Functioning of Odisha Information Commission- An RTI-based Monitoring Report

Functioning of Odisha Information Commission- An RTI-based Monitoring Report

 Indolent and shallow neophytes in the posts of Information Commissioner-  a grave threat to RTI regime in Odisha:  An expose through  RTI disclosures

Dear friends,

The RTI Act, being implemented since 2005 is the sun-shine  law which empowers the common people to access information held under public authorities by enforcing transparency and accountability in the administration,  and thereby containing corruption. The Act  provides for constitution of Information Commission in the state ( Section 15 and 16), which is obligated   to hear and adjudicate  Complaints and Second Appeals to ensure supply of information to the aggrieved   appellants/ complainants, to impose penalty and recommend disciplinary proceedings against the erring PIOs ( Section-20) and award  compensation to the detrimented citizens {Section 19(8)(b)}. The primary work of the Commission is to adjudicate the cases  as  expeditiously as possible, so that  the aggrieved  citizens  will  get  justice  in time.  If the cases stay pending for disposal in the office of Commission for years together, it    leads to frustration among Information-seekers by impeding their right to obtain information in time  and thereby ultimately destroys  RTI Act in the long run.

Pendency of the cases is attributable to failure of Information Commission in ensuring  quick   disposal of the cases. The inefficient and inexperienced Information Commissioners who are appointed out of  considerations for  political rehabilitation or for their nexus with corrupt bureaucracy, could not hear or dispose the cases timely or effectively. Despite  a hefty salary and multiple allowances  amounting to Rs. 2.80 lakh per month to their credit,  the  Information Commissioners  could  not   dispose  the cases timely and thereby became themselves instrumental in rising pendency of cases. Approximately it takes   3 to 4 years  for disposal of  cases  by these lazy and lethargic Information Commissioners.  Odisha Information Commissioners are the   brightest example of this malaise and  this very truth has been exposed through RTI exercises.

On 19.11.19.,  Sri Santosh Mohanty,  a Retired Head Master, Advocate and RTI Activist of Mayurbhanj district  had filed RTI Application to the PIO of Odisha  Information Commission seeking details of  Complaint and Second Appeal cases  heard and disposed  by the State Chief Information Commissioner ( SCIC ) and two Odisha  Information Commissioners( SICs), penalty imposed on erring PIOs, Disciplinary proceedings recommended,  compensation awarded during the period of 3 years, from Nov. 2016 to October,2019.

On 25.11.19., the PIO supplied the  requested information, a  detailed analysis of which  as presented below shall bring home as to why RTI is badly implemented in our state and pendency of cases  runs for 3 to 4 years awaiting  disposal.

1.      No. of days devoted  for hearing of the cases by SCIC and SIC-

An RTI query  was made   to ascertain how many days  in a month are really devoted  to  hearing of the cases  ( Complaints and Second Appeals) by the Commission during  last three years ( Nov. 16 to October,19) .

Year	Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, SCIC	Mrs. Sashiprava Bindhani, SIC	Mr. L.N.Patnaik, SIC	Remarks
2016 ( Nov.& Dec.)	26	30	29
2017 ( 12 months)	180	189	196
2018 ( 12 months)	189	185	186
2019 ( upto Oct.)	130	147	34 ( from Jan. to May)	Sri Patnaik got retired in May 2019. As he  remained ill  for months together, could not hear the cases
Total Nos. of days devoted ( during 3 years)	525	551	445
Days  devoted for hearing of the cases   per month	15 days	15 days	14 days

·         SCIC and each SIC devoted around 15 days a month for hearing of the cases.

2.Complaint  cases  under Section 18  heard and disposed  by SCIC and two SICs

As  per  Section 18 of the RTI Act,  an RTI user  being aggrieved  by  systemic malfeasance leading to denial of information or  supply of false , incomplete and misleading information or any obstruction in accessing information  may   file a complaint  directly before the   Information Commission  for enquiring and remedying the same. The Information Commission is to  hear and adjudicate the complaint cases and may require the public authority to compensate the detrimented complainant and may also impose penalty on any erring PIO or deemed PIO as required under Clauses (b) and (c ) respectively of Section 19(8) RTI Act.

	Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, SCIC		Sashiprava Bindhani, SIC		Sri L.N.Patnaik, SIC		Remarks
Year	Complaint cases heard	Complain cases  disposed	Complaint cases heard	Complain cases  disposed	Complaint cases heard	Complain cases  disposed
2016 ( Nov. and Dec.)	66	29	12	10	29	8
2017	466	80	316	114	470	87
2018	429	169	311	150	552	99
2019 ( upto Oct. )	416	134	275	80	126	13	L.N.Patnak retired in May, 2019
Total	1377	412	914	354	1177	207

3.      Second Appeal cases  Heard and Disposed  by SCIC  and two SICs

As per  the Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act, in case the appellant is  aggrieved with  order of First Appellate Authority, he or she  will   file  a Second Appeal before  Odisha  Information Commission for getting undone the injustice done to him. Quick and proper disposal of such 2^nd Appeal  cases by the Commission is crucial for maintaining the faith of the public in the RTI regime of the state.. Here are the figures relating to SA cases disposed by SCIC and SIC during  last 3 years.

	Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, SCIC		SashipravaBindhani		Sri L.N.Patnaik		Remarks
Year	Second Appeal  cases heard	SA    Cases disposed	SA cases heard	SA cases  disposed	SA  cases heard	SA  cases  disposed
2016 ( Nov. and Dec.)	350	174	359	71	311	129
2017	3030	892	2995	704	2484	774
2018	2929	1057	2845	768	2417	665
2019 ( upto Oct. )	2541	837	2334	434	535	108	L. N. Patnak retired in May, 2019
Total	8850	2960	8533	1977	5747	1676

Findings:

·         Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, SCIC performs well in comparison with other two Information Commissioners in the matter of hearing and disposal of Complaint and SA cases.

·         Within 3 years, while Sri Mishra , SCIC disposed 3372 nos. of Complaint and SA cases ( 2960+412), Smt. Sashiprava Bindhani SIC disposed 2331  cases ( 1977 +354), around 1000 less than   the disposal figures of SCIC. Sri L.N.Patnaik, former District Judge appointed  as Information Commissioner  who got retired in May, 2019  had disposed 1883 nos. of cases ( 1676+207).

·          As to the monthly rate of disposal of cases , it is found that Sri Mishra, SCIC disposed 93 cases, whereas Smt. Bindhani disposes only 64 cases , which is incidentally equal to the rate of disposal by Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, former SIC ( from 2008 to 2013). Even though both hailed from civil society background.  They performed very badly.

·         Number of Cases fixed for per day hearing by Information Commission is also not encouraging. While Sri Mishra, SCIC fixed on an average 18 cases per day, Smt. Bindhani, SIC  only 17 cases  and Sri L.N.Patnaik only 15 cases per day. It needs to be recalled, Sri Jagadanad Mohanty , former SIC was hearing only 12 to 15 cases per day. The performance of State Information Commissioners in respect of quantum of cases heard by them has not improved over the years and it is the biggest hurdle to provide quick justice to the Information-seekers.

4.      Penalty

As per section 20 of the RTI Act, the Information Commission is empowered to impose penalty on erring PIOs and deemed PIOs for mala fide denial of information or supply of false, deficient or misleading information or destruction of information or obstructing the access to information. Besides, The Commission can also recommend to the concerned public authorities imposition of disciplinary proceedings against the erring PIOs and deemed PIOs, who are found to be persistent violators of RTI Act. Needless to say, imposition of penalty acts as a deterrent to carelessness on the part of the PIOs in dealing with RTI requests.  As persistent denial of information by the PIOs has become the order of the day in Odisha, it is expected from the Information Commission to impose penalty, without fear or favour, on such erring PIOs who are guilty of flagrant violation of  RTI Act. It goes without saying that, in absence of penalty against such recalcitrant PIOs, they will persist in their denial mode towards RTI requests, leading ultimately to pilling and pendency of cases in the Commission. Such an ominous trend is bound to jeopardize the whole RTI regime running at a massive cost to the public exchequer.

As to the figures of cases in which te SCIC and both SICs of Odisha Information Commission imposed penalty the the scenario is a despairing one.  Figures of penalty imposed by SCIC and SICs within last 3 years are as follows:-

·   Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, SCIC has imposed highest    penalty of Rs. 8, 54,500/- in 84 cases covering 114 persons.

·   Smt. Sashiprava Bindhani, SIC imposed penalty in a minisule of only 5 cases (2016-Nil penalty, 2017- in one case, 2018- in two cases and 2019- in two cases)  amounting to a total of only Rs. 33,000/-. It won’t be out of place to mention here that she  tried her utmost to protect the erring    PIOs and safeguard the corrupt officials and thereby encouraged them to persist in their denial mode towards the  information-seekers. 

·   Sri L. N.Patnaik, SIC (retired now) had imposed penalty in only 29 cases, amounting to a total  of Rs. 4, 16,502/- only.

·   

Above all, it is disconcerting to know that the Commission has never recommended any disciplinary proceedings as required under Section 20(2) of RTI Act against any  erring PIO or deemed PIO within last 3 years.

5.   Awarding  Compensation

As per section 19 (8)(b) of  RTI Act, the Commission can award compensation payable by the concerned public authority to any Complainant  in case he or she has physically or mentally suffered any detriment due to addressing a complaint to the Commission. Within last 3 years, the Information Commission has not awarded any compensation to any Complainant, though quite many of them have been harassed, brutalized and even killed by the anti-social mafias in nexus with corruptible public servants who are managing the RTI desks under the very nose of the Government of the day.

Santosh Mohanty

Advocate  and RTI Activist

M- 9337029395

Date- 5.1.2020

How RTI is silently killed by Odisha Information Commission

How RTI is silently killed by Odisha Information Commission

&

How the Information-Seekers are harassed by Information Commission in their bid to protect corrupt and erring officers  

Despite notice issued by Smt. Sashiprava Bindhani, SIC, the PIO, office of Collector does not care to respond nor does the Collector, Puri conduct any inquiry within span of 15 months.  Forget about supply of information ?

·         The Appellant    appeared the case for 11     within span of  15 months (from Nov. 18 to January, 2020).

·         The hearing is adjourned 11 times with Smt. Bindhani issuing notice to the PIO and  Collector, Puri  every hearing with no result.

·          The PIO and Collector, Puri never care to respond Mrs. Bindhani despite repeated warning  even threats of use of section 20.

·         Astonishingly, without taking any action  exercising her power of Civil Court under section 18 of the RTI Act,  Mrs. Bindhani still continues  issuing notice for report.

·         The Collector, Puri is determined not to appear and not to respond  to the notice of the Commission. Even he did not care to respond personal appearance notice issued  by Smt. Bindhani. Horrible situation in the Commission. We must think of  how we will get justice from these highly salarised people  stationed  in the Commission.

·          The Appellant is left in hopeless world.

The case study is as follows.

Dear friends

On 20.11.19., Sri Malaya Behera of Delang Block of Puri district has   submitted RTI Application to the PIO, office of Collector, Puri seeking information about details of  Dandapokhari work sanctioned under NREGS, payment made  to labourers  and action taken on his grievances etc. Finding non-supply of information, he made first appeal to the First Appellate Authority, office of Collector, Puri seeking direction to the PIO to supply information. The FAA neither heard nor disposed the appeal petition. Then, Malaya filed second appeal dt. 5.2.16  in the office of Odisha Information Commission seeking justice. The Commission registered the case Second Appeal -341/16 and sought status report from the Office of Collector, Puri dated 1.7.17. The PIO, Collector, Puri intimated to the Commission enclosing copy of some correspondence made in connection with the matter.

After around 2 and half years, Smt. Sashiprava Bindhani started hearing of the Second Appeal case No. 341/16. The below is the chronology of hearing of the case by Smt. Bindhani with absolutely no result.

	Date of Hearing of SA 341/16	Order of Smt. Bindhani and defied by PIO and  Collector, Puri
First Date	9.11.18	The Appellant was present. PIO was absent. Hearing the case, the Commission directed the Collector, Puri  to cause an inquiry in the matter of non-compliance of information  as sought for  and compliance to the notice of the order of the Commission and fixed date 21.1.2019  for hearing .
Second Date	21.1.19	The Appellant  was present. The PIO, Collectorate, Puri  was absent without intimation. The PIO was directed to submit written memorandum and the Collector, Puri was  directed to submit his inquiry report. Fixed 21.2.19 for next hearing.
Third Date	21.2.19	The Appellant was present. The PIO, Collectorate, Puri  was absent without intimation. The PIO did not  care  to comply order of the Commission.  Smt. Bindhani issued  show cause notice  under section 20 of the RTI Act, failing which the Commission will take exparte decision as per law.
Fourth date	22.4.2019	The Appellant was present. The PIO, Collectorate, Puri  was absent. He prayed  Commission to allow him some more time. The Collector, Puri as authorized  officer  did not care to submit report.
Fifth Time	5.7.2019	The Appellant was present. The PIO, Collectorate, Puri  was absent. The PIO and Collector, Puri were directed  to submit  their report in the next date of hearing on 30.7.19.
Sixth Time	30.7.19	The Appellant was present. The PIO, Collectorate, Puri  was absent without intimation. The Commission directed both the PIO and Collector, Puri to appear in person on the next date of hearing on 20.8.19
Seventh Time	20.8.19	The Appellant was present. The PIO, Collectorate, Puri  was absent without intimation. But has reported after hearing is over. He did not submit anything.  The Commission again directed  the Collector, Puri  to ensure submission of the inquiry report on or before 30th Sept. 19.
Eighth Time	15.10.19	The Appellant was present.  Banamali Satapathy, PIO-cum- Asst. Collector, Puri  appeared the hearing.  No information was  supplied. The Commission directed  the PIO and FAA  to submit their respective written submission and also directed  the Collector, Puri , authorized Inquiry officer  to submit inquiry report. Fixed 20.11.19 for next hearing.
Ninth Time	20.11.19	The Appellant was present. The PIO, Collectorate, Puri  was absent without intimation. Finding no way, Mrs. Bindhani made another futile attempt directing the Collector, Puri  to submit inquiry report in the next date of hearing on 17.12.19.
Tenth Time	17.12.19	The Appellant was present. The PIO, Collectorate, Puri  was absent . Finding no way in bitter helplessness, Mrs. Bindhani made another futile attempt directing the Collector, Puri  to submit inquiry report in the next date of hearing on 2.1.20.
Eleventh Time	2.1.2020	The Appellant  was present. The PIO was absent. The Collector , Puri did not  care to submit inquiry report. Fixed  another date of February , 20 for hearing.

Pradip Pradhan

M-9937843482

Date- 3.1.2020

( Why we  write it because the people must understand  the character of Information Commissioners  for whom we are paying Rs. 2.8 lakh per month. Their lack of expertise, inefficiency and inexperience has damaged prospect of most empowering law of the country i.e., RTI Act in Odisha)

No “fear and paralysis”, just ordinary Indians keeping democracy alive

No “fear and paralysis”, just ordinary Indians keeping democracy alive: January 2020 update from the Use RTI Demand Accountability campaign

We are in an extended crisis of democracy but with peoples’ resistance to exclusionary and divisive legislative decisions building across the country there is renewed vigor in the questions we ask, the information we seek and the action we demand. The Use RTI, Demand Accountability campaign is in its fifth month and we are building a nationally coordinated effort towards pursuing transparency and accountability across a range of issues where the government is acting without any public scrutiny and with questionable claims to serving public interest. For more details on the campaign and previous press releases, please visit: https://rtilagaocampaign.home.blog/

At a time when the Chief Justice of India is making ill-informed statements about the RTI causing “fear and paralysis” in the government machinery and offering dangerous suggestions to curtail its use, this campaign aims to demonstrate how the rigour of demanding transparency through RTI builds the very foundations of our democracy. In this update, we share the details of six cases where the Use RTI, Demand Accountability campaign has filed questions. 

1. NRC and CAA: The Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens is being passionately debated across the country today. Fueling some of this debate is also a huge amount of confusion on the authenticity of official statements and their chronology. At a time like this it is crucial to know who the Government of India consulted before finalizing the text of the Bill and what the nature of discussions that emerged in the consultations were. RTIs can give us answers to these questions and also become critical to constructing a credible timeline of statements. The Pre-Legislative Policy of the Government of India itself mandates that Government undergo a transparent consultative process with citizens and other organizations, and record the suggestions received, before bringing any Bill to Cabinet. RTIs have been filed by Aruna Roy of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan demanding copies of all the minutes of inter-ministerial, intra-ministerial meetings, public consultations held by the Minister of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, and recommendations relating to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 that it received and hence recorded. Details about the the department/authority responsible for preparing and maintaining the National Population Register (NPR) and the National Register of Citizens; file notings, minutes, discussions, correspondences regarding the link between the NPR and Census have also been sought. 

2.            Delhi University syllabi revision: On July 16 2019, while a meeting of the University’s Council to revise the syllabi of some departments including english was underway, ABVP protesters stormed the building of the VC. A letter signed by various Members of the Rajya Sabha raised this issue with the Prime Minister and stated that this forced entry was aimed at intimidating professors of certain departments and “coerce them into making certain changes in their syllabus”. This incident came after a series of back and forths between the departmental Committee of Courses and Faculty of Arts Committee (both committees constituted by academics) and the academic council on syllabus revisions. The english syllabus was sent back with the most number of revisions including removing texts that were too “controversial”. After the incident, in a rare move, the academic council constituted an “oversight committee” (with no statutory authority) for reviewing the english syllabus in particular, which sent back the syllabus with a further list of suggestions. As things stand today, the english syllabus has only been approved for the first semester of the 2019-20 academic year. RTIs have been filed with Delhi University asking for details of procedures on modification of syllabi, minutes of meetings of the academic council, minutes of meetings of the oversight committee and reasons for delay in approval of english syllabus for the second semester with classes set to resume in a matter of days. 

3.            Agriculture: There have been news reports about the government’s plan to transfer fertiliser subsidies directly to farmers’ accounts as opposed to the current system of giving subsidies to fertiliser companies. In fact, as recently as 4th December 2019 the Fertiliser Minister Sadananda Gowda speaking at an event organised by the industry body Fertiliser Association of India (FAI) said, “As far as change in the urea policy is concerned, we are open to suggestions. It can be NBS for urea or direct subsidy to the farmers account with decontrol of fertilizer sector. These are some of the alternatives which are under discussion”. However, in response to an RTI query requesting information on DBT of fertiliser subsidy, the Department of Fertilisers failed to provide a meaningful response and the first appeal has been filed. This shows the two-faced nature of the ‘suit-boot ki sarkaar’ where, on the one hand, the minister goes to the industry to take suggestions and, on the other hand, the ministry does not give information to ordinary individuals even when they are entitled to it. 

4.            Mining: Considering the public outcry against pollution, particularly in the national capital, RTIs were filed by Environics Trust to the Central Pollution Control Board to know about steps taken by the Board to measure and regulate air, water and sound pollution caused by mining. Coal generation capacity is set to increase by nearly 300% by 2030; going by the proposed list of power plant projects. The adverse  impact this increase will have on CO₂ emissions, and air and water pollution is undeniable. In such a context the role of the CPCB in enforcing standards of pollution control on coal mining leases is critical. Questions have been asked to understand how many mining lease holders have been hauled up for non compliance with pollution regulation norms. 

5.            Committee on Data Governance Framework: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) constituted a Committee of Experts to deliberate on a Data Governance Framework for India. Two separate RTIs, one by a member of NCPRI and another by the Executive Trustee of Internet Freedom Foundation, were filed requesting for information on:

a.            Formation of this committee - like minutes of the meetings where the formation of this committee was discussed and the criteria to select the members of the committee. In response to one RTI, MeitY has given a very vague response saying, “Diverse set of people with relevant backgrounds who can add to the area of discussion”. In response to the other RTI it has blatantly held that no such information is available and even disposed off the first appeal.

b.            Operation of this committee - like the number of meetings the committee has conducted, minutes of these meetings, external persons who have participated in the meetings and stakeholders who have been consulted. To this, MietY’s brazen response has been to claim that it does not maintain such information. This is a violation of simple administrative procedures that any government process must follow. Ironically, the Minister who presides over MietY, Ravi Shankar Prasad, is also the Minister of Law and Justice, which is expected to administer justice in India. What justice can be expected from such a government is out in the open for all to see. 

6.            Stressed assets: Indian banks' Gross Non-Performing Assets (GNPA) ratio is likely to rise, the RBI said in its half-yearly Financial Stability Report (FSR) released on Dec 27, 2019. This is despite the GNPA falling for the first time in seven years in March 2019 “primarily due to changes in the macroeconomic scenario, a marginal increase in slippages, and the denominator effect of declining credit growth”. In June 2019, RBI issued Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets. Under this framework, before any bank asset (loan account) becomes an NPA, the incipient stress in such an account needs to be recognized as Special Mention Account and related prudential framework needs to be followed by banks. However, mechanisms in place to ensure compliance by banks is unclear. The RTIs seek to understand the processes in place to ensure fidelity of data obtained by RBI from banks, processes in place to ensure fidelity of compliance of prudential framework, and strength of supervisory function of RBI to address the challenges with compliance of its regulations. 

We will continue to file and track responses to these RTIs and appeals through this campaign over the next several months and will periodically publish the status of key RTIs through such press releases. We will also post a tracker and the actual RTIs and responses on a website in the coming month so that citizens and groups can collectively monitor and share the details of their RTIs with us. 

For more information please contact Asmi (9650346518), Anindita (9871832323), Rakshita (9818838588), Nachiket (9810498029)

(On behalf of the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information)