Friends,
Government of India is taking actions on implementation of section 4 of RTI Act 2005-a task force has been constituted and process of public consultation have been initiated. Minutes on meeting on 25.5.2011 are below and DOPT has invited comments. Members of rti4empowerment and rti4ngo may like to send their comments to DOPT at usrti-dopt.@nic.in and osrti-dopt@nic.in. My comments are placed below:
(A) Comptroller and Auditor General of India had formed a Task Group and report is available at http://www.cag.gov.in/Social%20Audit.pdf. Purpose of section 4 of RTI Act is disclosure and dissemination of information, for effective public accountability. The purpose of suo-moto disclosure is to enable citizens to perform social audit, to comment on whether benefits of public expenditure is reaching them. Task forces constituted by DOPT should also consider aforesaid report on social audit; C&AG has agreed to incorporate result of Social Audit in audit reports: disclosure and dissemination of information u/s sec 4 of RTI Act should facilitate social audit by citizens.
(B) Circular of Central Information Commissioner about Transparency Officer should also be considered by the Task Force constituted by DOPT; this institutions has been conceived for implementing section 4.
Dhirendra Krishna IA&AS (Retired)
............................................................................................................................
N0.1/6/2011-IR
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block, New Delhi
Dated 1 s t June, 201 1
Subject:- Task Force constituted for effective implementation of Section 4 of the RTI
Act, 2005 -regarding.
The minutes of the Task Force meeting for effective implementation of
Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, held on 25.05.201 1 along with the OM constituting the
Task Force i s placed below. Comments of Public on the enclosed OM and minutes
are invited. Comments may kindly b e e-mailed at usrti-dopt@nic.in b y 12fh June,
201 1.
(Anuradha S. Chagti)
Deputy Secretary ( I R )
.....................................................................................................................................
N0.1/6/2011-IR
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
New Delhi, 61h May, 2011
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Constitution of a Task Force for effective implementation of Section 4 of
the RTI Act, 2005
It has been decided t o set up a Task Force consisting of following members to review
the provisions regarding suo motu disclosure given in Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 and to recommend measures for its better implementation and enforcement:
( 1 ) JS (AT&A), Department of Personnel and Training Chairperson
(2) One representative of W o . Information Technology not below
the rank of DS/Director to be nominated by Secretary (IT). Member
( 3 ) One representative of Dio. AR&PG not below the rank
of DSiDirector to be nominated by Secretary (AR&PG). Member
(4) One representative of M/o. Law not below the rank
of DSIDirector to be nominated by Secretary (Law)
(5) to (7) Secretaries of Governments' of Uttar Pradesh,
Andhra Pradesh, Bihar dealing with implementation
of RTI Act in their State
Member
Member
(8) t o (12) Five representatives of non-government organizations working in the
field of RTI, one each from:
a) NCPRI, New Delhi
b) IT for Change, Bangalore
c) Mahiti Adhikat Gujarat Pahel (MAGP), Gujarat
d) ' JOSH', New Delhi
e) Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS), New Delhi Member
(13) Shri K.G.Verma, Director (RTI), DOPT Member-Secretary
2. The Terms of Reference of the Task Force will be as under:
a. T o examine the provisions of Section 4(l)(b) and to recommend guidelines for
disclosures to be made a t various levels of administration:
b. To recommend other items which may be included for suo motu disclosure, as
provided in Section 4(l)(b)(xvii);
c. T o explore the possibility of prescribing simple templates for disclosing
specific category of information in order to facilitate disclosure;
d. To recommend mediums t h o u g h which such disclosure is to be made at
various levels, which would include disclosure through electronic means also;
e. To recommend guidelines for complying with the provisions under Section
4(l)(b)(vii) and Section 4 ( I ) (c) and Section 4 (1) (d);
f. To give recommendations as to how compliance with the provision of Section
4 (1) (b), (c) (d) and Sections 4 (2) to 4 (4) may be better enforced.
g. To recommend measures for protection of persons seeking information under
the RTI Act
h. Any other issue incidental to the above.
3. This Task Force may have consultations with other Ministries, State Governments,
CIC and SICS and also with other NGOs for finalizing its report. The methodology for working of the Task Force wilI be laid down by the Task Force itself.
4. The Task Force will finalize its recommendation by 3 1'' July 201 1 and submit it to the Department for consideration.
(Anuradha S. C h a i)
Deputy Secretary
Phone: 23093074
To:
1. Secretary, M/o Information Technology, Govt. of India, New Delhi
2. Secretary, D/o Administrative Reforms &
With a request to nominate
a DSDirector to the Task
Public Grievances, Govt. of India, New Delhi
Force
3 . Secretary, Ministry ~f Law, Govt. of India, New Delhi
4. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh With a request to nominate a
5. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Secretary level officer dealing with
6. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar implementation of RTI in the State
7. Head of Organisation, NCPRI, C 117A, DDA Flat Munirka,New Delhi
8. Head of Organisation, IT for Change, 393, 17 Main, 35 A Cross
Road, 4T Block, Tilak Nagar,Bangalore
9. Head of Organisation, Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel (MAGP),
B. Sahajanand Towers, Jivraj Park Cross Road, Ahmedabad- 51
Gujarat
10. Head of Organisation, JOSH, C-7E, DDA Flat, Munirka, New Delhi-67
11. Head of Organisation, Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS),
B 76 (Garage), SFS Flat, Sheikh Sarai - I New Delhi- 17
Copy to:
With a request to nominate a senior person so that participation may be meaningful
1. Sr.PPS to Secretary (Personnel) -for information
2. PS to Joint Secretary (AT&A), DoPT
3 . Director (RTI), DoPT
.................................................................................................................................
MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE TASK FORCE FOR EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 4 OF M E RTI ACT, 2005 HELD ON 25TH MAY 2011, AT NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.
The first meet ing o f t h e task force f o r effective implementation of t h e Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 was h e l d under t h e Chairmanship of Sh. Rajeev Kapoor, JS (AT&A), DoPT o n 2sth May, 2011, at Nor th Block, New Delhi. The meeting was attended by:
i. Ms. N. Ramadevi, Deputy Secretaty , Govt. o f Andhra Pradesh
ii. Ms. Pankti D. Jog, Executive Secretaty, MAGP, Gujarat
iii. Shri R.K. Srivastav, Dy. Legal Adviser, D/o Legal Affairs, Delhi
iv. Shri Venkatesh Nayak, Co-convenor and Programme Coordinator, NCPRI, CHRI, Delhi)
v. Ms. Aheli Chowdhury, Founder Member, JOSH, Delhi
vi. Shri Gurumurthy K, Director, I T f o r Change, Bangalore
vii. Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj, Director, Satark Nagarik Sangathan, Delhi
viii. Shri Nikhil Dey, Co-convenor, NCPRI, Delhi
ix. Shri Deepak Kumar, Principal Secretaty, GAD, Govt. of Bihar
x. Ms. Rakshita, NCPRI,Delhi
xi. Ms. Amrita Johir, Infor. & Research Coordinator, Satark Nagrik Sangathan, Delhi
xii. Ms. Ritika Bhatia, Director, D/O AR&PG, Delhi
xiii. Shri K.G. Verma, Director(RTI), DoPT, Delhi
xiv. Ms. Anuradha 5. Chagti, DS(RTI), DoPT, Delhi
xv. Shri R.K. Girdhar, US(RTI), DoPT, Delhi
xvi. Shri B. Sengupta, DO(RTI), DoPT, Oelhi
2. Sh. Rajeev Kapoor, Joint Secretaty (DoPT) welcomed all t h e participants and apprised t h em o f t h e need f o r constituting t h e Task Force. He pointed o u t that i t was generally fel t t h a t provisions o f Section 4 are n o t being properly implemented and there i s n o enforcement o f compliance w i t h t h e same. This was due to:
a) Lack of clarity regarding certain provisions such as Sec 4( l ) (b) ( i i i ) , 4 ( l ) (b) ( iv) , 4 ( l ) (b) (xiv) .
b) Absence o f guidelines f o r some provisions such as 4 ( l ) ( b ) ( v i i ) , 4 ( l ) ( c ) , 4 ( l ) ( d ) and 4(2).
c) Lack o f review t o suggest what more could o r should be prescribed under 4(l)(xvii).
d) Structure o f t h e section (4) -same disclosures a t all levels (sub-division t o Ministry) may n o t be appropriate.
e) Mo d e o f disclosure and formats i n which disclosuresare t o be made may improve compliance.
f ) Absence o f mechanisms f o r enforcing compliance. Thereafter h e elaborated o n t h e scope and t h e future course o f action and requested the members present t o p u t f o r t h their views on t h e following agenda items:
a) Activity plan for completion as the report has t o be finalized by 15 July, 2011.
b) Responsibilities o f t h e task force members t o be defined.
c) Whether there was a need t o co-opt other members?
d) Make Sub groups to'deliberate o n different aspects?
Policy o n consultation.
Protection o f persons seeking information under t h e RTI Act.
Different modes o f disclosure at different levels - panchayat, district etc.
Enforcement o f suo m o t o disclosure.
Guidelines on sub sections which need clarification.
3. Sh. Deepak Kurnar, Principal Secretary, GAD, Bihar was i n agreement that compliance of Section 4 of t h e RTI Act was critical t o t h e success o f the implementation o f t h e RTI regime. He apprised t h e members o f t h e steps taken by t h e Bihar government including t h e Jaankari call centre which n o t only facilitated access t o filing o f RTI Applications but also disseminated information.
4. Sh. N i k h i l Dey, Convener, NCPRl stated that thei r working i n t h e f ield indicated t h a t t h e Public authorities were n o t averse t o suo-moto disclosure, it was a question of what t o p u t and how t o p u t it. He stressed that transparency needs t o start f r om t h e t o p level. There has t o be a move f r o m t h e minimal t o t h e aspirational level i n public disclosures. The social audit i n
MNREGS i s a model of what can be achieved i n government schemes i f there i s a wi l l t o implement it. He suggested that this model may be adopted for all other schemes of t h e Government o f lndia and t h e Planning Commission can play an active par t i n this. He suggested that audits b e used as an incentive.
5. M s . Ritika Bhatia, Director (DARPG) informed that t h e DARPG i s finalizing a report o n Internal c o n t r o l and risk management t o be inbuilt i n t o Plan schemes. She suggested that Proactive disclosure under t h e RTI Act may also be made a par t of it.
6. Sh. Rajeev Kapoor, Joint Secretary informed the members t h a t t h e DoPT had already wr i t ten t o all Departments/ Ministries i n Government o f lndia t o include a Chapter o n RTI i n their Annual Reports. Secretary (Performance Management) had also been requested that suo mot0 disclosure under section 4 o f t h e RTI Act may be included as a mandatory success indicator i n t h e RFDs o f all Departments.
7. Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj, Satark Nagrik Sangathan stressed the need for developing a culture of lnformation gathering. Collated information should be provided at various levels like ward level, Municipal corporation level, panchayat level etc. The manner i n which information is displayed needs t o be changed for example by using electronic boards or it could be kept in information centres. The information should be in such a form and language as t o be decipherable by the lowest strata of society. She highlighted the fact that not only providing suo-motu information but how t o make it more accessible t o the citizenry, should be an area t o ponder on. The need was providing dynamic information t o the people with stress on quality with the content of information could also help in stemming attacks on RTI Activists. All Plan
schemes of the Government should make i t mandatory t o reflect implementation of Section 4. There should also be a provision of compensation in cases where Section 4 is not implemented.
8. Sh. Gurumurthy, IT f o r Change, was of the view that a l l information should be on website since there is a pan India change i n mindset and technological development. Internet is necessary and there was a huge amount of investment in E-governance. People lnformation System (PIS) (information Hub) is the need of the hour t o identify what information people require and then provide that information t o the people. The mindset change should be from Transparency by design rather than transparency by default. There was a need for open standards i n e-governance. Data has t o be granular and should allow others t o access and
aggregate the data which the government puts on. This will help put in systems and indicate trends. There should be a survey of what proactive information people need and government machinery t o concentrate more on that.
9. Ms. Aheli Chowdhury, JOSH pointed out that Section 4 is not implemented as a reality. There is an absence of guidelines. There needs t o be fixing of responsibility in case of non- compliance of Section 4 by the Public Authorities. One person should be responsible for implementing Section 4. For dissemination of information there should be a combination of methods like wall painting, boards, internet etc. There should be study t o identify areas subjects which attract repeated RTI applications and those may be converted into FAQs and put on the website for the citizenry.
10. Sh. Venkatesh Nayak, CHRl emphasized the need for having a look at the existing systems from the point of view of transparency. Public Accountability mechanisms had t o be defined like uploading information and i t s monitoring in the various MIS which had been developed. These were essential for the systems t o work. Examples of the advantages of having real time updates on Government websites regarding public service delivery were discussed. An example of this was the MIS updates in Andhra Pradesh under the MGNREGA. He reiterated that section 4(l)(c) and 4 ( l ) ( d ) were the heart and soul of section 4. All government websites should adhere t o t h e Guidelines for Indian Government websites t o enable a common pattern f o r display o f information. He stressed on a need o f change o f mindset, especially a t the highest level. There was need t o ensure t h a t all new laws had consistency w i t h t h e RTI Act and there should be guidelines o n what should be included. The government had t o f i n d more ways of disseminating i n f o rma t i o n like harnessing t h e strength of mobile, radio, cyber cafes. He pointed o u t that t h e new guidelines o n cyber cafes could become counterproductive t o this aim. The
information disseminator should approach t o create a system o f automatically uploading the impor tant issues o n website and cater t o t h e three types of information seekers, namely, people seeking informat ion f o r improving t h e i r general knowledge/awareness; Clients of Public Authority w h o make use o f this service for public consultation on policy; and people seeking Information t o reflect o n accountability. He favored that all decision taken during a week
should be uploaded o n t h e website.
11. Sh. ~ a j e e v Kapoor, Joint Secretary mentioned t h a t monthly reports departments can be uploaded o n website. As far as p u t t i n g all decisions taken i n a week o n t h e website he held t h a t information should be content driven rather t h a n process driven. Therefore information o n periodic data would probably n o t serve the purpose.
12. Ms. Ritika Bhatia, Director (DARPG) informed the participants that t h e Manual of Office Procedure has been revised and t h e guidelines o n website content has been laid down. Under these all websites be re-designed under t h e e-governance t o make it citizen friendly/accessible. This would be done wi t h i n six months. Once they have specific guidelines o n Section 4 o f t h e RTI Act it would be easy t o implement and moni tor and it would be helpful i f t h e format for all is common.
13. Sh. R.K. Srivastava, Dy. Legal Advisor, Depar tment o f Legal Affairs, fel t that there should be a centralised moni tor ing authority i n compliance of Section 4 i n every MinistrylDepartment. There should be access t o Information through for example like cyber cafe i n district level and where t h e information was n o t available one can proceed t o file an RTI application.
14. Ms. Pankti D. Jog, MAGP expressed her views that there had t o be a distinction between static and dynamic data which is p u t o n t h e website. For example the proactive disclosure dur ing a disaster situation cannot be static and needs t o be updated frequently.
There needs t o be a set of guidelines/ templates for different set o f public authorities like anganwadis etc. One public authority could act as an illustration for other public authorities of t h e same type, which would help spread t h e best practice.
15. Ms. N. Ramadevi, Dy Secretary (Govt. o f AP) apprised the participants of the work done i n Andhra Pradesh. She informed that 18 templates have been communicated t o the public authorities i n the state. Along with that all Government orders issued by the state are put on the website. She suggested that i f FAQs are made for all Departments it would be very easy. She further suggested the introduction of a penal clause for non- compliance of the Section 4 along with half yearly review and regular monitoring.
16. Sh. Nikhil Dey, Convener, NCPRl suggested that since a large number of issues involving public consultation needed the concurrence of the Planning Commission, Ministry of Law, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Environment and Forests there should be some check a t that point. He further suggested that best practitesfrom states may be published.
17. Sh. Venkatesh Nayak, CHRI, spoke of segregation of information which i s displayed through wall paintings i n villages. He suggested that the outside walls shpuld have information generic t o all and the inner walls should have information which i s specific. He pointed out that there was a question of upkeep of the walls also as they could degenerate due t o the weather conditions.
18. Sh. Rajeev Kapoor, Joint Secretary summarized the discussion and agreed' that the implementation of the Suo-mot0 disclosure under was weak. There was need for disclosure a t different levels and the internet could not be the only means for it. There was need t o use other means like the mass media, walls etc. Guidelines had t o be kept in view while hosting on the web. There was a need for a policy on consultation during policy making i n the government.
Broadly, the conclusions that emerged from the meeting are summarized below:
(a) The weak implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act is partly due t o the fact
that certain provisions of this section have not been fully detailed and i n case
of some other provisions, there i s need for laying down detailed guidelines as
t o what information needs t o be provided and in which form. In view of this, it
was agreed that effort should be made t o plug these gaps.
(b) It was agreed that while internet has become an important medium for
dissemination of information, at lower formations such as panchayats,
dispensaries, block offices etc, other modes of communication would need t o
be adopted t o ensure better access t o these disclosures.
(c) Given that the work that this task force has t o accomplish, i t would be useful t o
form sub-groups and assign specific items of work t o each of these sub-groups.
The convener of the sub-group would thereafter hold consultation with other
knowledge persons/organization and prepare a discussion/note, which would then be considered by the entire task force for finalization. The convener would be expected t o draw up a brief plan for activities t o complete consultations and submission of a discussion paper by end of June. view o f this, following decisions were taken. There would be 5 subgroups which would look i n t o the following:
i. Formulating policy on consultation t o mandate public consultations and
participation i n pre-legislative process and identify additions t o Section
4(l)(b)(xvii) t o be convened by Sh. Nikhil Dey, NCPRI. Sh. Rajeev Kapoor, Joint
Secy, DoPT will join this sub-group.
ii. Templates for disclosure at different levels i n 5 services i n rural and 5 critical
services i n urban areas namely PDS,, Education health, Rural Development and
Panchayat, Social security (pensions) and District Collectors office. The
convenors for this sub group are Ms. Pankti Jog, MAGP(Rural), Ms. Anjali
Bhardwaj, SNS (Urban). Ms. N. Ramadevi, Deputy Secretary, State Government
of Andhra Pradesh will join this sub-group.
iii. Detailing of sections Sec 4( l ) (b) ( i i i ) , 4 (l)(b)(iv), 4(l)(b)(xi), 4( l ) (b) (xiv) t o lend clarity t o these sections. Sub group t o be convened by Sh. Venkatesh Naik , CHRI, Ms. Aheli Chaudhary, JOSH. Sh. K.G. Verma, Director, DoPT will join this sub- group.
iv. Guidelines for digital publications under RTI thereby supporting proactive
disclosure of information headed by Sh. Gurumurthy.
v. Guidelines t o suggest modes and means t o facilitate people i n filing RTI
applications headed by Sh. Deepak Kumar. It was decided t h a t each sub-group can co-opt any member as deemed fit, t o enhance diversity i n views, experience and opinions.
Each sub-group would formulate its own process of initiating consultations t o come up wi t h its recommendations within one month o f its constitution. It was decided t h a t the next meeting o f the group would be held after a month.
The issue of protection of RTI activists t o be taken up in a separate meeting where
representative o f MHA would also be invited. DoPT would wr i te t o different states t o invite best practices i n the implementation of Section 4 t o feed i n t o the recommendations o f the working Group.
Ensure t h a t t h e recommendations of the Task Force feed into the implementation of the recommendations of the ARCS llth Report o n E-governance
Minutes of this meeting and the OM constituting the task force would be put on website and DoPT would invite public response on them. It was decided t h a t t h e conveners o f the above sub-groups would formulate a work plan
including plans for organizing consultations during the next month. The work plans along wi t h t h e budgetary requirements may be forwarded t o Mrs. Anuradha S. Chagti, Deputy Secretary, (RTI), Room No. 280, Department of Personnel and Training, Nor th Block, Telephone 23093074, Fax 23093022, email osdrti-dopt@nic.in i n the prescribed proforma so t h a t these could be budgeted. (Annexure 1). Annexure '1'
Application Proforma
Task Force f o r ef fect ive implementat ion o f Section 4 o f t h e RTI Act, 2005
2 Conveners
1 B. Details of Institution leading the sub group
1 3 1 Particulars of Nodal Officer
I i I ~ a m e I
2.
i
ii
ii 1 Designation
iii 1 Tel and Fax No. (Including mobile )
I
-- Particulars of the Institution
Complete postal address
Telephone Nos.
I NO.)
1 iv 1 E-mail id
7- ...
111 Fax Nos.
1 activity wise
4. 1 Total amount of grant required
C. Details of Proposal
1
2 .
3 .
Proposed work
- Plan
Time lines
Detailed estimates of expenditure
No comments:
Post a Comment