Dear all,
I am reporting the progress (or the lack of it) on three important matters relating to the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) which we have been following up for some time now.
Tale 1 : Supreme Court matter on the claim of the Governor of Goa that he is not a public authority under the RTI Act:
Readers may recollect that the Governor of Goa had approached the Supreme Court of India challenging the decision of the Goa State Information Commission requiring his Secretariat to provide copies of the reports he made to the Central Government about the political crisis in that State in 2007. The information was sought by the then Leader of the Opposition. Today he has become the Chief Minister of Goa and would probably care less about those reports. Two benches of the Bombay High Court ruled that access to the reports cannot be denied under the RTI Act. But Goa Raj Bhavan has challenged these decisions. Even though the Supreme Court listed this matter [WP (C) 33124 of 2011] for ‘final disposal’ thrice since December 2011 there has been little progress (some say it is a blessing in disguise). Meanwhile the senior judge on the bench has moved on to the International Court of Justice and the other judge has been assigned to the bench hearing the 2G Scam matter. The last hearing was scheduled for 11th July, 2012. Even though the advance cause list displayed on the Registry’s website a few days ago listed this matter at serial #90 and for final disposal, the daily cause list did not display this matter on the 11th. So the matter did not come up at all before any Court on the 11th.
CHRI has filed an application for intervention in this matter. So we wait with bated breath for the next date of hearing where the Court is likely to decide whether the Governor’s office should be exempted from the obligations of the RTI Act because he claims he is sovereign. Being a lay person and not a trained lawyer my memory of the Preamble of the Indian Constitution is a bit hazy. I remember reading a long while ago that the people of India are sovereign. I also remember vaguely some pronouncements of the Supreme Court where the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are said to be merely the custodians of this sovereign power by virtue of the Constitution. I may be wrong. Let us wait for the Court to tell us where sovereignty vests ultimately and whether high Constitutional functionaries are covered by the RTI Act or not. A plain reading of the language of the RTI Act makes it clear that all such functionaries are covered by the RTI Act. However more complex legal interpretations may or may not bear out what is apparent to a layperson’s commonsense. For more information about this matter please visit our website at: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national/2012/email_alearts/april12.html
Tale 2: Delhi High Court matter on the claim of the Supreme Court’s Registry that they do not have a duty to provide information about reserved judgements:
Last year the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled that the Registry of the Supreme Court of India must disclose information about its judgements which have been reserved after completion of all hearings and pleadings. The information was sought by Commodore (Retd.) Lokesh Batra. While the Registry of the Delhi High Court provided him information about judgements reserved by judges of that Court, the Supreme Court argued that it had no duty under the RTI Act to make such information available to people proactively. The Registry of the Supreme Court has challenged the CIC’s decision before the Delhi High Court. Readers may remember that the Supreme Court exercises appellate jurisdiction over all High Courts, under the Constitution. This matter has also moved at snail’s pace. A hearing had been listed for 11th July, 2012. This matter [WP (C) 6634/2011 ] was at #37 on the list, however it never came up for hearing. The next hearing will be in October this year. For more information about this matter please visit our website at: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national/2009/email_alerts/Recent%20decision%20on%20transparency%20in%20India's%20Apex%20Court.pdf
Tale 3: Central Information Commission matter on whether Income Tax Assessment records of private hospitals using public land must be disclosed:
Readers will recollect my email sent twice earlier this month about an impending hearing at the CIC on the issue of income tax assessments records of private hospitals. Rakesh Kumar Gupta had sought these records from the Income Tax Department in order to ascertain whether these private hospitals are complying with an order of the Supreme Court to reserve 10% of its in-patient services and 25% of its out-patient services for economically weaker sections (EWS) of society. The Public Information Officer denied access to these documents and the First Appellate Authority upheld this decision after inviting objections from the hospitals. The CIC has placed this matter before a full bench (of 3 Commissioners). A hearing was scheduled for 12th July, 2012. A battery of lawyers (who were theoretically on strike called by the Bar Council of India) represented the hospitals at the hearing. As the legal counsels for the hospitals complained that they had not received all papers relating to the case, the CIC digressed from its traditional stance of not adjourning hearings and permitted an adjournment. Thankfully, the CIC made its eco-friendly sensitivity evident once again by requiring the applicant to send all the case papers electronically even though the lawyers demanded paper books (20 copies- one for each hospital). The date of the next hearing is eagerly awaited.
Meanwhile two representatives of one of the hospitals declared that they had informed the IT Department that they had no objection to the disclosure of their IT records. Nevertheless the IT Department had not provided the information to the applicant. The CIC appreciated this gesture of the hospital management and asked the IT Department for reasons for holding the information back. The representative of the IT department pleaded helplessness due to the absence of his lawyer but agreed to comply with the CIC’s directive. For more information about this matter please visit our website at: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national/2012/email_alearts/July/04072012.html
I request all readers who believe in the cause of making these private hospitals honour their commitment to the EWS segments of society, to send their submissions to the CIC in this matter at the address given below:
Postal address
The Registrar
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhavan
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi- 110 017
Case title and number:
Rakesh Kumar Gupta v CPIO, Income Tax Department (CIC /CICI/LS/A/2010/000110/RM)
You may like to argue either of the following points or both:
1) That all hospitals receiving public land free of cost or at nominal rates must be treated as ‘’substantially financed” non-government organizations under Section 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act; and/or
2) That all assessment records of such hospitals presented to the IT Department must be made public as they are not covered by any of the exemptions under the RTI Act.
Earlier it was common practice for the CIC to announce full bench hearings well in advance to enable people to attend and present their views. However the CIC has not yet issued any public notice in this regard. Kindly urge the CIC to issue a public notice of the hearing as this matter affects not only people of the EWS segments of society but all other people of Delhi who may visit these hospitals for treatment.
THIS IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND UTMOST IMPORTANCE. While sending your submission please mention that you would like to attend the hearing and present your views before the CIC.
We will keep you posted on further developments in these tales. Please watch out for our email alerts.
In order to access our previous email alerts on RTI and related issues please click on: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&Itemid=84 You will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to receive these email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your refusal.
Thanks
Sincerely,
Venkatesh Nayak
Programme Coordinator
Access to Information Programme
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
B-117, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi- 110 017
Tel: +91-11-43180215/ 43180201
Fax: +91-26864688
Skype: venkatesh.nayak@skype.com
Alternate Email: nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com
Website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org