Mar

ch’1

2

Kindly check our April’12 newsletter to know more of Civic issue of your ward

Founded in 1998, the PRAJA Foundation is a non-partisan voluntary organization which empowers the citizen to participate in governance by providing knowledge and enlisting people's participation. PRAJA aims to provide ways in which the citizen can get politically active and involved beyond the ballot box, thus promoting transparency and accountability.

Concerned about the lack of awareness and apathy of the local government among citizens, and hence the disinterest in its functioning, PRAJA seeks change. PRAJA strives to create awareness about the elected representatives and their constituencies. It aims to encourage the citizen to raise his/her voice and influence the policy and working of the elected representative. This will eventually lead to efforts being directed by the elected representatives towards the specified causes of public interest.

The PRAJA Foundation also strives to revive the waning spirit of Mumbai City, and increase the interaction between the citizens and the government. To facilitate this, Praja has created www.praja.org, a website where the citizen can not only discuss the issues that their constituencies face, but can also get in touch with their elected representatives directly. The website has been equipped with information such as: the issues faced by the ward, the elected representatives, the responses received and a discussion board, thus allowing an informed interaction between the citizens of the area.

PRAJA's goals are: empowering the citizens, elected representatives & government with facts and creating instruments of change to improve the quality of life of the citizens of India. PRAJA is committed to creating a transparent, accountable and efficient society through people's participation.

What is Praja?

Genesis of the RTI Act: An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. State Information Commission has 8 offices in Maharashtra:1) State Chief Information Commission, Mumbai- (Headquarter) 2) State Information Commission, Nagpur Division3) State Information Commission, Aurangabad Division4) State Information Commission, Pune Division5) State Information Commission, Konkan Division6) State Information Commission, Greater Mumbai Division7) State Information Commission, Amravati Division8) State Information Commission , Nashik Division Tenures of State Chief Information Commissioners and State Information Commissioners have been as follows:

Introduction

Sr. No. Name Designation From Up to

1 Dr. Suresh Joshi State Chief Information Commissioner 12/10/2005 11/10/2010

2 Vilas B. Patil State Chief Information Commissioner 14/10/2010 25/07/2011

3 Vilas B. Patil (Nagpur) State Information Commissioner 27/12/2006 13/10/2010

4 Vijay B. Borage(Aurangabad) State Information Commissioner 27/12/2006 13/07/2010

5 Vijay V. Kuvalekar(Pune) State Information Commissioner 08/02/2007 -

6 Navinkumar(Konkan) State Information Commissioner 01/03/2008 15/08/2011

7 Ramanand Tiwari(Greater Mumbai) State Information Commissioner 01/03/2008 -(involved in Adarsh Scam and has been suspended since January’11)

8 Bhaskar T. Patil (Amarawati) State Information Commissioner 24/12/2008 -

9 M. H. Shaha(Nashik) State Information Commissioner 15/10/2010 -

10 P.W. Patil (Nagpur) State Information Commissioner 15/10/2010 -

11 D. B. Deshpande(Aurangabad) State Information Commissioner 15/10/2010 -

Current Scenario in Maharashtra State:

Year of Report

2007

2008

2009

2010

Second appeals received in current year

10628

14928

18205

19483

Appeals with results declared

2762

12844

21762

17266

Appeals pending at the end of the year

12882

14273

10716

12933

Mar

ch’1

2

State Appeals for the period 2007 to 2010:• On an average 12,701 cases have been pending every year. • Second appeals (state appeals) have become almost double from 10,628 to 19,483.

State Information Commissioners:• Dr. Suresh Joshi (SIC) retired on 11/10/2010• Vilas Patil (SIC) retired on 25/7/2011• Ramanand Tiwari (Mumbai Information Commissioner) was suspended for his role in Adarsh on 20/01/2011

Since last January Mumbai has no Information Commissioner; also there is no State Information Commissioner since last July; and the Pune Information Commissioner is coming to Mumbai on a regular basis to act as an additional information commissioner.

Krishnaraj Rao is a Mumbai-based journalist, RTI trainer and campaigner for transparent governance. He is part of a nationwide-network of like-minded individuals, who work as full-time campaigners on a voluntary basis for the cause of Right to Information.

In your opinion, is Right To Information Act nearing its end due to the ‘attitude’ of bureaucracy/government towards the act?

Is keeping the RTI Commissioner's post vacant one of the reasons for increase in the number of pending cases?

On your opinion what should be the role of an elected representative in making the RTI Act and its implementation stronger?

Please tell us more on the PIL you filed, and also how you intend to take it forward.

Please suggest steps in order to arrest the increase in number of pending state appeals.

The framing of the query indicates a highly pessimistic view, which automatically assumes that all power lies with the government, and none with We the People. Such is not the case; the future of the RTI Act lies in our hands, and our ability to defend it together. We should not raise an outcry about its “demise” because that will only demoralize potential RTI applicants. In my opinion, Right to Information is alive and well, as there are large numbers of people who are willing and able to defend it through very strong actions, including agitations and public interest litigations. Yes, there is resistance in the government and bureaucracy, but that is natural, given the frequent use by citizens to track the functioning of government and administration at all levels.

In Maharashtra Information Commission, there are currently five vacancies that urgently need to be filled up. Owing to these posts lying vacant for a long time, pendency of cases is mounting alarmingly at over 2000 cases per month. It is conservatively estimated at 24,000 at present, but I feel the real figure is closer to 30,000. In my view, two commissioners extra should be appointed solely for the purpose of hearing pending cases older than 6 months, while five other appointed hear the fresh cases.

I feel that the government must design an orientation programme every year for our elected representatives (such as MPs, MLAs and Corporators) so that they do not drift away because of the pulls and pressures of politics. Compulsory reporting procedures need to be put in place, so that they are constantly made to feel answerable and accountable to the people who elect them. These reports, focusing on various aspects of their official work, must be routinely made public through a government website.

Ten of us from different states of India were co-petitioners in a PIL filed in Delhi High Court in 2009, which was however not admitted. This PIL was the predecessor of another one filed by Arvind Kejriwal, which was also dismissed in Delhi High Court, but later admitted as an Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. This is still pending. Our PIL and Arvind’s PIL was for transparent procedures to be put in place for the selection of Information Commissioners, which is currently a non-transparent and arbitrary process.

There is a need to set up mentoring centres where people are taught to file RTI applications that are short, sweet and to-the-point. The correct use of RTI is to ask for copies of documents as they exist, and not to ask for individual facts and figures that have to be extracted from these documents. (The documents themselves are a treasurehouse of relevant information, and studying such peripheral information will give citizens many insights into government functioning, and show them where exactly the corruption is happening.) If people start asking for copies of documents, the role of the public information officers (PIOs) is reduced to that of collecting, copying and despatching documents. Compliance will rise, and the numbers of appeals will fall dramatically. Also, people should consider re-looking at an unsuccessful RTI application and filing a fresh one with corrections and modifications, rather than hammering on in second appeals; this also will result in a reduction of the appeal process.

Mar

ch’1

2

Hindustan Times - 12-07-2011

Information received from Shailesh Gandhi, Central Information Commissioner: Shailesh Gandhi is the Information Commissioner with the Central Information Commission since 2008.

Shailesh Gandhi’s letter to the CM

12 November 2011Shri Prithviraj Chavan,Chief Minister,Government of Maharashtra Hon. Shri Chavan,

I am writing this letter to you, to draw your attention to a serious problem facing the implementation of RTI in Maharashtra. Presently, there are no Information Commissioners for Mumbai and Konkan. The pendency is mounting and if urgent steps are not taken, RTI will suffer a grievous blow, from which it may not be able to recover. I understand that most cases are taking around a year to be decided. By inaction and allowing pendencies to mount, RTI could become dysfunctional and the aam admi in whose name we undertake most activities will stop using this important tool. I am aware of your personal commitment to transparency and RTI, and urge you to please ensure that Information Commissioners for Mumbai and Konkan are appointed urgently through a transparent process.

It would be a good idea to publish a proposed process and get Public reactions and suggestions before finalizing it. It is necessary that the process of selection of Information Commissioners should be made accountable and transparent. I am briefly outlining what such a process could be:

1. The Government should advertise its intention to appoint a certain number of Information Commissioners. Eminent people could be apply or be nominated by others.

2. A search committee,- perhaps,- consisting of the Speaker of the Vidhan Sabha, Chief Information Commissioner, Vice Chancellor of some Universities, and RTI activists could be formed to shortlist a panel which could be three times the number of Commissioners to be selected. These could be announced with the minutes of the meeting at which the shortlisting was done.

3. A Public hearing could be held to give Citizens and groups the opportunity to voice their support or opposition to the candidates. Based on these inputs, the final decision to select the Commissioners could be taken by the Committee as set out in Section 15 (3) of the RTI Act.

Various Commissions are the checks and balances of our democracy. If appropriate people are appointed, these important institutions would help in delivering democracy to citizens. It may be prudent to select most Commissioners who are below 60 years in age. It is also necessary that Commissioners deliver adequate number of decisions and are accountable to people. Information Commissioners are not delivering at an adequate pace to meet the requirement. Whereas it is possible to adjudicate 5000 cases in a year,- as I have demonstrated,- most Commissioners are adjudicating less than 50% of this. Those appointed as Information Commissioners must undertake to deliver an account of their job to Citizens.

Hoping for a positive response, and thanking you in anticipation, Yours truly Shailesh Gandhi

To Lodge Civic Complaint (Eg: Road, Water, Drainage, Municipal School, Municipal Dispensary, SWM, and others): Please log on to and file your complaints in the option given under the 'Complaints' tab in the menu or You may and register your complaint.

http://mcgm.gov.in call 1916

Mar

ch’1

2

Biggy speaks: The sunshine law (RTI Act 2005) was brought after many struggles spanning couple of decades by many Indians; many have benefited from the act; the aam admi could demand all sort of legit information – the sunshine law really ushered the era of transparency thus making governance more accountable to the people of the nation! However, it seems that those who are being ‘affected’ by the goods of this act have decided to make the act DEAD by bringing in all sorts of hurdles; increases in fees, not making optimum use of technology, keeping the post of chief information commissioners (CIC) vacant. The last one on CICs has a major impact because of which the appeals pending are increasing manifold and thus the applicant has to wait for a very long time (presently Praja has had experienced of appeals pending for almost 6-8 months). Also it seems that post of CIC is now being seen by retiring bureaucrats as a post retirement ‘perk’ that they deserve so to enjoy some more time at the expense of the exchequer; hence we have seen ‘scam-tainted’ officers being in the post and the our current vacant posts waiting for some retiring bureaucrat to lay claim. If those responsible, our elected representatives, our chief minister, do really feel that they represent we the citizens, then, they must take the right action. First. to fill up the post of the CIC immediately with them who are ‘suitable’, who can take action, solve cases on a war-footing, can make optimum use of technology, and more importantly understand the RTI Act in its word and spirit. Second, attempts to kill the act by bringing in unproductive and unnecessary hurdle creating amendments without any public consultations should be stopped. And thirdly, pro-active updated and machine readable format disclosure of information/development data/departmental reports at the micro-data point available should be made compulsory for all departments/institutions covered by the act. We all should support and upheld the act in the right spirit if governance has to be made more responsible.

Table 1: Appeals and Complaints received / Forecast for next five years

Year

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012 forecast

2013forecast

2014 forecast

2015 forecast

2016 forecast

Number of Appeals & Complaints received

4923

10274

14565

21509

27453

32982

36940

41373

45510

50061

55067

Percent increase

in receipt

109%

42%

48%

28%

20%

12%

12%

10%

10%

10%

Disposal Assuming 3500 disposal Per Commissioner With 10 Commissioners

2905

6979

10285

19633

23575

22414

35000

35000

35000

35000

35000

Pending cases

2018

5313

9593

11469

15481

26049

27989

34362

44872

59933

80000

2012 to 2016, forecast assuming 12% increase in receipts in 2012 and 2013 and 10% thereafter. Disposals assumed as 35000 per year for this period on the basis of 3500 per Commissioner for 10 Commissioners.

shailesh gandhi

Year

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012 forecast

2013forecast

2014 forecast

2015 forecast

2016 forecast

Number of Appeals & Complaints received

4923

10274

14565

21509

27453

32982

36940

41373

45510

50061

55067

Percent increase

in receipt

109%

42%

48%

28%

20%

12%

12%

10%

10%

10%

Disposal Assuming 3500 disposal Per Commissioner With 10 Commissioners

2905

6979

10285

19633

23575

22414

50000

50000

50000

50000

50000

Pending cases

2018

5313

9593

11469

15481

26049

12989

4362

-128

-67

5000

Table 2: Appeals and Complaints received / Forecast for next five years

2012 to 2016, forecast assuming 12% increase in receipts in 2012 and 2013 and 10% thereafter. Disposals assumed as 50000 per year for this period on the basis of 5000 per Commissioner for 10 Commissioners.

shailesh gandhi