National Political Leaders not to accept Invitation of Dr. Damodar Rout Vice-president BJD

Appeal by Civil Society Groups to National Political Leaders not to accept Invitation of Dr. Damodar Rout to address Centenary Celebration of Birth Day of Biju Patnaik, former Chief Minister, Odisha

Civil Society Groups working for betterment of Odisha  have made passionate appeal  to the Political leaders of national repute  to turn down the invitation of Dr. Damodar Rout, Vice-President of Biju Janata Dal  and Minister for Cooperation and Excise  for  the function organised to celebrate birth centenary of  Biju Patnaik at Paradeep on 5^th March.  

In a letter dated 24.2.16  addressed  to Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, President, Samajvadi Party, Ms. Mamata Banerjee, Hon’ble Chief Minister West Bengal, Kolkata, Sri Lalu Prasad Yadav, President Rashtriya Janata Dal, Sri Nitish Kumar, Hon’ble Chief Minister, Bihar , Sri Sarad Yadav, President Janata Dal ( United ), the members of Civil Society Groups  have brought to the notice of these leaders  that  Dr. Damodar Rout, Minister for Cooperation and Excise, Govt. of Odisha and Vice-president of Biju Janata Dal has made a press statement about his invitation to you to address the public meeting to be organised on coming 5^th March at Paradeep to celebrate the birth centenary of Biju Patnaik, a well known political leader and former Chief Minister, Odisha. This programme is being organised under the banner of Biju Memorial Trust. This invitation has already triggered off a political storm in Biju Janata Dal with the party spokespersons coming down heavily on Dr. Damodar Rout for having announced it without the knowledge of the party. These leaders have also made it clear through their press statements that their party Biju Janata Dal is in no way related with this programme and it happens to be the personal agenda of Dr. Rout himself. Strangely enough, while the party is passing through such a serious inner-party feud between its rival factions to the bewilderment of the public at large, Sri Nabin Patnaik, Chief Minister, Odisha has been maintaining an ominous silence about all this, confounding thereby the confusion already created.

The letter has also enlightened  the leaders  that  Sri Nabin Patnaik as Chief Minister during the last 16 years of his rule, has been infamously embroiled in a number of mega scams involving his office and portfolios. In the Chit Fund scam, Rs. 40,000 crore has been allegedly looted by the Chit Fund Companies promoted by his Govt. Itself.  In the land scam in Bhubaneswar and Cuttack as much as about Rs. 1, 00,000 crore worth of prime urban land has been grabbed by the corrupt biggies like Ministers, MLAs, IAS and IPS officers and also the owners of Private Hotels and  Educational Institutions having dubious records such as KIIT. Each of these land grabbers could succeed in amassing multiple plots in the twin cities using the name of their spouse and relatives, thanks to their unholy league with the corrupt officials and that too in connivance with the office of Chief Minister. The notorious mining scam that cost the State exchequer a staggering amount of Rs. 60,000 crores scam, as is well known, was masterminded by the mining mafia in active collaboration with the corrupt officials and some leaders of Biju Janata Dal.

Though the Shah Commission had recommended for a CBI Inquiry into the mining scam, the BJP-led NDA Govt. has not taken yet any worthwhile step in this direction. As a matter of fact, Sri Nabin Patnaik has been able to bargain out the national level BJP leaders not to go for CBI inquiry, by way of a cunning show-off of strength of 30 MPs in parliament, which is a significant factor for the BJP-led NDA Government for passage of any Bill in the Parliament. Sri Nabin Patnaik has also been able to influence the BJP led Govt. at the Centre to slow down the ongoing CBI investigation into the Chit Fund case. This behind-the-scene bonhomie has been evident from the visit of Sri Amit Shah, President of BJP and Sri Narendra Modi, Prime Minister to the State of Odisha on dt. 21.2.16 who  never uttered a single word against the State Govt or Chief Minister Nabin Patnaik. On a number of occasions in the Parliament this opportunistic and tacit alliance between the BJP and BJD has led to handing out of unconditional support by the BJD to the BJP in the matter of the legislative enactments. In turn, Sri Nabin Patnaik Government could muster the unstinted support of BJP in the legislative and administrative matters for protection of his Government from the attack by the opposition. Further, as BJP has a strong nexus with corrupt corporate mafias, it has also managed to build good equation with Sri Nabin Patnaik simply to protect the interests of the corporate sector. Besides, BJD’s criticism against BJP or Central Govt. on Polavaram issue or Central negligence is just eyewash, meant to confuse the public.

As the unholy alliance of BJD-BJP gets exposed in public and the people of Odisha having secular values are getting sensitised about BJD’s nexus with BJP, Sri Nabin Patnaik is trying hard to recover from this tangle.  Sri Patnaik as a part of his image building exercise has set Dr. Damodar Rout to invite you to join in the celebration of birth centenary of Biju Patnaik. His sole motive behind all this is to show off to the public that that he enjoys close rapport with the leaders of different political parties at national level. Thereby he too aims at acquiring a stronger position in his bargain with BJP and hopes that the BJP led Central Govt. would also be cautious enough in taking any step towards destabilization of BJD Govt from power.

On a close analysis we do feel that Dr. Damodar Rout’s invitation  to the leaders of national parties or regional political parties  is nothing  but  an exercise  to strengthen  bargaining power of Nabin Patnaik  vis-a-vis BJP and simultaneously to white-wash his  image that has been tarnished due to the multiple scams.

The Letter has requested these leaders not to entertain any illusion about the Chief Minister Sri Nabin Patnaik whose misrule has destroyed Odisha, reducing the state into the poorest one in the country, where 88% of the rural poor live below poverty line. Besides, he has cunningly emasculated all the constitutional and quasi-judicial bodies in the State, and thereby made a mockery of them. Ever since he assumed power, he has been guided by a coterie of mischievous bureaucrats and politicians, who do not have an iota of sympathy for the poor or and regard for the rule of law. To divert the attention of the common people from the series of mega scams, chronic maladministration and utter lawlessness, as you might know, he announced the so-called populist doles like 5 rupee rice-dal scheme, free umbrella and blanket scheme etc.

( Appeal made by Pradip Pradhan, State Convener Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan, Sachikant  Pradhan, Social Activist, Rastriya Yuva  Sangathan, Pratap  Sahu, Convener Odisha Basti Surakhya Manch, Sudhir Mohanty Advocate, Odisha  High Court, Sanjukta Panigrahi, Social Activist,  Nari Surakhya Manch, Menaka Kinnar, Kinnar Surakhya Manch, Bijay Parida, Convener, Odisha Jana Adhikar Parishad, Soumya Ranjan Pradhan, Open Hand Organisation, Srikant Pakal, Core-body Member, OSAA, Srinivas Mohanty, Advocate, Odisha High Court )

How India must select information commissioners

How India must select information commissioners

There is a great need to introduce a transparent process to select information commissioners, who are expected to oversee transparency, says former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.

Delhi Police Commissioner B S Bassi was almost certain to be made a Central Information Commissioner since he was to retire at the end of February. Considerable opposition from civil society has managed to stall this. Bassi is not perturbed since he could get some other reward for the service he rendered of not acting against the lawyers who resorted to hooliganism in the precincts of the Patiala House court.

This again raises the issue of the method or lack of it in appointing information commissioners and other such commissioners and Lok Ayuktas. Most of these positions are filled without any process and hence getting someone who performs his duty without fear or favour is not very common. Readers may wonder how I got selected, if I am critical of the process. This is the story:

In the first week of August 2008, Arvind Kejriwal learnt that the government had decided on the names of four persons whom they would appoint as Central Information Commissioners. These were Satyananda Mishra, M L Sharma, Annapurna Dixit and R B Sreekumar.

Kejriwal discussed with me that though we had been fighting for the appointment of good commissioners and transparency in the selection process we were not making any headway. He therefore suggested that we propose four names from civil society.

We got together a list of credible persons and Kejriwal arranged to get letters sent to the prime minister, L K Advani, then the Leader of the Opposition, and Prithvraj Chavan by some prominent civil society members recommending these on August 17.

On August 20, Chavan, then a central minister, asked for a meeting of the selection committee to be called on August 21 at 6 pm. The previous night, the four names were shown to L K Advani.

Advani strongly objected to Sreekumar's name since he had been a senior police officer in Gujarat at the time of the Godhra riots and had openly criticised Narendra Modi.

He said he would oppose Sreekumar's selection and casually said, 'Why not one of the names suggested by civil society in their letter?' The selection committee meeting was not held on August 21.

I did not know Chavan nor did he know me. Whether he made any checks about the other three members of our panel I do not know. As for me, he called up a business person in Mumbai and asked him what kind of person I was.

This person had never met me, but based on what he had read in the newspapers he said I would be a good choice. After this Chavan called me and asked if I would accept if I was selected as a Central Information Commissioner, and I said yes.

On August 27, a meeting was called and my name was put in R B Sreekumar's place.

Though there was no political patronage involved, there was no logical process and my selection was a random occurrence. There is a great need to introduce a transparent process to select the information commissioners, who are expected to oversee transparency.

There should be an insistence on public exposure for those who are interested in becoming information commissioners. Many information commissioners have no understanding or interest in transparency, or the Right to Information Act. This is an affliction which is true for many people in power.

A transparent process for selection would lead to a better environment for the RTI Act implementation. The Central Information Commissioners are selected as per the law by a committee consisting of the prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition and one minister. This committee has no time to understand and evaluate the applicants. Hence, the recommendations and shortlisting is generally done based on political and bureaucratic patronage.

The process I am suggesting is as follows:

1. The information commissions should set a target for disposal of cases -- over 5,000 per commissioner per year. Presently the annual disposal varies from 1,000 to 6,000, with most commissioners disposing around 2,000 to 3,000.

2. Every six months they should review the actual performance per commissioner and forecast the expected receipts and disposals for the next two years. This information should be displayed on their Web sites. This forecast would show the requirements for new commissioners to be appointed by taking into account the expected retirements.

3. The government should advertise its intention to appoint a certain number of information commissioners depending on the need, six months in advance. A detailed list of eligibility criteria should be made available giving essential and desirable qualifications. Eminent people could apply or be nominated by others.

4. A search committee perhaps consisting of two members of Parliament, one Supreme Court judge and two 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.

5. An interview should be held by the search committee in public view, to give citizens and the media the opportunity to hear the views and commitment of the candidates. Citizens could give their feedback and views to the search committee.

After this the search committee could give its recommendation for two times the number of commissioners to be appointed.

Based on these inputs, the final decision to select the commissioners could be taken by the committee as per the Act consisting of the PM, LoP and one minister. (A similar process could be adopted for state commissions with MLAs instead of MPs and a high court judge instead of Supreme Court judge).

Presently most commissioners have no passion for their work which leads to their output and quality being seriously affected.

During 2011, six Central Information Commissioners disposed 22,351 cases, whereas in 2014 seven commissioners disposed only 16,006 cases.

The Maharashtra commission has set a target of 4,800 cases per year for each commissioner. Accountability must be the hallmark of the transparency commission's working.

Commissions must publish data on the performance of each commissioner monthly. At least half the information commissioners should be less than 60 years. There are many RTI activists who have gained considerable understanding of the nuances of the law, and have a natural empathy for transparency. Some of these should be appointed as information commissioners.

Another useful function which civil society groups could perform is to analyse all the decisions of each information commissioner each month continuously in a transparent manner.

This would build pressure on those who may be giving errant decisions. Presently individual decisions are randomly criticised and this does not give a picture of the overall trend of a commissioner's decisions.

If we can get a transparent process to select commissioners and put continuous pressure on them for accountability, we will get much better results from our cherished RTI Act.

If this works well, it could be used as a model for selecting commissioners for various commissions. The commissions are designed as our checks and balances of democracy. Presently most of them are not delivering their expected functions effectively.

We must ensure a proper process for their selection and vigilantly monitor their performance if we desire a better India.

Ominous Silence of Odisha Child Rights Commission exposed through RTI

Mega Expose through RTI about Ominous Silence of Odisha Child Rights Commission to pass any order to protect the right of a child studying in Takshila School (Bhubaneswar Model Public School)

Let me recall you  that a Child named Sri Srikant   Auropratik  Class-IX student of Bhubaneswar Model Public School, Plot No- N 5/A, 1697, IRC village, Bhubaneswar  was physically harassed  and mentally tortured  by the school authority   and ultimately driven out  from the school citing no justified reason.  The parents  in their pursuit to get justice  filed  complaint  in  Odisha  Child Rights Commission on 3.11.15. The Commission registered the case No. 810/15 on 4.11.15 and started enquiry into it  without giving any order to the School Authority to admit the school which is the primary responsibility of the Commission to ensure  and enforce it. It is needless to mention here that in another complaint case filed on same day, the Commission ordered to Sai International School to admit the child  who was driven out  autocratically and arbitrarily by the School Authority.

However,   the Commission conducted  orchestrated  hearing thrice  with ulterior motive  to protect the school authority at the cost of the interest of the child. At the primary stage, the Commission was found projecting herself as very serious  to protect the child. But later on the role of the Commission was  found dubious, when the Commission declined to pass any order and continued to postpone the hearing from  28^th Dec. 2015. The Commission staged melodrama in the name of hearing to buy time  and dilute the case. 

In the meantime, RTI Application was submitted to the CPIO, Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi seeking information details of affiliation granted to Takshila School and period of affiliation. In response to RTI Application,  the CPIO on dated 9.2.16 provided the information that  only provisional affiliation  for Secondary School examination was granted from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2015. No further affiliation has been granted  to the said school. As the School has lost the affiliation of CBSE, it can not legally conduct any examination for secondary Classes.  To avoid this legal complexity,  the authority  has ousted two children  from Class-IX and threatening others to leave the Class-IX. Similarly, the School has also not  applied for Certificate of Recognition   from Govt.   of Odisha since last three years. To obtain Certificate of Recognition  is mandatory  under section 18 of Right to Education Act. These facts were presented to the Child Rights Commission by the parents of Srikant Auropratik  during hearing of the case. But astonishingly, the two members of the Commission simply turned their blind eye to the  fact-sheet and  conspired  to discourage the parents fighting the case.  Though the parents pleaded several times  to engage their representative  to fight out the  case, the Commission expressed their anger  and remained adamant  not to allow  the representative even going against the spirit of judicial decorum of the country.   

Last but not least, I appeal  the Civil Society Groups to be very cautious  and careful  about  the functioning of Odisha  Child Rights Commission.

Pradip Pradhan

M-9937843482

Date- 23.2.16

Mal-functioning of Odisha Child Rights Commission

Civil Society Groups urged to Governor to enquire into Mal-functioning of Odisha Child Rights Commission acting as Broker of Private Schools and initiate legal action against them

On 19.2.16, Members of Civil Society Groups working for protection of Child Rights in Odisha submitted memorandum to Governor, Odisha demanding inquiry into alleged unholy alliance of Odisha Child Rights Commission with Private English-medium School to destroy the academic career of Children.

In the memorandum, it has been alleged that  though section 13,14, and 15 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 empowers the Commission to enquire into violation of child rights suo noto or inquire into complaint  relating to deprivation, torture and non-implementation  of  laws  providing  for protection  and development  of the  children and initiate proceedings accordingly, Odisha Child Rights Commission remained as mute spectator  and utterly failed to discharge their duties  in a complaint case filed  with regard to deprivation of a student of Class-IX of Bhubaneswar Model School ( Takshila School)   to  get education. 

Srikant Auropratik,  a Class-9 student  was physically tortured, humiliated  and mentally harassed ( scolding and misbehaving) by the authority of  Takshashila Model School, IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar   and suddenly dropped  to  Class-VIII in the middle of the year  on the ground of bad performance. When the parents asked for Progress Report    of the child,  the authority of the school  continued to ignore their request. The parents were also threatened to take back to other schools without citing any ground. Though the parents appraised the authority that “no school was ready to take student in mid-session as CBSE registration has completed”, the authority remained adamant and asked the parents to take the children back.  Ultimately, Srikant Auropratik was humiliated and suffered from mental depression   and forced to leave the school on 29.10.15.

On 3.11.15, the Parents approached the Odisha Child Rights Commission by filling complaints levelling details of allegation, mental torture and harassment caused to their son and seeking quick justice for their child. Ms. Rajalaxmi Das, Member, OSCPCR   registered the case (Case No.-810/15 )  on 4.11.15 and initiated the enquiry.   Though 3 months passed, the Commission neither passed any interim direction nor any direction to the Private School. The academic career of the child got destroyed.

The Civil Society Groups have also alleged that due to nexus of the Commission with the School authority, Ms. Rajalaxmi Das tried to protect the school at the cost of the interest of the Child.  As the members of OSCPCR   have got appointment due to their close proximity with Ruling  political party, they are working at their behest, not as a statutory body to enforce right of the children.

It was clearly evident  during hearing of the case when the Commission refused to complainant-parents to entertain their representative to plead the case. But astonishingly, the Commission entertained  a number of representatives of the School to plead the case.

We are hopeful that Hon’ble Governor, Odisha will no doubt give justice to us.

Pradip Pradhan                                               Date- 20.2.16

M-9937843482

After a decade long battle of wits, BPL to get information free of cost in Odisha

After a decade long battle of wits

BPL applicants in Odisha could avail their right to information free of cost

The Right to Information Act  that came into force  on 12^th October, 2005  has the  mandate  to enforce a transparent  and accountable system of governance in the  country by way of   giving  right  to the citizens to access the  information held  by the Public Authorities.  As is well known, the Section 7 (5) of the Act says, the BPL people are required not to pay any kind of fee i.e., fee for application {section 6 (1) }, fee towards cost of   information {section-7(1)} and fee towards cost of information in electronic format. But while framing the Rules under RTI Act  i.e.  Odisha RTI Rules, 2005, the   Government of Odisha made quite some deviations from the letter and spirit of the parent Act. A glaring instance of one such deviation was the Rule 4, which explicitly provided for exempting the BPL people from paying only application fee, while remaining mute in respect of other two kinds of fees. Owing to this devious gap, the public authorities under Government of Odisha insisted on collecting information fees from the BPL persons, who felt obviously strained and discouraged to apply for information at all. To register protest against such Orissa Rules a civil society forum called Orissa Soochana Adhikar Abhijan got soon formed comprising young RTI activists and as well progressive minded senior citizens of the state.    It is worth recollecting that the illustrious RTI protagonists at national level like Mrs. Aruna Roy, Ms. Maja Daruwalla and Mr. Shailesh Gandhi had made a common cause with Abhijan’s critique of Orissa RTI Rules 2005 and each of them did also separately write to the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary to amend the impugned Rules in tune with letter and spirit of the parent Act.  Ironically enough, the collection of fees from the BPL people, though patently illegal, was justified by the Odisha Information Commission, who was supposed to recommend to the State Govt for undoing this wrong.  Sri D.N. Padhi, the first Odisha Chief Information Commissioner, while deciding the  Complaint Cases Nos. 11 and 12 of 2006 made an arbitrary order that the BPL people were required  to pay the fees towards cost of  information, no matter what was mentioned in proviso to Section 7(5).. However this objectionable dictate of Sri Padhi   was vehemently protested by RTI Activists united under Orissa Soochana Adhikar Abhijan. Besides, the Commission had also acquired a controversial image due to its several other acts of omission and commission. The Abhijan submitted a Memorandum to Governor, Odisha under Section 17 of the RTI Act urging action against Sri D.N.Padhi on account of his untenable acts and decisions, taken in flagrant violation of the provisions of RTI Act. Though no action was taken against Sri Padhi, the Commission under the moral pressure of the strident campaign by Abhijan made a recommendation to the State Govt.  on 16.11.2007  to  allow free of cost supply of information to the BPL applicants upto 75 pages. .  But the State Govt. did not give any importance to this recommendation and  continued with their illegal practice of   collecting the fees towards cost of information from the BPL applicants. The above recommendation being only a face-saving ploy of the Commission, neither the Commisson itself nor the Government pursued it any further. However, undeterred by the negative attitude of both Government and Commission towards BPL people, the Abhijan stepped up its campaign for withdrawal of Orissa RTI Rules 2005 that illegally allowed the collection of information fees from the BPL persons and several other objectionable provisions like imposition of appeal fees, compulsory application form, complete disclosure of identity of the applicant, user-unfriendly modes of payment like treasury challan and judicial stamps, PIO’s reply in Form-B lacking in calculation of fees payable by the applicant and rejection of an RTI application by a PIO on any arbitrary ground. Meanwhile Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, a civil society veteran joined in the Commission as a State Information Commissioner, but ironically he too toed the anti-BPL line of the Government and as well that of the State Chief Information Commissioner.  Surprisingly Mr. Mohanty didn’t have any qualms in making his anti-BPL stance public. For instance, in May, 2013  while addressing an RTI Workshop in the Collectorate Conference Hall, Malkangiri Mr. Mohanty in the capacity of State Information Commissioner  went to the extent of justifying the Orissa Rules’ denial of free-of-cost information to the BPL persons, on the ground that the Commission had received a lot of complaints about the possible misuse of this provision by the BPL people themselves. Sri Tapan Padhi a well known social activist who happened to be present there, filed an RTI Application before  Odisha Information Commission seeking particulars of Complaint Cases, if any,  about the misuse of RTI as alleged by SIC Sri Jagadanand Mohanty. Interestingly, the PIO of Commission, in reply, said that there was no such information available  in their office. The campaign of the Abhijan took an intensified turn when Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra, the next Chief Information Commissioner of Odisha while adjudicating a Complaint case No. 2028/11 directed Sri Kunja Bikari Patra, a BPL Applicant and RTI Activist of Nayagarh district to pay the fees for information, as against Sri Patra’s passionate pleading to get the information free of cost as mandated under Section 7 (5) of RTI Act.  The direction of the Commission was challenged by Sri Patra himself in Odisha High Court. While  disposing the case ( W.P.C. No.- 4797/13) on 3.7.13, the High Court quashed  the decision of the Commission as illegal  and directed the concerned PIO to provide the information free of cost  in compliance to the mandate of the parent Act. Under the pressure of Odisha High Court Judgement the Orissa Information Commission made a direction to the State Govt. on 31.3.14 to issue necessary notification in pursuance to the above direction of Odisha High Court.

But astonishingly,  the State Government still sticked on to its old hackneyed practice of collecting the cost of information  from the BPL people in naked violation of the above direction of Odisha High Court. The Orissa Soochana Adhikar Abhijan however heightened its campaign through various fora including the Gopabandhu Academy of Administration Bhubaneswar to impress upon the State Government the utter untenability of making BPL persons pay the information fees.  At this juncture Sri Dhoba Sahu, a BPL Applicant himself , inspired by Sri Dillip Das of Antodaya Bhabanipatana, filed  a  Writ Petition (No. 12135/15) in Odisha High Court seeking  direction   to the State Govt. to provide the information free of cost to all BPL applicants. .  On 23.7.15, the High Court  gave the direction, second in order,    to the State Govt. to  comply  with Section  7 (5) of the RTI Act within 3 months.  On 21.9.15, the State Govt. has finally issued the much awaited notification  directing all the Public Authorities to provide the BPL applicants with information free of cost under the RTI Act.

 Thus, only a single nuisance of the notorious Orissa RTI Rules 2005 could be done away with- following a decade-long protracted and multipronged engagement of Orissa Soochana Adhikar Abhijan with several constructional and statutory authorities- Governor, Chief Minister, State Information Commission and Odisha High Court. The Abhijan’s campaign is on and its flag-bearers are ready to march unto the last for ensuring that the said Rules is replaced by one that is appropriately designed in tune with the ctizen-friendlly letter and spirit of the parent Act.

Pradip Pradhan

State Convener

Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan

M-9937843482

 Email-pradippradhan63@gmail.com

Date-18.2.16

( N.B.- It was presented  in Regional Workshop on Right to Information  organised by Administrative  Training  Institute,  Govt. of West Bengal   at Kalkatta  on 18.2.16 )

Outstanding Judgement of Child Welfare Committee, Khurda of Odisha

Outstanding Judgement of Child Welfare Committee, Khurda of Odisha to ensure and enforce protection of Children- A  Big Slap  on the Face of Odisha Child Rights Commission

  

On 13.2.16, while disposing a Complaint Case No. 279/2016  filed by Pradip Pradhan, Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan vs  Principal  of Bhubaneswar Model Public School @ Takshila School, N5/A, 1698, IRC Village, Bhubanneswar-15,  District Child Welfare Committee, Khurda ( A Bench of Judicial Magistrate  ( First Class)  had  issued order to so many authorities  i.e, the Principal of the School, District Education Officer, Khurda, Director,  CBSE, New Delhi, District Child Protection Officer, Khurda, Secretary, Department of School  and Mass Education, Govt. of Odisha,   to take immediate measures  to  get the two Children  Suchismita Nayak  and Srikant Auropratik restored back to  Class-IX in the School and initiate legal action against the authority of the School as per section 17(1) of Right to Education Act and the school authority to be  liable for  punishment  u/s 17 (2) of the Act and  section 23  of  Juvenile  Justice ( Care and Protection of Children ) Act 2000. CBSE, New Delhi  has also been directed to allow Srikant Auropratik  of the School to  register for HSC examination  in 2016-17 academic year.   

This Complaint Case  was  filed in CWC, Khurda in the backdrop of failure of Odisha Child Rights Commission to ensure justice to    Srikant Auropratik, student of Class-IX  who was tortured, physically harassed and  forcibly driven out  by the Principal of Bhubaneswar Model School.  On 3.11.15, the Parents approached the Odisha Child Rights Commission by filling complaints levelling details of allegation, mental torture, and harassment caused to their son and seeking quick justice for their child.   OSCPCR   registered the case (Case No.-810/15 )  on 4.11.15, initiated the enquiry and  conducted hearing  twice and remained silence for  unknown period  without giving any final decision.  Even the Commission did not provide the proceedings of the hearing  making it complete farce.   Being pretty aware  about  unholy alliance  between  Odisha Child Rights Commission and   the School Authority and the Commission working under the influence of vested groups, Sri Pradip Pradhan filed the case in Child Welfare Committee, Khurda on 9.1.2016  with prayer for immediate relief to the Children.

The Child Welfare Committee, Khurda  has observed that  both the Children Srikant and Suchismita are the victims of  the wilful mental violence of the school authority  and are compelled  to be out of the school. The School Authority  has wilfully neglected  both the children which caused these children  unnecessary mental suffering  and caused Srikant physically suffering.

We are still waiting  the order of Odisha Child Rights Commission  which claims a competent  authority  to provide protection to the Children. The process has been initiated to monitor the functioning  of Odisha Child Rights Commission through RTI which will be exposed very soon.

Pradip Pradhan

M-9937843482

Date-14.2.16

Odisha Child Rights Commission- A proven Trojan Horse

Odisha Child Rights Commission- A proven Trojan Horse

·        A  Commission  which  is empowered to protect rights of the children, has masterminded to destroy academic career of a Child by establishing   unholy alliance with Private English Medium School

·        The Civil Society Groups and Activists should be aware of the heinous activity of  the members of Child Rights Commission.

·        Though a Child is waiting to get justice, the  case is hanging in the Commission.

·        The Commission is neither disposing the case nor passing any order.

Dear friends

Srikant Auropratik, son of Prakash Ch. Nayak  and Mrs. Amita Subhada ( M-8763790311) , a Class-9 student  was physically tortured, humiliated  and mentally harassed ( scolding and misbehaving) by the authority of  Takshashila Model School, IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar   and suddenly dropped  to  Class-VIII in the middle of the year  on the ground of bad performance. When the parents asked for Progress Report    of the child,  the authority of the school  continued to ignore their request  till yet. The parents were also threatened to take back to other schools without citing any ground. Though the parents  appraised  the authority  that “no school was ready to take student in mid-session as CBSE registration has completed”, the authority remained adamant  and asked  the parents to take the children back.  Ultimately,  Srikant  Auropratik  was humiliated and suffered from mental depression   and forced to leave the school on 29.10.15.

Then, on 2^nd Nov.15, the parents filed the petition before Secretary, School & Mass Education, Govt. of Odisha  on Grievance day and explained the harassment and handed over the petitions and the documents. The Secretary immediately issued order to Director, secondary Education and Director, Elementary Education for necessary action so that child is not dropped out.  But astonishingly, after one month, the Director, Elementary Education ordered enquiry into the matter and directed DEO, Khurda and BEO, Bhubaneswar to look into the matter and report back within 7 days. (GRC Application No: 269/2850/15, DEO. Khurda letter No: 21125 dated 4^th December, 2015).  On 13.1.16, the Assistant Block Education Officer introducing him as Inquiry Officer made  a call  to the parents  and sought the information.  Though three months passed, no step has been taken by the administration to get the child admitted in the school. 

 Then, on 3.11.15, the Parents approached the Odisha Child Rights Commission by filling complaints levelling details of allegation, mental torture, harassment caused to their son    and seeking quick justice for their child. Ms. Rajalaxmi Das, Member, OSCPCR   registered  the case ( Case No.-810/15 )  on 4.11.15 and initiated the enquiry.  The details of enquiry is  as follows.

a.    On 12.11.15, the  Commission  heard   from the Child  and father ,but  did not  allow the Mother  to be heard, though she was involved  in the case  and victim  of the rough behaviour of the authority of the school.

b.    After around one month on 10.12.15, the two-member Commission heard the case inviting both the parties. Interestingly, the Commission did not allow the representative of the petitioner to plead their case, in spite of several requests.

c.    On 16.12.15, the Commission again issued notice for hearing of the case.  The petitioners approached the Commission to allow their representative to plead the case. While the Commission turned down the request of the petitioner, but allowed the representative of the School Authority.   The Case was heard and nothing happened.

d.    The Commission verbally told the parents that the case to be heard on 28^th Dec.15. But the hearing was abruptly postponed and no communication was made to the petitioner.

e.      Till yet,  the Commission  has neither issued any interim order nor  any final decision  of the case. The parents are still waiting to get justice.

f.     Though the parents requested the Commission to give them the proceedings of the hearing, it was denied to them.

g.    The Commission is hanging the case  without giving any final decision.

It is proved that  the  members of  the Child Rights Commission  are acting  as agent of Private Schools at the cost of the interest of the child.

Pradip Pradhan

M-9937843482

Date- 14.2.16 

Suggestion for Odisha State Food Commission Rules,2016

To

TheJointSecretary                                                                                                               Date- 7.2.16

Department of Food Supply and Consumer Welfare

Govt. Of Odisha

Bhubaneswar

Sub- Suggestion for Odisha State Food Commission Rules,2016

Sir

In response to your advertisement published  in Odisha Gazette  on dated 25.1.16,  We  the  Civil Society Groups  working on Right to Food in the state assembled together  in a  State-level Consultation  meet held in Nehru Yuva Pratisthan, Bhubaneswar  on 2.2.16  with the objective  to debate and discuss the draft  Odisha State Food Commission Rules  and  make suggestions, if any required  for improvement of the Rules.

At the outset, members expressed their discontentment over the long delay  of the State Govt. to start the process of framing  the Rules for functioning of Odisha State Food Commission and noticed some of the provisions mindlessly drafted without going into details of the provisions of the Act. The State Govt. could have started the process much earlier   in order to strengthen Grievance Redressal mechanism  at District and State level. The house unanimously resolved to urge Govt.  to constitute independent  State Food Commission without designating  State Information  Commission as SFC  which is already overburdened with  pendency of more than 6000 cases.

However, the members discussed at length various provisions of the Draft Rules and came out unanimously with the following suggestions for its improvement.  These are  as follows.

1.       The  draft rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred  only by clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 40 of the National Food Security Act 2013. These are  incomplete in many respect  keeping in view the total Section 40 of the Act.  The rest of the clauses (a) to (e) and (g) to (l) of sub-section 2 , of section 40 of the Act on which rules should have been framed have been ignored.  If  the rules/guidelines  already framed on other sub-sections, by means of notification(s)  publication(s) , the same  should  be collected together  and placed in  the Draft Rules in question for removing confusion and/or avoiding to refer to too many circulars/ notifications/ guidelines.

2.       To maintain utmost transparency  in selection  procedure  for appointment of Odisha State Food Commission,  there must be provision  in  Rule-3  of Odisha State Food Commission Rules,2016 to make an advertisement  publicly  inviting  applications from the interested persons  or nomination of  candidates  by anybody for the post of the Chairman or Members of State Food Commission  fixing time  limit. The  procedure  for details of  scrutinising the applications by the Search  Committee, criteria taken up,   citing reasons for  final selection of candidates  and rejection of candidature  should be publicly displayed  and available   under RTI Act.  The Search Committee should be little enlarged by taking some eminent members of public say from media, activists, IT professionals , retired judges etc.

3.         The provision   of  Rule-4  of Draft Rules “ The Chairperson and other Members  shall hold  office  for a term  of three years from the date  on which  he enters  upon his office “ should be withdrawn, as  the section 16 (4) of the Act  has already stipulated that  the  Chairman and every  other Member  shall hold office  for a tem  not exceeding five years from the  date on  which  he enters upon his office  and shall  be eligible  for  reappointment.

4.       The provision of Powers of the State Food Commission  under Rule-6 of  Draft Rules,2016   should be redrafted and revisited  following  the provision of functions  of the State Food Commission as per section 16 (6) of the Act. 

5.       The provision   i.e.,  power of the State Food Commission  (b) to organise  regional camps  for  building     awareness  about benefits  and entitlements  xx x x x x x x xxx  should be withdrawn.  This should be the function of  Nodal Dept. i.e.,  Food Supply and Consumer Welfare Department.

6.       There  must  be  provision  in Rule-10 ( procedure for  hearing Appeals)   that  the Commission  shall either  suo moto  or on receipt  of  complaint from anybody  inquire  into  violation of entitlements   under the Act.

7.       There must be  provision of  disposal of  complaint cases  of emergency  nature  within  7 days  and normal cases  within one month.

8.       There  should be  provision  that   the registration no.  of Complaint along with date  case should  be intimated   to the Complainant  within 3 days of receipt of  complaint via post or email or mobile message and put in website  of the Commission. The procedure adopted by National Human Rights Commission can be taken into  account.

9.       There   should be a Model Format (not compulsory format )  to guide the  beneficiaries  to the  file the complaints  along all relevant documents.

10.   The decisions of the Commission should be available in Odia . So that the common people  can understand  the  content of the decision.

11.   Clear rules should be framed as per clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 40 and section 27 of NFS Act regarding Transparency and Accountability. 

12.   The draft rules are silent on setting up  of vigilance committee(sec.29 of the Act)  at each level from state to fair price shop level.  While framing rules for setting up of vigilance committee at least two members of public should be included in such committees. 

The house  also  disapproved  the Project Director, DRDA designated by the State Govt.  to function as District Grievance Redressal Officer under NFSA and urged the Govt. to appoint an independent District Grievance Redressal Officer  at district level. It  is  also  suggested that  the State  Govt. should  frame rules  immediately   for functioning of  the office of  District Grievance Redressal Officer, procedure for receipt of  complaints,  time limit for disposal of complaints  complying  the requirement of section 15 of the National Food Security Act.  

We will be happy, if your august office can give us opportunity for discussion  about the  effective functioning of State Food Commission  and District Grievance Redressal Officer.

Thanking you

Yours sincerely

Pradip Pradhan

State Convener

Right to Food Campaign, Odisha

M-9937843482

Email-foodrightsodisha@gmail.com

Sanjukta Panigrahi

Pragatishila Mahila Sangathan

Bhubaneswar

Pratap Sahu

Convener,  Odisha Street Vendors’ Association

Kalandi Mallik

Samajik Samata Abhijan

Sanjay Sahu

Odisha Pension Parishad

Sudhir Mohanty

Advocate, Odisha High Court

Moribund Odisha State Food Commission got Activated

Moribund Odisha State Food Commission got Activated and functional due to intervention of Civil Society

In the first week of January’2016, the Civil Society Groups and Opposition Political Parties made scathing attack of State Govt. for its failure to  constitute  State Food Commission at State level   and appoint District Grievance Redressal Officer at district level under  section 16 and 15 of National Food Security Act. Then,  the  Department of Food Supply and Consumer Welfare, Govt. of Odisha disclosed  a Notification of Oct. 15   ( it was kept secret for 3 months in official file) for  designating State Information Commission as State Food Commission and  Project Director, DRDA as District Grievance Redressal Officer and  released an advertisement  about it . The advertisement published on12.1.16  carried  a message appealing to the people to make complaint relating to violation of the Act in order to silence the opposition political parties. 

After going through the advertisement,   the Social Activists of  Right to Food campaign   along with more than 100  poor people  visited  to  the office of State Food Commission, Toshali Bhawan, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar to file complaint  about denial of Ration card. When the Team reached in the office of omission at 11.30 AM, it  was found that  there was no such mechanism available  to receive complaints.  Even the staff of State Information Commission is also not aware about Govt. Notification.  After a lot of protests  and Dharana of two hours  by the Activists demanding  for receipt of complaint  the staff of the Commission were forced to   receive the complains and provide the receipt to the complainants.  I personally filed complaints for  20 poor people  who have been deprived to get Ration Card due to huge corruption and irregularities  in the process of selection of beneficiaries.

In the meantime, around 1000 complaints have been filed due to effort of Civil Society Groups. 

Today on 11.2.16, I received letter dt. 3.2.16 from State Food Commission that  the Commission  have directed the concerned  Collectors to redress the grievances and dispose the same within 30 days. 

Let us see how the poor people will get justice from the Commission.

Pradip Pradhan

M-9937843482

Date- 12.2.16

Incompetency and Inefficiency of Odisha Information Commission exposed

Incompetency and Inefficiency of Odisha Information Commission leading to huge pendency of more than 6000 cases in Commission, exposed through RTI

· Each Odisha Information Commissioner receives salary Rs. 1,92,000.00 per month except other facilities like accommodation, vehicle, telephone availed free of cost.

·  If it is roughly calculated, we spent Rs. 2.5 lakh per month for each Information Commissioner in Odisha.

· We pay Rs.12,000.00 per day of hearing of Case by Odisha Information Commissioner

· Each Information Commissioner devotes only 15 days in a month for hearing the case.

·  Only 9 no. of cases heard by each  Information Commissioner per day

· Only 7 no. of cases disposed  by each  Information Commissioner  per month

· Total no. of 6000 cases pending in the Commission.

· There will be delay of minimum 2 years for hearing and disposal of a Case. For example, if a case is filed in 2016, it will be heard in 2018 or 2019 .

· To get correct information in right time is distant dream for the Citizens.

· Odisha Information Commission has been reduced to mockery.  

Dear friends

When two new Information Commissioners  got appointed in June 2015 by State Govt. without following  transparent procedure, it was suggested by friends and supporters  that  the functioning of these  Information Commissioners should be silently observed without  raising any issues  in public domain. We patiently observed their functioning of 7 months and started monitoring their activities through RTI.  The information about functioning of the Information Commission provided by the PIO is  as follows.

1.    Two State Information Commissioners namely Sri Laxminarayan Pattanaik and Ms. Sashiprava Bindhani have joined  in the Commission  as State Information Commissioner on 16.6.15.

2.    But they started their case hearing  on 22.6.15

3.    Within 7 months ( June to Dec.15),  both the Information commissioners have received each Rs. 12.50 lakh ( Ms. Sashi Bindhani receives salary Rs. 1,92,000.00 per month).

4.    No. of days devoted for hearing  by both the Information Commissioners

Total no. of days devoted  by Ms. Sashi Bindhani for hearing within 7 months	114
Average No. of days devoted by Ms. Bidhani, SIC  for hearing per month	16 days only
Amount paid from State Exchequer to Ms. Bindhani per day hearing	12,000.00
Total no. of days devoted  by Sri L.N. Pattanaik,SIC for hearing within 7 months	103
Average No. of days devoted by Sri L.N. Pattanaik for hearing per month	14
Amount paid from State Exchequer to Sri Pattanaik  per day hearing	13,714.00

5.      No. of cases heard by both the Information Commissioners

No. of cases ( Second Appeal  and Complaint Case )  heard by  Both the Information Commissioners  in division bench  within 7 months	425
No. of cases ( Second Appeal  and Complaint Case )  heard by   Ms. Sashi Bindhani,SIC   in single  bench  within 7 months	668
No. of cases ( Second Appeal  and Complaint Case )  heard by   Sri L.N. Pattanaik, SIC  in single  bench  within 7 months	564
Total  No. of Cases heard by the Commissionwithin 7 months	1657
No. of cases heard per month by  single Information Commissioner	118
No. of cases heard per day by a single Information Commissioner (112 / 14 days devoted for hearing )	9

6.      No. of Cases disposed  by both the  Information Commissioners within 7 months 

No. of Cases ( Second Appeal and Complaint Case ) disposed by both the Information Commissioners  in Division Bench from June toDec.15	56
No. of cases disposed by Ms. Sashiprava Bindhani, SIC within 7 months	107
No. of cases disposed by Sri L.N. Pattanaik, SICwithin 7 months	106
Total cases disposed	269
No. of Cases disposed  by single Information Commissioner  within 7 months	134
No. of  cases disposed  by single Information Commissioner per month	7
No. of cases  disposed  by  single Information Commissioner per day ( 14 days devoted for hearing in a month)	0.5

7.      There are 725 Complaint Cases and 5249 Second Appeals pending  in the Commission till December, 2015

Pradip Pradhan

M-9937843482

Date- 9.2.16