Central Information Commission
Mr.Manoj Pai vs Ministry Of Information And ... on 10 May, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2011/000088
CIC/AD/C/2011/000089
CIC/AD/C/2011/000092
CIC/AD/C/2011/000099
CIC/AD/C/2011/000095
CIC/AD/C/2011/000094
CIC/AD/C/2011/000100
CIC/AD/C/2011/000097
CIC/AD/C/2011/000098
CIC/AD/C/2011/000096
Date of Hearing : May 10, 2011
Date of Decision : May 10, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Manoj Pai
H.No.T15,
Sunrise Park Tenements
PO - Bodakdev
Ahmedabad 380 054
The Applicant was present during the hearing.
Respondents
(i) The Public Information Officer
O/o Director, Doordarshan Kendra
Chennai 600 005
Represented by : Shri M.Anandan, CPIO & Supdtg. Engineer
(ii) The Public Information Officer
O/o Station Director
All India Radio
Ahmedabad
Represented by : Ms.Renu Chaturvedi, CPIO in charge
Shri T.V.Pradeep, Steno
(iii) The Public Information Officer
Prasar Bharati
O/o Doordarshan Kendra
Hyderabad
Represented by : Shri N. Madhava Reddy, CPIO & Supdtg. Engineer
(iv) The Public Information Officer
O/o Station Director
All India Radio
Hyderabad
Represented by : Shri K.P.Srinivasan, CPIO & Station Director
(v) The Public Information Officer
O/o Director, Doordarshan Kendra
24 Ashok Marg
Lucknow 226 001
Represented by : Shri Shashank, CPIO & Director
Shri M.M.Ojha, A.O
Shri R.P.Samy, Director (News)
Shri Sushil Shekhar, UDC
(vi) The Public Information Officer
O/o Station Director
All India Radio
Thiruvananthapuram 695 014
Represented by : Shri K.A.Muraleedharan, CPIO & Station Director
(vii) The Public Information Officer
O/o Director, Doordarshan Kendra
Bhopal
Represented by : Shri P.N.Jhingran, CPIO
Shri Manish Gautam, CAPIO
Shri A.K.Gupta, Assistant
Shri R.Sharma, Legal Consultant
(viii) The Public Information Officer
O/o Director, Doordarshan Kendra
PB Marg, Worli
Mumbai
Represented by : Shri L.K.Chopra, CPIO & Station Director
Ms.Aparna Vaish, Appellate Authority & DDG(West)
Shri M.S.Thomas, Supdtg. Engineer
Shri C.K.Omprakash, Director (E)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2011/000088
CIC/AD/C/2011/000089
CIC/AD/C/2011/000092
CIC/AD/C/2011/000099
CIC/AD/C/2011/000095
CIC/AD/C/2011/000094
CIC/AD/C/2011/000100
CIC/AD/C/2011/000097
CIC/AD/C/2011/000098
CIC/AD/C/2011/000096
ORDER
Background CIC/AD/C/2011/000088
1. The Applicant filed RTI Applications on various dates with the CPIOs of DDK, Chennai seeking the following information:
(i) Complete details on classification and categorization of your office records as mandated u/s 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) The 17 Manuals as mandated u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Shri M.Anandan, CPIO replied on 24.9.10 stating that subject to availability of resources at present, this Kendra is making efforts to provide relevant information as per section 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.21.10.10 before CIC. CIC/AD/C/2011/000089
2. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.9.9.10 with the CPIO, AIR, Ahmedabad seeking the following information:
(i) Complete details on classification and categorization of your office records as mandated u/s 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) The 17 Manuals as mandated u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) All policy and quasi judicial documents u/s 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d).
Shri B.M.Pandya, CPIO replied on 29.9.10 providing detailed information regarding compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.20.10.10 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/000092
3. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.20.8.10 with the CPIO, DDK, Hyderabad seeking the following information:
(i) Complete details on classification and categorization of your office records as mandated u/s 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) The 17 Manuals as mandated u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dr.P.Madhusudhan Rao, CPIO replied on 20.9.10 stating that with regard to maintenance and computerization of records under RTI Act, the office is maintaining all the relevant records duly computerized wherever necessary. With regard to point (b), he stated that a website has been created in the name of Doordarshan Saptagiri, Hyderabad as "ddsaptagiri.tv" and that the records are being updated from time to time. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.21.10.10 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/000099
4. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.20.8.10 with the CPIO, AIR, Hyderabad seeking the following information:
(i) Complete details on classification and categorization of your office records as mandated u/s 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) The 17 Manuals as mandated u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.
On not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.21.10.10 before CIC. CIC/AD/C/2011/000095
5. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.20.8.10 with the CPIO, DDK, Lucknow seeking the following information:
(i) Complete details on classification and categorization of your office records as mandated u/s 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) The 17 Manuals as mandated u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Shri R.P.Saroj, ACPIO replied on 21.9.10 stating that the information related to this Kendra may be taken from the official website of the Kendra www.ddlucknow. He further stated that the Kendra updates this website from time to time. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.21.10.10 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/000094
6. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.20.8.10 with the CPIO, AIR, Trivandrum seeking the following information:
(i) Complete details on classification and categorization of your office records as mandated u/s 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) The 17 Manuals as mandated u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Shri K.A.Muraleedharan, CPIO replied on 9.9.10 stating that the required information is already available on the official website www.airtvm.com. He however enclosed a copy of the detailed download of Section 4 from the computer for ready reference. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.20.10.10 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/000100
7. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.20.8.10 with the CPIO, DDK, Bhopal seeking the following information:
(i) Complete details on classification and categorization of your office records as mandated u/s 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) The 17 Manuals as mandated u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Shri P.K.Pati, CPIO replied on 4.10.10 stating that the required information is available on the website www.ddbhopal.nic.in and requested the Applicant to refer to the website. He also stated that more information related to the Kendra is being put on the website for the information of common people. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.21.10.10 before CIC. CIC/AD/C/2011/000097
8. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.20.8.10 with the CPIO, DDK, Mumbai seeking the following information:
(i) Complete details on classification and categorization of your office records as mandated u/s 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) The 17 Manuals as mandated u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Shri Kamal Wankhede, ACPIO replied on 6.9.10 stating that the action required under the provisions of Section 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act has already been taken by the Appropriate Authority. However, compliance pertaining to the Kendra up to some extent is still in process and that the same will be completed within a short period of time and subject to availability of resources. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.21.10.10 before CIC. CIC/AD/C/2011/000098
9. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.20.8.10 with the CPIO, O/o DDG(WZ), DDK, Mumbai seeking the following information:
(i) Complete details on classification and categorization of your office records as mandated u/s 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) The 17 Manuals as mandated u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Ms.Chhaya Ganguly, CPIO replied on 23.9.10 stating that the information may be accessed from the web page of DDG west office in the website www.ddindiagov.in under the Tab DD Kendra. She also added that if the above information on the web page is also required on a CD the same can be made available on payment of Rs.50/. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.21.10.10 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/000096
10. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.14.8.10 with the CPIO, O/o CE(WZ), Doordarshan Bhawan, Mumbai seeking the following information:
(i) Copy of orders issued by M/o Information and Broadasting or DG:Doordarshan u/s 4(1)(b) (xvi)
(ii) Copy of orders issued by M/o Information and Broadasting or DG:Doordarshan u/s 5(1) of the RTI Act.
(iii) Copy of orders issued by M/o Information and Broadasting or DG:Doordarshan u/s 5(2) of the RTI Act.
(iv) Copy of orders issued by M/o Information and Broadasting or DG:Doordarshan u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
(v) Copy of orders issued by M/o Information and Broadasting or DG:Doordarshan u/s 5(5) of the RTI Act.
Shri C.K.Omprakash, CPIO replied on 15.9.10. With regard to points (i), (ii) and (iii), he stated that the orders issued by M/o Information and Broadcasting/DG:Doordarshan are not available in his office and transferred the application to DG:Doordarshan, New Delhi. With regard to points 4 and 5, he stated that there are no such orders issued by the CPIO of the O/o CE(WZ) u/s 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.21.10.10 before CIC. Decision
11. Since all the appeals mentioned hereinabove relate to the subject of compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act by the Public Authorities, the Commission decided to hold a hearing with all the Respondents at the same time and with the Appellant also present. Pursuant to discussions which followed during the hearing between the Respondents, Appellant and the undersigned about the extent to which Section 4 of the RTI Act has been complied with by all the AIR and Doordarshan Kendras, it was apparent that the PIOs on their part believe that they have abided by the provisions under Section 4, as per their understanding and to the best of their ability. However, it is evident from the dissatisfaction expressed by the Appellant in his RTI applications that there is a need for further proactive disclosure on the part of the Public Authorities. At this stage, a need for a model Section 4 compliance case which can be copied by the PIOs of the Kendras was expressed by all the Respondents present at the hearing. The Appellant, who has been monitoring Section 4 compliance by different Ministries, advised the Respondents to consider as their model websites, those set up by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and by the Ministry of Environment & Forests. In this connection, the Appellant also argued that the extent to which the directions given in the Office Memorandum issued by DoPT dated 14.11.07 to different Ministries directing them to earmark 1%of funds of Flagship programmes for record management and improvement of infrastructure, especially. for women employees, have been implemented, is also covered under Section 4 of the RTI Act. Hence it was agreed that all Kendras will take the required steps to act in accordance with the directions in the OM and that information with regard to facilities provided such as library/reading room, toilets for women, etc. will also be included in the proactive disclosure to be undertaken by the PIOs.
12. The Commission accordingly directs the PIOs of all the Kendras present during the hearing to refer to the websites of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and of the Ministry of Environment & Forests and update their websites using the two as models. The implementation of directives as given in the OM may also be taken up with renewed interest.
13. The Commission believes that it is appropriate at this stage to draw the attention of the Secretary, AA and CPIO of Min. of Information & Broadcasting to the Full Bench decision of the CIC on proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act which also highlights the need for proper record management. Action in this regard may be taken up on an urgent basis by the Public Authority and the Appellant and the Commission may be informed about the same within one month of receipt of this Order. Based on the Appellant's complaint that the Transparency officers as directed by the Commission to all Public Authorities, have not yet been appointed by the DG: Doordarshan, DG: AIR and by the Ministry of I&B, the Commission urges the Secretary, Ministry of I&B and the CEO, Prasar Bharati to take immediate action with regard to appointment of such officers , they being the competent authorities to decide on this matter, preferably within the next one month, if not already done.
14. The Appellant on his part, as agreed to during the hearing, submitted to the Commission several documents to be shared with the Respondents including (i) Additional information that must be included under Section 4 (1 page), Details of manuals as published by Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (1 page) , DoPT Office Memorandum regarding earmarking 1% of funds of all flagship programmes for updating records and improving infrastructure etc. dated 14.11.07 (2 pages, one each in English and Hindi) . These pages are being forwarded by the Commission to all the Respondents. The Appellant also to inform the PIOs about any RTI group active in each of the cities (mentioned above) so that interested PIOs can request for help of such group/s, if required .
15. The PIOs to intimate the Commission as also the Appellant about Section 4 compliance by middle of July, 2011.
16. A copy of this order is being sent to Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, CEO, Prasar Bharati and to DG:AIR and DG:Doordarshan for necessary action.
17. The complaints are accordingly disposed of.
(4 documents as mentioned in para 13 furnished by the Appellant to be shared with each of the Respondents ).
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Manoj Pai H.No.T15, Sunrise Park Tenements PO - Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380 054
2. The Public Information Officer O/o Director, Doordarshan Kendra Chennai 600 005
3. The Public Information Officer O/o Station Director All India Radio Ahmedabad
4. The Public Information Officer Prasar Bharati O/o Doordarshan Kendra Hyderabad
5. The Public Information Officer O/o Station Director All India Radio Hyderabad
6. The Public Information Officer O/o Director, Doordarshan Kendra 24 Ashok Marg Lucknow 226 001
7. The Public Information Officer O/o Station Director All India Radio Thiruvananthapuram 695 014
8. The Public Information Officer O/o Director, Doordarshan Kendra Bhopal
9. The Public Information Officer O/o Director, Doordarshan Kendra PB Marg, Worli Mumbai
10. Shri Rajeev Thakur Chief Executive officer Prasar Bharati 2nd floor, PTI Building Sansad Marg New Delhi
11. The CPIO Prasar Bharati 2nd floor, PTI Building Sansad Marg New Delhi
12. The Secretary Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Shastri Bhawan New Delhi
13. The Director General DG:Doordarshan Doordarshan Bhawan New Delhi
14. The Director General DG:AIR Aakashwani Bhawan New Delhi
15. Officer in charge, NIC Minutes of the meeting held with CPIO Prasar Bharati regarding compliance of DG:AIR and DG: Doordarshan with Section 4 of the RTI Act.
A meeting was held in the chamber of Information Commissioner, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit on 10 May, 2011, to discuss issues related to compliance with Section4 of the RTI Act by DG:AIR and DG:Doordarshan. The following were present:
i. Mrs.Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, CIC ii. Mr. George Kuruvilla, CPIO, Prasar Bharati iii. Mr. Manoj Pai, RTI Activist/Complainant Given below is a gist of the discussions that took place and the suggestions which emerged to strengthen Section 4 implementation of RTI Act by Prasar Bharati.
• At the outset, the Information Commissioner (IC) clarified that the meeting has been called keeping in view the large number of complaints filed by Mr. Manoj Pai regarding failure by AIR and DD Kendras to comply with Section 4 of the RTI Act. • The CPIO, Prasar Bharati was briefed about the decision given by the Commission earlier during the day on Section 4 compliance by Doordarshan and AIR Kendras. • Mr. Pai praised the efforts put in by the Ministries of I&B and Environment & Forests to ensure complete compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act. The CPIO , Prasar Bharati was hence requested to take steps to encourage all the Kendras to refer to the concerned websites before complying with the Commission's order dated 10 May, 2011 on Section 4 compliance. • The Appellant may provide lists of RTI activists in different cities to the PIOs, whose help the PIOs may wish to take, if required, in connection with Section 4 compliance. The decision in this regard will lie with the PIOs.
• It was agreed that the best way to ensure proactive disclosure under RTI and thereby cut down the number of RTI applications being filed, is to have a common server for the Ministry of I&B, Prasar Bharati and the Directorates which will allow all the AIR Kendras to link up with DG:AIR , all Doordarshan Kendras with DG: Doordarshan and further Prasar Bharati with the Ministry so that any office can have access to any information. Needless to say , proper care/precaution needs to be taken to ensure that none except those authorized at different levels in different offices have access to the database in order to enter/delete/update data. A single website address with links with Prasar Bharati and further down with different AIR and Doordarshan Kendras was envisaged. The CPIO, Prasar Bharati was requested to take this suggestion up with the competent authority (CEO, Prasar Bharati).
• The IC during the meeting expressed her distress while talking about a Respondent who had attended the hearing during the earlier part of the day and who had admitted during the hearing that he has been the PIO for one and a half years but has not read a single word of the RTI Act and has no idea about the exemption clauses therein. In the light of this submission, the CPIO, Prasar Bharati is urged to take the matter up at the appropriate level so that perhaps one day orientations, Region wise for PIOs/AAs in all Kendras of Prasar Bharati can be held . • Shri Manoj Pai that the general public may be given access to the library of Prasar Bharati and that a compilation of employment notices or information about such avenues for appointment it would be helpful if employment notices are compiled and can be accessed by general public. The employment notices and details of vacancies etc. may also be published in related/relevant journals. Opening up the libraries in Kendras to general public, according to Mr. Pai would be extremely helpful to people in rural areas who in increasing numbers are visiting such libraries, (especially Doordarshan) for information.
• The matter of appointment of Transparency Officer was brought up by the Appellant .Shri George Kuruvilla agreed to look into the matter. • As for the OM issued by the DoPT regarding earmarking 1% budget for records management and for infrastructure, it was agreed that details about budgets allocated and facilities provided against the budget will be part of the disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act.