140508-RTIA-EXPOSING THE IDIOTS AND TRAITORS AMOUNG PUBLIC SERVANTS-RAJBHAVAN, KERALA

(This is the 4^th of a series of exposures being brought to you by Veteran Major P M Ravindran, Kalpathy who can be contacted at raviforjustice@gmail.com. The 1^st, including the introduction, is 140312-RTIA-Exposing the Idiots and Traitors amoung Public Servants-O/o The DC Pkd and is available at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2014/03/140312-rtia-exposing-idiots-and.html. The 2nd, 140331-RTIA-Exposing the Idiots and Traitors amoung Public Servants-The KSIC is available at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2014/03/140331-rtia-exposing-idiots-and.html. the 3rd,  140414-RTIA-Exposing The Idiots and Traitors amoung Public Servants-O/o The CM, Kerala is available at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2014/04/140414-rtia-exposing-idiots-and.html. Watch out for more at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com)

Even in the schools we were taught that the President is the Constitutional Head of the Nation and the Executive but being a democracy it is mostly a ceremonial office and the real power is wielded by the Prime Minister.  For now let us accept it as it is. The Governor is to the State as the President is to the Nation. But is it really so? The President is elected by an Electoral College comprising the elected representatives of the Parliament and the state legislatures. But the Governor is only appointed by the President. He is more of a nominee of the ruling party at the Centre, out to play mischief when the party ruling the state is in the opposition at the Centre. The most recent example is the case of appointment of the Lokayukta in Gujarat. Earlier there have been cases where these gubernatorial office bearers have even caused elected government in states to be dismissed by the Centre on questionable grounds. But with the enactment of the RTI Act, the information that has been obtained, and even worse, denied, has unequivocally established that this is an office that can easily be done away with at considerable savings to the exchequer!

It goes without saying that in every democratic society the citizen is the king himself. That is why we use the terms ‘government’ (and not ruler) and ‘rule of law’ for managing the affairs of our society. But unfortunately this has remained a concept and only on paper. Those who have been tasked with managing the common affairs and resources and empowered to perform those tasks have, from the word go, assigned to themselves the role of rulers and reduced the citizens to servility! So much so that the Chief Minister of Kerala goes around conducting road shows in the name of Public Contact Programs where even patients are brought in ambulances to receive the doles distributed by him from the taxpayers’ money as if it was from his ancestral property! And why, even when the Motor Vehicles Department put up cameras on a highway to monitor traffic, orders were issued not to take cognizance of violations by government vehicles including buses of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, notorious as the worst transport corporation in the country, officially!

One of the first complaints I had sent to the Governor of Kerala involved the then minister, Naalakath Soopy. ‘Aniyara’, a serial based on investigative journalism, telecast by Surya TV on 30 Mar 2003, had visuals which showed the minister’s official car being used to transport his daughter to the school. Since the perks given to ministers were unknown that by itself would not have mattered as the subject of a complaint. But what was shown further did matter. The team showed the official number plate of the car covered with a rexin cover bearing another registration number! Obviously this was a crime committed willfully and demanded appropriate action. So the complaint to the Governor! Copies were endorsed to the Chief Minister and the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court also! Obviously, there was no response from anyone. But after the RTI Act came into force, an application was submitted to get copies of the file notings of the action taken on the complaint. And what did it reveal? A complaint addressed to the Governor against a minister had been disposed of by a clerk at the level of a Deputy Secretary! The term used is ‘lodged’, apparently a jargon for ‘file and forget’! The copy of the notings can be seen at page 3 of the documents posted at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-kergovrti-fb131016fm-pio191213020114 and the particulars of the public servants who had seen the complaint and initialed on the noting sheet can be seen at para 3 of the document at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-kergovrtifb131016fm-pio111013.

Page 2 of the documents posted at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-kergovrti-fb131016fm-pio191213020114 are the file notings of another complaint I had sent to the Governor in Feb 2002 against strike by government employees. This mass strike, during the term of A K Antony as Chief Minister, carried on for almost 3 months and crippled government functions. The harassment suffered by the public during this period is better left to one’s imagination! But this complaint also got ‘lodged’ by the decision of the same Deputy Secretary! 

Now this what the Kerala Rajbhavan website says of the procedure followed in decision making process including channels of supervision:

…The petitions, representations received in person or through post are brought to the notice of the Governor and orders of the Governor on such petition / representation are carried out. Where it is considered necessary and desirable to further pursue the matter, a report is called for from the concerned departments and the report so received is brought to the notice of the Governor for further order and disposed accordingly.

(http://www.rajbhavan.kerala.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=38  

III-Procedure followed in decision making process including channels of supervision)

So much for theory and practice! The website says what should be but experiences show what is practiced. Fraud? Bigotry? Treason? You decide!

Cut to 2013. I got an invitation-wrongly named and wrongly addressed- on 09 Oct 2013 from the Kerala State Information Commission for a 2-day seminar at Thiruvananthapuram on 11th and 12th Oct 2013. Immediately I wrote to the governor. The email is reproduced below.

From: Ravindran P M <raviforjustice@gmail.com>

To: <keralarajbhavan@gmail.com>

Cc: CHIEF MINISTER KERALA <chiefminister@kerala.gov.in>, Director General IMG <dirimg2012@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:59:23 +0530

Subject: Seminar on RTI Act and the Way Forward

Mr Governor,

I am in receipt of an invitation for the above seminar. As is wont to happen with KSIC neither the name or the address is correct. Thanks to the good doctor heading Palakkad Munnot I got it allright.

I certainly won't attend because I don't have time to waste nor do I want to feel guilty of having been party to waste of tax payers' money.

And now even though my experiences with complaining about the treason of the information commissioners to your predecessors and the current and previous CMs have taught me that even this mail could be a waste of my precious time, it just that flicker of hope, that in case the situation has changed a wee bit after the change of incumbent in the highest office of the State, that is helping me to bother myself.

I am attaching herewith certain suggestions given to the 1st CIC on 26 Jan 2007! My experience tells me that things have only gone worse thereafter. But since you are going to inaugurate the seminar on 11 Oct you would do well to study these suggestions, evaluate the performance of the KSIC independently and make an honest address during the function instead of dishing out the usual inanities. Not only me but quite as few knowledgeable people in the matter of RTI will be watching you on TV and hope you will be able to give us some hope!

Just for your info some statistics (as available at the web site of the Commission on 07 Oct 2013) : No of cases disposed off by the various ICs during 2013 are as follows :

Siby Mathew: 22; Gunavardhan : 21; Sony Thegamam: 19; Sasi Kumar: 12; Kurias Kumbalangi: 17; Total: 91

This is less than what an IC in the Central Info Commn disposes per day!

regards and best wishes,

P M Ravindran

(The suggestions given to the CIC, KSIC on 26 Jan 2007, in writing, in person, during a seminar on RTI at the Rotary Club, Ottappalam is now posted at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-suggestions-to-the-cickerala260107)

Suffice to say that this important feedback was futile as the only thing reported in the media about the inauguration of this function was that the Governor had stated that the misuse of this Act has to be viewed seriously! So the next feedback was mailed thus:

from:   Ravindran P M <raviforjustice@gmail.com>

to:        keralarajbhavan@gmail.com

cc:        Director General IMG <dirimg2012@gmail.com>, CHIEF MINISTER KERALA <chiefminister@kerala.gov.in>

date:    Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 1:01 PM

subject:            Fwd: Seminar on RTI Act and the Way Forward

Mr Governor,

I could not view the TV yesterday but I eagerly looked up Malayalam's two premier dailies to see what they had reported about the two day extravaganza of the KSIC whcih got inaugurated by you at Kanakakunnu Palace yesterday. I was glad to see that one of them had totally ignored it, both in their print and online editions. And what was reported by the other exposed your ignorance as nothing else could! The one sentence report about your inaugural address- about the threat of misuse- can be seen only as evidence of your ignorance and may be your indifference to the responsibilities of your office. As the law stands the only people who can misuse this only pro-democracy, citizen-friendly law are the information commissioners and almost 100 pc of their orders are documentary evidences of such misuse. The law mandates that penalty shall be imposed for delays and you only need to look at those orders where the PIOs have been directed to provide information and have been spared the penalty to infer what could have gone wrong- of information commissioner having taken bribe from the PIO and spared him from ignominy and adverse records in his career documents! Of course these crimes of the ICs are punishable under Sec 219 of the IPC but then who will go to the court when they can't even give a fair decision in as simple a matter as the date of birth case of a former Chief of Army Staff ?

I an only pray God save my country! And also curse those who have been responsible for bringing this country to this sordid pass!

Yours truly,

P M Ravindran

And on 16th Oct 2014 I send the feedback along with an application under the RTI Act. These documents are at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-kergovrtifb131016appln.  

The reply I got from the PIO initially is at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-kergovrtifb131016fm-pio111013,  the response of the FAA to my 1st appeal is at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-kergovrtifb131016fm-faa191213020114 and the letter I got from the PIO in compliance with the order of the FAA is at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-kergovrti-fb131016fm-pio191213020114.   

Apart from the failure of the public servants in Rajbhavan in taking prompt action on the feedback given what the responses to the application and 1st appeal under the RTI Act has revealed is that this office of the 1st public servant in the State is a white elephant, only burdening the taxpayers. Even the simple requirement of providing copies of the file notings on action taken on the feedback, as it existed on the date of providing the info by the PIO-11/11/2013 and not 11/10/2013 as shown in the initial reply by the PIO- were not provided and even the 1st Appellate Authority, a member of the disastrous IAS cadre, had failed to direct the PIO to provide the same!

Well, as part of disclosures under Sec4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, the website of the Kerala Rajbhavan has provided some information. As per this info the Secretariat of the Governor has 71 public servants to help the Governor discharge his official duties. And the budget for the Secretariat alone is, rather was (because the details available as on 8/5/2014 is that of the 2011-12 budget!) Rs 273.28 lakhs! (The household staff number 77 and the budget was 240.9 lakhs. Apart from this there is the Rajbhavan dispensary with 6 personnel working on a budget of Rs 48.24 lakhs! And well, the Rajbhavan is situated on 12.3 hectares of prime space in the State capital!) Now, given the expose of the shoddy or non-performance of this public authority in this blog, is there any justification for wasting the tax payers’ money on it?

Please note: The contact details given in various documents uploaded/reproduced could be obsolete. The current contact information is only raviforjustice@gmail.com

140414-RTIA-EXPOSING THE IDIOTS AND TRAITORS AMOUNG PUBLIC SERVANTS-O/O THE CM, KERALA

(This is the 3^rd of a series of exposures being brought to you by Veteran Major P M Ravindran, Kalpathy who can be contacted at raviforjustice@gmail.com. The 1^st, including the introduction, is 140312-RTIA-Exposing the Idiots and Traitors amoung Public Servants-O/o The DC Pkd and is available at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2014/03/140312-rtia-exposing-idiots-and.html. The 2nd, 140331-RTIA-Exposing the Idiots And Traitors amoung Public Servants-The KSIC is available at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2014/03/140331-rtia-exposing-idiots-and.html. Watch out for more at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com)

On 5^th Sep 2012, I wrote to the Governor and the Chief Minister of Kerala:

While looking for some info I came across this bit at http://www.prd.kerala.gov.in/gov.htm

'...The Governor is only the nominal head of the state....'

I am shocked that an official website is churning out such blasphemous info about the 1st public servant in the State. As per the Constitution the Governor is the Head of the State and the Executive and nowhere is it mentioned that s/he is a nominal head only.

I did not get any acknowledgment but later I found that it has been changed to ‘He/She is the constitutional head of the State.’ So far so good, but I am left wondering if there is any other head of state other than the constitutional head of state. Anyhow this is not the subject of this critique but had to be quoted because somehow the working head of state is understood to be the Chief Minister and it is this office that is the subject here. In one sentence if I have to sum up the performance of this office it would be ‘the head office of all mafias in the state!’ To elucidate further, this office has to be held responsible for crimes of omissions and commissions of the grossest kind. It does nothing that is supposed to be done and does everything that is not supposed to be done.

Ommen Chandy, the present Chief Minister of Kerala, soon after taking over office decided to splurge public money on web casting his office 24X7. This is what I had written to him then:

How naive can the people of the most literate state get? How easily can they be fooled with such idiotic ideas like webcasting an office 24X7! As if, if the CM is going to take bribes, he is going to take them in his office and that too knowing it will be visible to the public! Doesn't anybody realize that if something of this nature has to be effective it has to be lie detectors implanted under the skin of these politicians and transmitting the signals to monitors which are webcast 24X7?

I wish the CM would only ensure that complaints received by his grievances cell are processed honestly. Normally it acts like a post master and send the complaints for disposal by the delinquent officials thus cheating the complainant and refusing to reform the system.

I have just a couple of days back filed a 2nd appeal with the CIC, Kerala- ref RTI/cmk-sic appt-2nd appeal-300611 dated 30 Jun 2011- where part of the complaint is that the CM's office had refused to accept the 1st appeal! It was then send through an NGO! The response in the matter of an application pursued under the RTI Act with the office of the Minister for Food, Civil Supplies etc also tend to indicate that these public authorities have not even designated PIOs and FAAs in their offices.

Now here is a 4 point program for the CM to implement:

1. Ensure that all public servants reach their offices by 10 am and start delivering their services to the public.

2. Ensure that all documents received from the public are duly receipted and receipt given to the one submitting the document. The laws are already in place for ages now. They only need to be enforced.

3. Ensure that the CM's complaint cell resolves the issue complained about instead of sending the complaint to the public servant complained against for his/her disposal or getting a useless a reply from them and closing the file.

4. Ensure that there is an exclusive cell to monitor the functions of the quasi judicial organisations in the state. Without exceptions these are squandering the tax payers’ money as if there is no tomorrow with zero or near about zero output. We had a chairman of the state human rights commission who used to hold sittings regularly at the pilgrim centre of Guruvayur when such sittings were not held even at all district headquarters!

(The image of the envelope with the endorsement of the couriers is posted at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-cmksic-appt1stappeal190411envelopeunaccepted-33491489)

In a scam-popularly known as the solar scam-the CM is a suspect in the eyes of many citizens, besides of course the opposition parties. One allegation is that a victim had met the CM in his office along with the accused. Naturally one would have expected the web records to be of help in ascertaining the truth or otherwise of this allegation. But suffice to say that the matter was taken up in a PIL which was finally thrown out by the apex court, refusing to get the CCTV recording investigated! The report that appeared in the Malayala Manorama on 21 Jan 2014 is posted at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/scam-solarsc-rejects-plea-to-inspect-cctv-recordsmmpkd210114. Now whether it is up to discerning readers to judge for themselves whether the webcasting the CM’s office is a waste of tax payers’ money or not!

In 2013, Ommen Chandy had received an award from the UN for his road shows known as Public Contact Programs (PCP, for short). These road shows certainly fall in the category of gimmicks where the CM announces a schedule for meeting the public at each district headquarters and the District Collectors are given responsibilities to collect the complaints from the public and route them to the offices complained against, get there version and route those replies back to the complainants on the day of the PCP. (The term complaint is used in a generic sense and would include even applications for financial aid though ultimately even these applications can be viewed as complaints because these applicants would have wasted enough of their time, energy and resources pursuing such applications in the normal course without success!)  Those who are not satisfied with the reply can meet the CM personally along with those who have queued up to file the complaints directly! All so fine on paper; but there are questions to be answered:

1. When complaints can be submitted even directly on the day of the PCP why should the DC stop accepting complaints about 10 days before?
2. If the intention is to dispose of most of the complaints through routine replies from the offices complained against then why should handing over these replies be delayed till the date of the PCP and that too through stalls established by the various offices?
3. Why should the public who have requested for financial aid as per existing schemes wait for these PCPs to get a thousand rupees or so sanctioned by the CM on the spot?
4. Why should patients be brought to these venues in ambulances and stretchers? (Please see the photos of paraplegic children, that appeared in the print media the following day, that is 12 Nov 2013, now posted for your viewing at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/cmk-pcppkd111113paraphlegic-childrenmmpkd-n-mbpkd121113!)
5. What follow up action has been taken to streamline the system of delivery of government services, including dispersal of financial assistances, to the public?
6. How effective is the other mode of grievance redressal through the portal Suthaaryakeralam (when translated into English it means Transparent Kerala)?

Suffice to say that these and many more such questions continue to beg answers. Answers which are not even provided under the RTI Act! For example, I sought the details of the expenses incurred for organizing the event in Palakkad on 08 Dec 2011 from the office of the DC, Palakkad and got the reply that they do not have any info as the tasks had been distributed to various other entities like the PWD, Water Authority, Municipality etc. Important to note is that while the DC had been made responsible for collecting and distributing the complaints not only had there been no allotment of funds for the purpose of organising these events but there was also no tracking of the expenses! And even when the information was sought under the RTI Act only evasive replies were provided when the application should have been forwarded to all those authorities for providing the info! The second appeal in the matter is pending with the KSIC since 20/2/2012!

The first of these kinds of roadshows was held after Ommen Chandy had replaced AK Antony as the Chief Minister somewhere midway during the last term of the United Democratic Front government in 2001-06. The second series shortly after he came back to power in 2011. For the event in Palakkad on 8/12/2011 I had submitted three complaints: one, against the office of the DC, Palakkad itself; two, against the consumer disputed redressal forum (CDRF), Palakakd and their appellate authority, the state commission (KSCDRC) and the third against the Kerala State Information Commission (KSIC). While I got some half truth replies from the office of the DC and the CDRF there has been no response from the KSCDRC or the KSIC! In the matter of KSIC the matter was followed up through email and even personally.  When the CM had come to Palakkad on 30 Jun 2012 for a function held at the Lions’ School, copies of all the three complaints and the two responses were handed over to him as well as the MLA. But still no action has been taken and no response either! Or, may be, there was one response. On 1 Jun 2012 the General Administration Co-ordination Department wrote to me (their letter No 90105/Cdn5/11/GAD dated 1/6/2012) stating that my complaint had been forwarded to the Kerala State Information Commission (KSIC) for necessary action and that ‘being a constitutional body State Government could not interfere in the functioning of the SIC’! It was signed by an Under Secretary who certainly had not read the provisions of the RTI Act. Sec 27(1) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference:

The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.

And Sec 27(2)(e) and (f) reads as follows:

In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—

(a)   to (d) xxx

(e) the procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the appeals under sub-section (10) of section 19; and

(f) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.

Now, the third series were staged in 2013. At Palakkad it was scheduled for 26 Sep 2013 but finally conducted on 11 Nov 2013. For this, apart from submitting the complaints to the DC one could file them online too at www.jsp.kerala.gov.in! But when I tried to file a complaint (strictly it was just a suggestion that the expenses incurred should be posted at this website within one month of the event getting over at a location), the site would reject it with a message getting displayed that the (complainant’s) address is not correct! So the suggestion was sent to the three e mail ids (chiefminister@kerala.gov.in, cmoffice@kerala.gov.in and cm-grccell@ kerala.gov.in) on 25 Aug 2013. On 10/9/13 I got a reply from cm-grccell@kerala.gov.in that the complaint had been transferred to the DC Palakkad! (As if the suggestion pertained to only DC Palakkad!) As per this pre formatted letter (19168/CMPGRC/SK/2013/GAD dated 10/9/2013) the DC was to take necessary action but the text ‘…and to inform you within 44 days…’, in the printed format, had been deleted indicating that there was not only no need to conform to a time limit but not even any need to inform me, the complainant! Copy of this letter is available at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/comp-idiotic-reply-fm-sutharya-keralam100913.

Anyhow, the fact remains that the suggestion has not been accepted as the details of the expenses are nowhere to be found at www.jsp.kerala.gov.in. Worse, again seeking the details of the expenses from the o/o the District Collector, the response was the same- that the tasks were allotted to various other public authorities and they should be approached for the required information! The only info about the expenses that were provided pertained to the office of the District Collector and the Taluk Office which totaled Rs 5,95,196/- and were on account of refreshments provided and some stationary used!

Suffice to say that the office of the Chief Minister, Kerala continues to be a drain on the public exchequer with nothing in return for the public! The number of complaints submitted to this authority and the responses and lack of responses indicate that all those working in that office are either idiots or traitors. If there are any exceptions they are unseen, unheard and unknown!

The three complaints submitted to the CM for his PCP at Palakkad on 8 Dec 2011 are posted at

http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com/2011/11/chief-ministers-public-contact-program.html

http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com/2011/11/chief-ministers-contact-program.html

http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com/2011/11/chief-ministers-public-contact-program_22.html

The replies received from the DC, Palakkad and President, CDRF, Palakkad are available at

http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/complaint-cm-contpgmdistadmreply071211 and

http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/complaint-cm-contpgmconsumerreply011211

Certain other complaints are available at

http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com/2011/04/crime-of-non-governance-and-quasi.html

http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com/2012/01/delivering-government-services-to.html

http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2012/07/fraud-in-governance-and-redressal-of.html

http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2012/08/how-do-i-abuse-cm-of-kerala.html

Please note: The contact details given in various documents uploaded/reproduced could be obsolete. The current contact information is only raviforjustice@gmail.com

140331-RTIA-EXPOSING THE IDIOTS AND TRAITORS AMOUNG PUBLIC SERVANTS-THE KSIC

(This is the 2^nd of a series of exposures being brought to you by Veteran Major P M Ravindran, Kalpathy who can be contacted at raviforjustice@gmail.com. The 1^st, including the introduction, is 140312-RTIA-Exposing the Idiots and Traitors amoung Public Servants-O/o The DC Pkd and is available at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2014/03/140312-rtia-exposing-idiots-and.html. Watch out for more at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com)

The Information Commissioners (ICs) appointed as per Sec 12(3) and 15(3) of the Right to Information Act (RTIA) are the watchdogs of transparency and are ultimately responsible for the enforcement of this law in letter and spirit. Sec 23 of the RTIA states: No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act. Sec 19 and 20 of the Act specifies the duties and powers of the information commissioners. Sec 19(8) and 20 are reproduced for ready reference.

Sec 19(8).

In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to—

(a)               require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure

compliance with the provisions of this Act, including—

(i)         by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;

(ii)        by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information

Officer, as the case may be;

(iii)       by publishing certain information or categories of information;

(iv)       by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance,

management and destruction of records;

(v)        by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its

officials;

(vi)       by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-

section (1) of section 4;

(b)  require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other

detriment suffered;

(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;

(d) reject the application.

Sec 20.

(1)   Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as

the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:

                                   

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

(2)   Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.

With the awareness of the duties and powers of the ICs as given above, there is no doubt that the law has been subverted most blatantly and with impunity by these very ICs. While the law makers did enact a very simple, straight forward and unambiguous law, those responsible for enforcement did act treacherously to kill the law in its infancy itself. This was achieved by appointing former public servants with vested interest in subverting the law as ICs. It is worth recollecting the quip ‘in India the civil services are neither civil nor provide any service’! And these perfidious ICs have been able to get away with such murder because the ultimate word on any law, the judiciary, is an even greater failure going by the dictum ‘justice delayed is justice denied’, forgetting about it being inaccessible to the majority of the citizens! About this organ of our Constitution, later.

While many states, including some of the BIMARU (Bihar, MAdhypradesh, Rajasthan and Uttarpradesh) of the Union had enacted a law akin to the RTIA long before the Central law came into force on 15 Jun 2005, India’s most literate state, Kerala, had shied away from such a law.  Now when the Central law demanded that the appointment of ICs be made immediately, it took the then Chief Minister of Kerala, Ommen Chandy, till 19 Dec 2005 to constitute the KSIC. But even the 1^st appointment of the 1^st Chief Information Commissioner was mired in controversy as the then Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Palat Mohandas, who had failed ab initio to implement the law, had been appointed the CIC even before he had relinquished his appointment as the Chief Secretary! May be it was to accommodate this delinquent Chief Secretary himself the constitution of the KSIC and appointment of its 1^st two ICs, including the CIC, was delayed.

As per the law, public authorities were to organise their records by 12 Oct 2005 as well as proactively disclose certain basic information pertaining to their functions, remuneration of its officers and employees etc. The public could start applying for information thereafter. Anyhow, suffice to say that the KSIC was constituted and the first two ICs appointed before the 1^st of the 2^nd appeals could have been submitted! While Palat Mohandas and V V Giri, another bureaucrat, had taken over as CIC and IC respectively on 21/12/2005, another two-P Faziludin, a media person, and P N Vijayakumar, a former judge- were appointed on 24/5/2006 by the new government headed by V S Achuthananadan. And in the words of Col N R Kurup ‘All information commissioners are well settled in a centrally air-conditioned building adjacent to the government secretariat, with an army of staff  and all facilities that can be the envy of any good multinational company’! Alas! The KSIC exists to prove the adage ‘the opulence of the front office décor is indirectly proportional to the fundamental solvency of the firm’!

Palat Mohandas as the CIC visited his alma mater, Government Victoria College, Palakkad, sometime in 2006 and addressed a gathering on RTIA. By then Ommen Chandy had handed over the baton to V S Achuthanandan and the CIC went hammer and tongs criticizing the government for its failure to implement the law. During the Question-Answer session it was left to me to remind the CIC that after the teams have entered the ground and the rules have been made clear it was for the referee to enforce the rules and ensure the game proceeds as per the rules. There was no room left for any doubt that the onus of implementing the law was with the team of information commissioners. Later, on 26 Jan 2007, I had the opportunity of confronting him again at a seminar on RTIA organized by the Rotary Club there. By then the incompetence, indifference, delinquency or treason, call it what you will, of the ICs had become crystal clear and some suggestions were given in writing covering the issues from acknowledging receipt of complaint/appeals by the Commission to confirmation of compliance with the orders. The copy of these suggestions is given at the end, for those who are keen to know the details. But unfortunately things have only gone from bad to worse since then. No acknowledgements, no system of ensuring the complaints/appeals are disposed of on FIFO (First In First Out) basis, no information being provided, no mandatory punishments…; in fact nothing that is being done is being done right! Complaints to appropriate authorities have drawn blank as will be narrated while discussing the offices of the Chief Minister and Governor of Kerala.

Now, here’s a question. How much water from the ocean will one have to drink to prove that the whole water in the ocean is salty? One sip should be enough, isn’t it? Now here are three sips to prove that everything about the KSIC is rotten.

Case 1: Letter from KSIC to RDO, Palakkad in violation of Sec 5 of the RTIA.

Sec 5 of the RTIA mandates that all public authorities at the sub-district/sub-divisional level appoint an Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) in additional to PIOs to just receive application and appeals and forward them to the PIOs of concerned public authorities, including 2^nd appeals to the information commissions. The Kerala Government instructions on the subject also make it abundantly clear. And the PIO of the O/o the RDO, Palakkad had been complying with this order without much fuss. And then Palat Mohandas and his team of ICs and subordinate staff landed at Palakkad on 19 Feb 2007 to conduct hearings in some complaints and appeals. Since a couple of my own complaints/appeals had been pending with the KSIC I was curious to know the number and dates of filing of the complaints/appeals being heard that day. The only info that was disclosed was that 4 to 5 cases were being heard and the concerned individuals had been intimated and the hearing would be conducted behind closed doors, that is not open to public! But an application under the RTIA to the PIO of the KSIC elicited some half cooked responses only. But between the PIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) some interesting facts were disclosed. Of the 5 cases taken up for hearing at Palakkad on 19/2/2007 three had been filed after my own first 2^nd appeal to the KSIC had been filed! And even though a hearing had been held at Wayanad on 12/2/2007, one of the five cases considered at Palakkad on 19/2/2007 was of Wayanad! And in the most condemnable manner, both the PIO and FAA failed to disclose any information about the cost of conducting the sitting at Palakakd! The 2^nd appeal against the PIO and FAA of the KSIC is pending with the KSIC since 29/5/2007! But it had a different fall out. The KSIC wrote to the PIO, O/o the RDO, Palakkad directing him not to accept any applications/appeals from me, in blatant violation of the provisions of the RTIA! Copy of this letter is available at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-letter-from-ksic-in-violation-of-act051007

Case 2: Idiotic Order of KSIC in AP No 452/2007.

An application had been filed with a public authority along with the application fee due. The PIO responded with a demand of cost which was also paid. Both the fee and cost had been paid as per the then existing rules. The PIO after receiving the cost sent a letter claiming to enclose the 20 pages of documents but without enclosing those documents! It was not any error but a willful deceit because if it had been an error it would have been detected (the non-dispatched set of documents would have been there with the handlers, wouldn’t they?) and they would have been sent immediately thereafter. It did not happen that way. It had to be communicated to the PIO that he could not send 20 pages of documents on a postage of just Rs 5/- and finally when the documents came the delay was such that the information was due free of cost. The public authority refused to refund the cost. To keep the 2^nd appeal simple only the refund of cost was demanded along with compensation as per Sec 19 and imposition of penalty under Sec 20 of the RTIA. The CIC, Palat Mohandas, and his colleague, V V Giri, who considered the 2^nd appeal gave a ridiculous decision on 21/12/2007. The crux of the decision is that the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the fee and cost had not been paid as demanded by the PIO and hence the application itself was invalid and whatever information had been provided had been deemed provided free of cost! The copy of this order is available at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-ksicidiotic-orderof-ksic-in-ap-no4522007. The point to ponder is when a number of means have been provided to pay the fee/cost are the options available to the applicant citizen or the PIO can prescribe the mode of payment. The KSIC itself has in another case-Appeal No 1370(4)/10/SIC- stated unambiguously that it is the prerogative of the applicant to choose the method of payment of the fees out of the allowable modes!

Case 3: Office of the Minister not a Public Authority!

Yes, the 1^st CIC of Kerala has the dubious honour (?) of stating on record that the Office of the Minister for Finance of Kerala is not a public authority! The order is available at http://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-ksic-orderministers-office-not-public-authority.

Now, the bureaucracy in India is an acknowledged stumbling block in the growth of the nation. At a survey conducted by NDTV, 86.87 pc of the respondents answered affirmatively to the question ‘Do we really have the most corrupt bureaucracy in the world?’ And this is from another report at http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/new/Ndtv-Show-Special.aspx?ID=163 :

The babus of Indian bureaucracy are generally perceived to be "unresponsive, insensitive and corrupt". Citizens are often heard complaining against the excessive red-tapism that impacts the quality of services provided by the government.

The indifferent attitude of government servants, large scale corruption and abuse of authority and lack of accountability makes most citizens avoid, rather than reform, the nation's corrupt bureaucracy.

Successive governments have paid lip service to the eradication of corruption and done nothing. Those who suffer the most at the hands of the corrupt politicians and the civil servants are invariably the poor- each time getting crushed under the corrupt and oppressive system.

This link on Civil Services may also be of interest: http://gfilesindia.com/frmArticleDetails.aspx?id=270&Name=COVER%20STORY%20-%20corruption

And here is my take on the babus who run what we call our government: IAS- Indian Assholes-On-Strike Service at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2012/04/ias-indian-assholes-on-strike-service.html.

The foregoing is only a glimpse into the crimes of omissions and commissions by the transparency watchdogs. My own experiences if narrated completely will be a tome larger than the Mahabharatha. But there can be no doubt that the treacheries of the information commissioners have been more than adequately exposed within the constraints of the space of a blog!

P M Ravindran

31 Mar 2014

SUGGESTIONS TO THE CIC, KERALA: 26 JAN 2007

1.      Whenever an appeal is received at the Commission it should be acknowledged with an appeal number and a tentative date by which the decision would be given.

2.      It would be logically and morally binding on the Commission also to have some time limits specified to dispose of appeals.

3.      Imposition of penalty should be routine, as provided in the Act, and exemption, when given under rarest of rare circumstances, the reasons for the same should be given in detail in the orders of the Commission.

4.      There should be provision to compensate the appellant to the tune of 50% of the penalties imposed.

5.      Information about the KSIC available at the official website of the Govt of Kerala is scanty and not up to date. In this context, the following points are highlighted:

5.1.   At the website of the Central IC there is a link giving information about the state ICs. Though only 11 odd states figure there, amoung the southern states, it is only Kerala that is missing!

5.2.   At the official website o f the Govt of Kerala http://www.kerala.gov.in/ there is a link to the Right to Information Act. There one can get the postal address, tele no and fax no of the KSIC and the name of the CIC. Not even the details of the other ICs and e-mail ids of the ICs /officials are available. These need to be provided.

5.3.   Besides, the information mentioned in 5.2, there are various orders passed on the implementation of the RTI Act. These are totally confusing. Only the current orders need to be made available here and they should be presented subject-wise. The older ones may be archived, again subject-wise.

5.4.   Links need to be provided to the Central IC also.

5.5.   The details of PIO/AA of the IC should also be provided at this site.

5.6.   The orders of the Commission should also be provided at the site. It should be searchable by appeal number/subject/appellant name/department or office name

6.   The Kerala Govt has provided for accepting applications etc pertaining to the Secretariat at the office of the RDO. Some officials are interpreting this in the narrowest sense to mean only the offices in the Secretariat building at Thiruvananthapuram. This should be clarified and the definition should include all offices of the Kerala Govt and corporations/commissions under it that are located at Thiruvananthapuram due to the fact that it happens to be the State capital.

7.      Following are the summary of recommendation which emerged during a public

Hearing held on 24 Sep 2006 on the functioning of Central Information Commission:

7.1. Opportunity of being heard should be given to both parties in every case. It is upto the party to decide whether they wish to be physically present or send their written comments or decide not to avail of the opportunity.

7.2. No case should be closed, just by ordering that information be provided in the next 15 days etc. In most of the cases, it has been seen that the PIO does not comply with such an order. As a result, the appellant has to again approach the Commission and again wait for 7 months for his/her turn to come. Therefore, after passing an order, the case should be adjourned, and not closed. On the next hearing, if the appellant confirms having received information to his/her satisfaction, only then should a case be closed. This is the practice which is being successfully followed by Public Grievance Commission in Delhi for the last five years and also by SIC of UP.

7.3. The Information Commissioners should undergo training in judicial processes from some retired Supreme Court judges.

7.4. Penalty should be imposed in every case of violation by government officials. Else RTI would soon be dead.

7.5. Some guidelines should be made on the terms like "fiduciary", "private information" and "public interest", which should be uniformly adhered to by all the Commissioners.

7.6. Appeal number should be given to every appellant/complainant and it should be communicated to him within 24 hours of receipt of his appeal/complaint. Within the next 24 hours, it should be put up on the website. Status of every appeal should be provided on the website, even if it is treated as inadmissible ab-initio.

7.7. No case should be taken up on out of turn basis, unless there is some grave public interest involved, which should be mentioned in the order.

7.8  There should be a public hearing every three months, which should be attended by all Commissioners.

P M Ravindran

2/18, ‘Aathira’

Kalpathy-678003

Tel:0491-2576042

E-mail: pmravindra@sancharnet.in, pmravindran@rediffmail.com

Please note: The contact details given in various documents uploaded/reproduced could be obsolete. The current contact information is only raviforjustice