed for filling up of vacancies in CIC and SICs.

    “Directions were given in 2020 that these posts need to be filled up well in time. Another important direction was issued. The court had deprecated the practice of selecting only bureaucrats or having a selection committee made up only of bureaucrats,” he had said.

    He had said there have been vacancies in SICs in states like Maharashtra, Odisha, Karnataka and West Bengal and there was a need to implement the directions of this court in entirety.

    He had alleged that around 75,000 and 36,000 cases under RTI are pending adjudication in Maharashtra SIC and the CIC respectively and the efforts have been made to render the RTI legislation ineffective.

    The apex court, in 2019, had said selection of information officers for the CIC and SICs should include people of eminence from various fields and not be limited to bureaucrats, a “bias” which is “writ large” in the current selection process.

    It had said Parliament intended persons of eminence in public life be taken as CIC as well ICs but a “strange phenomenon is happening”, that those persons who have been selected belong to only one category which is public service.

    It had also said that to bring transparency in selection of ICs, states should adopt the Centre’s process in which it uploads on the website the names of the Search Committee, the names of the candidates who have been shortlisted as well as the criteria followed for selection.

    The top court had then directed the Centre and eight states — West Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Karnataka — to fill up the vacancies without any delay within a period of one to six months.

  • SC refers to other bench pleas of banks against disclosure of information under RTI

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Tuesday referred to another bench the clutch of petitions of banks including SBI and HDFC Bank Ltd against directions of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) asking them to provide crucial information such as confidential annual reports and list of defaulters to applicants under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

    A bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari considered the fact that a bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao had earlier dealt with the pleas of banks seeking recall of a 2015 judgment in the Jayantilal N Mistry case by which it was held that the financial institutions will have to disclose information under the transparency law.

    On April 28, a bench of Justices Rao and Vineet Saran had refused to recall the judgement as sought by some banks, saying that under the law and the apex court rules the pleas seeking recall were not maintainable.

    It, however, had permitted the banks to pursue other remedy before apex court against the verdict and the RBI’s directions to them and the pleas have been listed before the bench headed by Justice Nazeer which took the decision to refer to the bench which had dealt with it earlier.

    Earlier, banks had said that they were neither parties nor heard in a case which led to the 2015 judgement holding that the RBI would have to provide information such as confidential annual reports and list of defaulters under the transparency law.

    The Centre, State Bank of India (SBI), Punjab National Bank (PNB), Canara Bank (CB), Union Bank of India (UBI) and HDFC Bank Ltd have moved the top court assailing the 2015 verdict in the Jayantilal N Mistry case and the consequential directions of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) asking them to provide crucial information to applicants under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

    The bench headed by Justice Nazeer had said it would first decide whether the pleas of the banks and the Centre should be dealt by a bench headed by Justice Rao.

    “In all fairness the case should go to a bench headed by Justice Rao,” Justice Nazeer had said.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for SBI, said he has no problem which bench hears the case, but the matter needed to be heard by a three-judge bench as “the issue of statutory embargo (under RTI) on holding back the confidential information was not adverted to in the judgement”.

    While dismissing the pleas of banks for recall of the 2015 verdict, a bench headed by Jusitce Rao had then made it clear that it was not dealing with any of the submissions of the banks on the correctness of the judgment.

    “The dismissal of these applications shall not prevent the applicants (banks) to pursue other remedies available to them in law,” it had said.

    “Banks were not parties to the case in which the judgement came,” senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for HDFC Bank, had said, adding that how can a private bank be asked to divulge its confidential banking secrets and details of its customers to a “fourth party”.

    The RBI had taken the ground that it has fiduciary relationship with the banks and hence cannot part with the information to applicants under the RTI, Rohatgi had said, adding that many more grounds are available to the banks and they could not be taken up then as they were not parties to the litigation.

    The submission was opposed by lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the RTI activist, saying the Indian Banks’ Association, to which all the banks are members and the ICICI were parties to the plea.

    The solicitor general had said that the matter needed hearing by a three-judge bench and a holistic judicial view of the entire issue was needed as banks were not party to the 2015 judgement.

    Banks are aggrieved by the RBI notices to them under Section 11(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act asking them to part with information pertaining to their inspection reports and risk assessment.

    The RTI Act empowers the RBI’s CPIO to seek information from banks.

    On April 28, the top court had, on legal grounds, refused to recall its 2015 judgment in the Jayantilal N Mistry case, which had held that the RBI will have to provide information about banks and financial institutions (FIs) regulated by it under the transparency law.

    Several FIs and banks, including CB, Bank of Baroda, UCO Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank had filed applications in the top court seeking the recall of the 2015 judgment, saying the verdict had far-reaching consequences and they were directly and substantially affected by it.

    The banks had contended that the pleas for a recall of the judgment, instead of a review, is “maintainable” as there was a violation of the principles of natural justice in view of the fact that they were neither parties to the matter nor heard.

    “A close scrutiny of the applications for a recall makes it clear that in substance, the applicants are seeking a review of the judgment in Jayantilal N Mistry. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that these applications are not maintainable,” the apex court had held.

    While dismissing the pleas, the bench, however, had made it clear that it was not dealing with any of the submissions made by the banks on the correctness of the 2015 judgment.

    Now, the apex court is seized by several pleas of banks against the RBI’s direction to disclose information under RTI.