Venkatraman Ns | 22 Aug 13:07 2015


India Against Corruption
                                                          CONCERNED  INDIANS   CAN  CHANGE FACE OF INDIA

It is unrealistic to think that some leadership will come from somewhere to restore good and corruption free governance in India.  In the past , it has been seen that those who were hailed as leaders of  anti corruption movement  have  used the leadership position as platform to  gain power and then become corrupt themselves.

The real central issue in the country today is there is little resistance to corruption and fleecing at ground level.

Resistance to small corruption will certainly have a chain effect and will  put fear in the minds of the corrupt people at various levels  in the course of time.

Swami Vivekananda said   Give me 100 energetic young men and I shall transform India”. The message of Swami Vivekananda is loud and clear. Obviously, what he stressed  was that small group of people  with determination to fight for  the cause of probity and truth and defy unjust conditions can alone transform India.

One cannot but recall that much publicised anti corruption movement launched by Anna Hazare lost its appeal too quickly,  since Anna Hazare was only insisting on Lokpal and improvement of governance without making any efforts to improve the mindset of average Indian.

The country now urgently needs such role models in nooks and corners.  Such persons need not shout or agitate but  should silently defy unjust demands at individual level.

The campaign for corrupt free and nepotism free governance and  ensuring corrupt free politics can certainly be achieved by a silent revolution on the part of the concerned Indians, who are now all over India in lakhs. They need to act at their own level and when sizable number of concerned citizens act  even without any coordination , the positive  impact will be seen sooner than later.

The society and the media may not immediately recognise them but their act of courage and conviction will slowly percolate and give confidence to others that such defiance towards the cause  of truth is possible by individuals and would be worthwhile. Such crusaders need to have patience and faith in the ultimate triumph of good over evil.

Nandini Voice for the Deprived                      

Post: "indiaresists@..."
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@..."
Quit: "" 

[rti_india] CIC now has 20 CPIOs including a Public Grievance Officer ! [2 Attachments]

[Attachment(s) from C K Jam included below]

CIC now has 20 CPIOs - including one with responsibility of Public Grievance Officer (PGO) !

The original circular and the corrigendum are attached to this post.

Attachment(s) from C K Jam | View attachments on the web

2 of 2 File(s)

Posted by: C K Jam <rtiwanted-/>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)



[RTI INDIA] "Eminence" of Mr Shri Sudhir Bhargava, Information Commissioner

As per Namit Sharma II, the SC had directed in para 32(v):

(v) We further direct that the Committees under Sections 12(3) and 15(3) of the Act while 
making recommendations to the President or to the Governor, as the case may be, for 
appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners must 
mention against the name of each candidate recommended, the facts to indicate his 
eminence in public life, his knowledge in the particular field and his experience in the 
particular field and these facts must be accessible to the citizens as part of their right to 
information under the Act after the appointment is made. 

However, no such disclosure made on the CIC website :

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rti_india+unsubscribe-/
For more options, visit




N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.

On Saturday, 20 June 2015 11:46 PM, "Kathyayini Chamaraj [kria]" <> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Karnataka RTI Activists State Committee Bangalore <>
Date: 20 June 2015 at 05:46

It is mandatory to hear and dispose off First Appeals filed under Section
19(1) of the RTI Act by the First Appellate Authorities. It is observed by
the KIC that majority of First Appellate Authorities neither heard the
first appeals nor passed any speaking orders. This has resulted in
mounting pendency before the Informatin Commission. Therefore Commission
decided to recommend for Disciplinary Action against the First Appellate

Commission in their order dated 26.5.2015 recommended for initiating
Disciplinary Action against Revenue Officer, Bommanahalli Valaya, who was
the first appellate authority, for his failure to dispose off the first
appeal under the Act.

12186 APL 2014 DATED 26.5.2015 IS ATTACHED for your reference and guidance.


Kathyayini Chamaraj
Executive Trustee
97318 17177

CIVIC Bangalore
#6 Kasturi Apts.
35/23 Langford Road Cross
Bangalore 560025
Telefax: 080-41144126

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Posted by: Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54-/>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)



[rti_india] Delhi High Court directs for distribution of Chief IC’s cases to all ICs to clear the backlog [3 Attachments]

[Attachment(s) from C K Jam included below]

The Delhi HC has directed the Central Information Commission to redistribute cases pending in the Registry of the Chief IC amongst all the present Commissioners, in order to clear the backlog.

(1) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a landmark decision dated 22-5-2015 (copy enclosed) has directed the Central Information Commission to allocate the cases pertaining to the Chief Information Commissioner to all the Information Commissioners, who shall hear them according to the seniority unless priority hearing is necessary.

(2) The High Court has also directed that priority hearing should not only be confined to the cases of Sr. Citizens and Physically Challenged Persons but should also extend to cases of life and liberty and other categories of such cases

(3) The High Court also directed the CIC to maintain a register digitally or otherwise, indicating date of institution and pendency of cases according to their age so that they could be heard chronologically.

(4) The above directions have been issued on the application filed by Shri R.K. Jain consequent upon the failure of the CIC to decide his complaint against Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, President, Indian National Congress for her deliberate failure to comply with the Full Bench decision of CIC to appoint CPIOs and First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, despite the directions dated 22-8-2014 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to decide the said complaint within 6 months. The Registrar’s communication dated 13-5-2015 refusing to place the matter before the Senior Information Commissioner is also attached. Shri J.K. Mittal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Writ Petitioner.


Attachment(s) from C K Jam | View attachments on the web

3 of 3 File(s)

Posted by: C K Jam <rtiwanted-/>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)





I agree with Shailesh, courts are behaving in rude way with the RTI.

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 9:15 AM, shailesh gandhi <> wrote:
It is my belief that in the instant case we should be in agreement with the stand taken by the SIC rather than that of the Supreme Court. By rejoicing every time a Court castigates a Commission for trying to increase the cause of transparency we are becoming party to a gradual weakening of the RTI Act by interpretation. Attaching a paper i have written on the Supreme Court rulings on RTI, and quoting my analysis of the case in reference below:

JUDGMENT 13:   Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 1853/2013; Karnataka Information Commissioner vs. PIO (HC); GS Singhvi & HL Gokhale 18 January 2013;


About the case: A RTI applicant requested the Karnataka High Court for certified copies of some information/documents regarding guidelines and rules pertaining to scrutiny and classification of writ petitions and the procedure followed by the Karnataka High Court in respect of Writ Petition Nos.26657 of 2004 and 17935 of 2006. The PIO refused the information on the grounds that the applicant should seek the information under the Karnataka High Court rules. When the matter went to the State Information Commission it disagreed with the PIO and ordered the information to be provided under the RTI Act.


The Commission’s order was challenged by the PIO in the Karnataka High Court which named the applicant as a respondent in the case and quashed the Commission’s order.


The Commission challenged this order before the Supreme Court and the petition was filed by an Information Commissioner. The Court took offense to the petition being filed by an Information Commissioner and said that the Commission and Commissioner have no locus standi and were wasting public money by challenging the order. In a harsh snub it imposed a cost of Rs. 100000 on the Commission.


My analysis of the judgement: It is worth mentioning that the Supreme Court itself had accepted the Chief Information Commissioner (Manipur) as the petitioner in Civil Appeal no. 10727. Many High Courts name the Commission as party in many petitions challenging their decision. The important matter of Section 22 which gives an overriding effect to the RTI Act, was not addressed at all. This harsh snub by the Supreme Court has silenced the Information Commissions into not questioning the Courts, but becoming intellectually subservient to them.


ii) Section 22 states that “the provisions of this RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI Act”. In other words, where there is any inconsistency in a law as regards furnishing of information, such law shall be superseded by the RTI Act. Insertion of a non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act was to safeguard the citizens’ fundamental right to information from convoluted interpretations of other laws and rules adopted by public authorities to deny information. This section simplifies the process of implementing the right to information both for citizens as well as the PIO. Citizens may seek to enforce their fundamental right to information by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act if they desire to. By its order in the case of the Karnataka Commission, the Supreme Court, without addressing the provision of Section 22, sanctified and legitimized denial of information under Right to Information, if any public authority claims there are any other rules for giving information.  This ruling has neutralised Section 22 of the RTI Act without any proper reasoning or discussion.

Besides it appears to be contrary to the Supreme Court’s pronouncement at para 18 in the CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay  case quoted above where it had held, ““Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time  in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations.” Surely the rules of the Court cannot be treated differently.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:19 AM, RUDRAPPA S KUMAR <> wrote:
Dear Friends ,

Chief Information commissioner AKM Nayak violated the supreme court order and paid the penalty of Rs. 1 Laksh  imposed  against him from the govt. account 
 For details see the article and the Govt. not initiated  any action against him  to recover the Rupees one Lakh  from his salary and the Govt. fails to take appropriate legal action for mis appopriation of public money and the mater  is brought to the notice of Governor  and demanded to remove him from chief information commissioner post , But neither the govt. nor the governor initiated any action .He is continuing and enjoying the position 

With regards 

A R S KUMAR , BE LLB MA Journalism MA Human Rights 

High Court Advocate & RTI Activist 

Swamy Vivekananda RTI Janajagruthi Mission 


All my emails are in Public domain.
Tel: 91 22 26001003; 8976240798
Mera Bharat Mahaan..
                   Nahi Hai,
Per Yeh Dosh Mera Hai.

In service of RTI

Bhaskar Prabhu
Mahiti Adhikar Manch &
Maharashtra RTI Council
National Campaign for People's Right to Information.
Core Member - Police Reforms Watch.

"Democracy" is not a spectator sport..!
Participate in "Democracy" to enjoy the sport..!

Posted by: Bhaskar Prabhu <>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)



[RTI INDIA] COMPLAINT against FAA (First Appellate Authority) of the CIC

The Secretary
Central Information Commission
New Delhi


1. Hon'ble MoS, DoPT
2. Secretary, DoPT

C J Karira
Secunderabad                                                    Date 07 May 2015

RE: COMPLAINT against the First Appellate Authority of the Central Information Commission

Dear Madam,

I am constrained to send this email to you to COMPLAIN to you regarding the Non Disposal of my First Appeal by the FAA of your Commission.

As you can very well see from the trailing emails (copies of all emails and letters have been marked to you !), there has been an inordinate delay in disposing off my first appeal. Since this matter pertains to Corruption in the CIC, there is no doubt in my mind that the disposal of this first appeal is being delayed on the prodding of the corrupt persons working in the Central Information Commission.

If you recall, I had also called you about a month ago, before Mr Dash demitted office, and you had assured me to look into the matter and get this matter disposed at the earliest. 

However no such thing happened !

Following is the sequence of events:

RTI Application filed with CPIO, CIC, re missing files
14 Jul 2014
Reply of the CPIO, CIC
22 Aug 2014
First Appeal filed with FAA of CIC
08 Sep 2014
Date of First Appeal Hearing & FAA’s 1st order
27 Oct 2014
FAA gives further directions to trace the “missing files”
27 Oct 2014
Another First Appeal for non-compliance of FAAs orders
09 Nov 2014
Incomplete information provided by CPIO
28 Nov 2014
Reminder to FAA
03 Dec 2014
Another First Appeal to FAA for incomplete information
10 Dec 2014
FAA passes order and gives more time to CPIO / Registrar to trace missing files and conduct Inquiry
19 Dec 2014
First reminder to FAA
11 Jan 2015
Second reminder to FAA
05 Feb 2015
Several calls to FAA between 23 Feb & 05 April 2015
Third reminder to FAA
18 April 2015
Fourth reminder to FAA
01 May 2015
Fifth reminder to FAA
07 May 2015

As you can clearly see from the above table, I have tried my best to follow all rules
and procedures as well as send timely reminders to the FAA to get his orders implemented.

However, I am now convinced that both Mr A K Dash, the former Adnl Secretary 
cum FAA and  the present FAA Mr Beck, are both part of the same 
CORRUPT MAFIA , existing in the Commission.

Madam, you are part of the Central Information Commission, the apex body for deciding
second appeals / complaints under the RTI Act. If your own senior officers:

- do not follow the time lines specified in the RTI Act 2005
- are not able to enforce their orders on their own subordinates
- do not even reply to 5 reminders over a period of 5 months

then with what face and authority can the Commission direct officers of other public 
authorities and expect the compliance of their orders ?

Since Mr Beck took over as the FAA of the Commission, I have called him more than 15 
times and he has never ever come on the phone. 

His email, as given on the website of the Commission, keeps bouncing.

Madam our Prime Minister keeps talking about "courteous behaviour" of Government
officers towards citizens, but surely, not responding to 15 phone calls cannot be termed as 
"courteous behaviour".

I therefore URGE and REQUEST you to immediately remove such an officer from
the post of FAA and reassign the duties to some other officer who can at least
return calls from applicants/appellants who have been waiting for an order
since more than 6 months.

I also did call you once and left a message with your PA, but the call was
not returned.

Thanking You,
C J Karira

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rti_india+unsubscribe-/
For more options, visit


[rti_india] Fw: [HumJanenge-YG] INVITATION - to a roundtable discussion on the findings of a study of the performence of Karnataka Information Commission


 Please circulate to maximum
N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.

On Thursday, 7 May 2015 5:52 PM, "Harish Poovaiah [HumJanenge]" <> wrote:


Coalition Against Corruption CAC & Public Affairs Centre PAC


To a Roundtable on a Study on Performance of The Karnataka Information Commission

PAC ( is a not for profit organization, established in 1994 with a mandate to improve the quality of governance in India. PAC works with central and state government agencies to enhance governance quality. PAC has promoted the platform CAC with organizations and has established a helpline to assist citizen in overcoming difficulties while getting their work done in any office since 2005. The platform has been working with citizen across the state specially on promoting use of RTI.

Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) is the trustee of Right to Information (RTI) in the state. KIC plays the critical role from awareness building to implementation of the RTI, as mandated under chapter 5 of the Right to Information Act 2005. The platform has conducted a study on the performance of the KIC, both qualitatively and quantitatively. It is arranged to hold a roundtable to discuss the findings of the study on Friday, 8th May 2015 at the IAS Officers Association on Infantry Road from 3PM to 5PM.

Programme schedule:

3.00PM – 3.15PM: Welcoming and objectives of the study by Sri R Suresh Director, PAC
3.15PM - 3.45PM: Presentation of the study findings by Sri YG Murulidharan, CAC
3.45PM - 4.15PM: Questions from the floor/media
4.15PM - 4.25PM: Response from the State Chief Information Commissioner, Sri AKM Naik
4.25PM - 4.35PM: Response from the Former State Chief Information Commissioner and former Chief Secretary, Sri KK Misra
4.35PM - 4.45PM: Response from the Principal Secretary, DPAR-Janaspandana – Sri Paramesh Pandey, IAS
4.45PM - 4.55PM: Concluding remarks by Dr Samuel Paul, Founder, PAC
4.55PM : Vote of thanks by Sri. Ravindranath Guru, CAC


Posted by: Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54-/>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)



[rti_india] KIC Demands Affidavit from PIOs


A Practicing Advocate , Files RTI Request to a Series of Officers in one Dept , Relating to thier Personal , Private and services matters , For Brevity One Set of the Questions or queriwsa is Given below :
You Sri. xyz joined service in 1995 as ABC and now you are working DDof F& B , prtovide me
1. All your tour dais es, Advance Tour dairy and Dairy from date dateof joining till datwe
2. Provide me all your inmspection reports from 1995 to till date
3. PProvide me Reports submitted from Date of Joining till date ob Fatal Accidents
4. Provide me A & L statements from 1005 to till fate
5 Provide me Your salary Particulars from 1995 to till datyew 
6. Provide me the details that your Eligible for the Post of DD of F&B dept
Some of the Requests were rejected under 8.1.d and 8.1.j and supreme court orders ,
Now a new Info commm orders file Affidavit ,
Kindly advice whether this Affidavit business is permitted as per existing RTI Act and if so can Enclosures be filed like Supreme court order
Pl/ Suggest as early as possible and before 10th may 2015
N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
Posted by: Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54-/>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)



[rti_india] Re: Meeting of RTI Activists


Hello Friends,


Right to Information has turned in to Fight for Information.

Wish the Meeting grand success.

Best Regards,

Navin Pandya

On 2/28/15, Veeresh Bellur <> wrote:
> A meeting of RTI activists is arranged on 6th march 2015 at Hotel
> Panchavati. 54. 17th cross. M C Layout. VIJAYANAGAR. BSNGALORE at
> Mr. Bhaskar Prabhu. Mahithi Adhikarmanch. Mumbai will be sharing his
> Msharashtra experiences. Pl join us and strengthen RTI movement.
> Veeresh
> Mahithi Hakku Adhyayana Kendra
> 54. 17th Cross. MC Layout. Vijayanagar. Bangalore.
> Ph 9448704693

*Sarve Bhavantu Sukhin: Sarve Santu Niramaya: l Sarve Bhadrani Pashyantu Ma
Kashchid Dukhbhag Bhavet ll Om Shanti: Shanti: Shanti:*

Posted by: Reformist Navin <>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)





Hello Friends,


It seems that Right to Information has turned into Fight for Information.


Navin Pandya

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:05 AM, vincent geoge vincentecf <at> [rti_india] <> wrote:

Dear Friends,
We have to demand the ICs to use section the 25(5) of the RTI act against BBMP, BDA and Revenue
G Vincent  
(Mobile  09341263460)

From: Karnataka RTI Activists State Committee BANGALORE <>
To: ABHIJITH.R.K. 278 3RD A CR. HAL II STG DOMLUR <abhijith_rk-/>; alagu Bruhathnadu <>; Amarnath K. V. <akadur <at>>; ANIL KUMAR <anil_crp-/>; ARUN KUMAR SHET KUMTA <arun_shilp-/>; ARVIND METI HUBLI <>; Avinash Veeresha <>; B A NAGESH <>; B. V. SEETHARAM KARAVALI ALE <>; BASAVARAJ ITNAL <basavarajitnal-/>; Bhujanga <rajabhujanga-/>; C MANJUNATH SUVARNA <>; C N Kumar <cn-sv3+MbXDZjnWvQPTtNZud1aTQe2KTcn/>; DR. C S DWARAKANATH <>; chandrashekar midday <>; Chetan Mirror <>; Chethan Thimmaiah <>; deepak gala <gala786 <at>>; DNA <>; Firoz. T. Totanawala <>; g manjunath Deccan Herald <>; GAUTHAM VEERESH <>; Gautham Veeresha <>; GBAthri <>; HUMAN RIGHTS <>; humjanenge <humjanenge <at>>; indiarti indiarti <>; Jagdish Kumar Byatarayanapura <>; Janardhana Ksheersagar <janardhanav-/>; jayaram puttegowda <capt.jayaram14749-/>; JN jayashree <jnjayashree62-/>; JSD PANI <>; K A THIPPESWAMY <thippeswamyka <at>>; kanunukalasha 9902579022 <>; <info-UEbPmrHl4c4pug/h7KTFAQ@public.gmane.orgg>; Kathyayini Chamaraj <>; Kiran V <>; kria <kria <at>>; Dr.M.C SINDHUR <>; MALLIKARJUN L S < <at>>; manjunath deccan herald <gmanjusainath-/>; MANOHAR <manorights <at>>; Manu T.U <rohiniuth-/>; mathang seshagiri <>; N. Janardhana Rao Magar <>; NAGESH CB COLONY <>; Narayan Amachi <>; Narayana Amachi Narayan <nabhachi-/>; Narendra Singh Narendra Singh <>; NIRANJANARADHYA <aradhyaniranjan <at>>; "" <>; P Manivannan <>; Palyam Suresh <>; pavanaja u.b. <pavanaja-RVQtyVGGjSyGvSmBJk3eegC/>; PERIASWAMY ADVOCATE <>; Prabhakar Bhat <prabhakarbhat-/>; PRAMOD HALKATTI <pramodhalakatti-/>; RAGHAVA M THE HINDU <raghavam <at>>; RAJANI <>; Rakesh B <>; RAMESH EE <ramesh71165-/>; Ravindranath Guru <>; The RTI guy <rtiguy <at>>; rti india <>; RTI KARNATAKA KRTIF <rtikarnataka <at>>; RUDRA MURTHY M S <rudrams-/>; S. N. Subramanya <maachi000-/>; SAINATH ADVOCATE <>; Santosh Nargund <spnargund-/>; Saraja Puranik <smita_puranik-/>; Shailesh Gandhi <>; SHASHIDHAR CHARTERED ENGINEER <>; SHOBA KINI <shobakini <at>>; Shrinivasa m <>; shyam s <shyamscrore-Re5JQEeQqe8@public.gmane.orgm>; sisodia kabir <>; sourabha gangadhar <sourabha.gangadhar <at>>; sreedharan <net_sree-/>; sridhara babu <legaldocumentations <at>>; SRIVATHSA RASHTROTTHAN SANKALP <>; thekirti Group <>; veeresh bellur <veeresh.bellur-Re5JQEeQqe8@public.gmane.orgm>; venkataram supraja <srvenkatram-/>; vikram simha <vikramsimha54 <at>>; vincent geoge <vincentecf-/>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 5:05 AM

Dear Friends,

A meeting of all Activists is arranged on 19th February 2015 at 11 AM at Karnataka Information Commission premises to discuss certain crucial issues relating to poor implementation of RTI Act and  increased harrassment/victimisation of RTI applicants in Karnataka. 

Mr. Mallikarjun, RTI Activist, Karnataka was arrested for seeking information relating to Lower Level Park in Sadashivanagar.

Recently Mr. Elangovan, an RTI Activist in Tamilnadu was arrested for claiming RIGHT TO SIT during hearing  before Tamil Nadu Information Commission.

An applicant in Punjab & Haryana Information Commission was arrested for arguing his complaint.

Whether installing of CCTVs in Court Halls of Information Commission is required to safeguard the interest of RTI Users?

How to effectively implement Section 4 information by the Public Authorities?

Why not we demand publication of all applications and information provided in RTI be posted in website of the Public Authority as decided by the Union Government?

Please send your suggestions and feed back in dealing with such growing incidences against RTI Users in the country.

​ ​

Sarve Bhavantu Sukhin: Sarve Santu Niramaya: l Sarve Bhadrani Pashyantu Ma Kashchid Dukhbhag Bhavet ll Om Shanti: Shanti: Shanti:
Posted by: Reformist Navin <>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (4)