Rahul Kumar with Prasenjeet Kumar Aisa and 46 others.
SPEECH ON RTI ACT,2005
You may please watch this video of dt 08/02/2016 pertaining to my speech as a guest speaker on Problems and Challenges of RTI Act,2005 at Seminar Hall,Hindu College,Delhi University.
At the outset,i extend my gratitude to Raja Choudhary Ji to suggest my name to the organiser of this Seminar to invite me as one of four guest speakers of this Seminar and also for assisting in organising this Seminar.
I also extend my gratitude to Arshad Nihal Ji,who is the president of NSS,Hindu College Unit and his team who organised this Seminar.
I further extend my gratitude to Jagannath Jaggu Ji,who promoted my participation as a speaker on facebook.
I can't forget to extend my gratitude to Er Rajesh Amarnath Bhaijee,who expressed his desire to watch video of my Speech.Hence this video is being uploaded on facebook.
What i expressed in speech is that-
1.Answer Sheets be provided at Rs 2 per page.Providing Answer Sheets at Rs 2000 per subject by Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga and at Rs 100 per subject plus Rs 2 per page by Bihar School Examination Board is wrong and i have made complaint against same to the Bihar State Information Commission.
2.Section 2(f) of RTI Act,2005 provides definition of information.Public Information Officers misuse order of Bombay High Court in the matter of Celsa Pinto vs Goa State Information Commission. In this order,the court barred to provide information of such questions asked in the sense of why,which amount to departmental justification.But Public Information Officers even don't provide information of such questions asked in the sense of why, which don't amount to departmental justification, but relate to legal binding and legal obligation.I referred to my RTI application (also of three others filed under my guidance) sought information as to what are reasons behind non-establishment of body of Lokpal and it was replied by the PMO (DOPT) that reasons can't be provided under RTI Act ,2005.But in Celsa Pinto Case,it has not been barred to provide reasons.In regard to our query how non-establishment of body of Lokpal should not be treated as Govt Negligence, it was replied that opinion can't be provided under RTI Act,2005 but the definition of information u/s 2(f) of RTI Act,2005 within its fold also contains opinion.
3.Right to inspection u/s 2(j)(i) of RTI Act,2005 consists inspection of work,records and documents.No fee for inspection of work has been provided under rule 4 of the Right to Information Rules,2012.In such circumstances,if a person wants to inspect a work like MNREGA just like an officer,then how he will be able to inspect that work?
4.Even an illiterate citizen can seek information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act,2005 by submitting query orally before the Public Information Officer and the Public Information Officer will reduce his query in writing.This provision is same like section 154 of the CrPC that a person can submit oral information before police officer to lodge FIR and police officer will reduce it in writing.
5.u/s 6(1) of the RTI Act,2005 there should be no Form or Format for seeking information.Fixing Form by Bihar Govt under Bihar RTI Rules,2005 is violative of section 6(1) of the Act.u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act,2005 information should anyway be provided within 30 days.But under the Bihar RTI Rules,2005,a receipt form is provided to the applicant which mentions for the applicant to appear before the Public Information Officer on a specified date within of thirty days.In case of non-appearance on the specified date,the Public Information Officer will not be held responsible for delay in providing information. But section 7(1) of the RTI Act doesn't provide about such appearance on a specified date,rather this section mandates to provide information within thirty days and makes Public Information Officer responsible for delay in writing information.
6.Section 6(3) of the RTI Act,2005 mandates public authority to transfer RTI Application to such another Public Authority to whom the Application relates or more closely relates.There are many examples when the Public Information Officer doesn't transfer RTI Application.
I referred to my RTI Application filed before IISER,Bhopal, which stated that admission is conducted by Joint Admission Committee of IISERs,but refused to transfer my application to the Joint Admission Committee of IISERs.Cut off,merit list and result list for admission in IISER, Bhopal are not publically declared,hence RTI application was filed before IISER Bhopal.
I referred to my RTI Application filed before IISER,Bhopal, which stated that admission is conducted by Joint Admission Committee of IISERs,but refused to transfer my application to the Joint Admission Committee of IISERs.Cut off,merit list and result list for admission in IISER, Bhopal are not publically declared,hence RTI application was filed before IISER Bhopal.
7.Under section 19(6) of the RTI Act,2005 First Appeal should be disposed of within forty five days.But there is no time limit for disposal of Second Appeal filed before the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions.Also,there is no time limit for disposal of Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions. Time limit for disposal of second appeal and complaint be fixed.People got discouraged against filing second appeal and complaint if they know that there is no time limit for disposal of second appeal and complaint.Please note that section 19(6) has been addressed as section 19(3) and it's slip of tongue.I referred to facts that many complaints (i.e.6 complaints) filed by me were disposed of by the Central Information Commission after one year.
8.u/s section 20(1) of the RTI Act,2005,the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions are empowered to impose fine against erring Public Information Officers who refuse to provide information or provide misleading,false or incomplete information or delay in providing information. But fine imposed by Commission is collected/levied by Govt.But it is clear u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act,2005 that fine must be collected/levied by Commission, not by Govt.Even after imposition of fine against Public Information Officers by Commission,many times Govt don't collect/levy same from them.
u/s 20(2) of the RTI Act,2005,Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions are empowered to recommend to the Govt disciplinary action against erring Public Information Officers who commit faults referred above u/s 20(1).Commission is just like a court.Commission ought to have power to direct/order disciplinary action against erring Public Information Officers instead of recommendation.Nothing is going to happen by recommendation,because Commission will recommend to the Govt,but the Govt will not initiate disciplinary action.
Video Courtesy-Raja Ji
-15:18
