Friday, November 30, 2012




The signatories to this statement who are a group of retired officers of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service, are dismayed and distressed at the reported statements by R. P. Singh, former D. G. Telecom Audit, another retired IAAS officer, which has the potential of undermining the effectiveness and the credibility of the Audit Department to which he had the honour of belonging until recently. Without questioning R. P. Singh's motivations, we condemn his action in the strongest possible terms.
According to him the 2G report is not his report as he did not support the loss figures as contained in it. Obviously it is indeed not and cannot be his report. All Audit Reports are the CAG's Reports and are submitted to the President of India and Parliament over CAG's signature. The vast organization under the CAG, including R.P. Singh, assists the CAG in discharging his constitutional responsibilities, and has no separate existence of its own.

R. P. Singh has expresse his reservations about the figure of Rs. 1.76 lakh crores. The Report does not claim that this is the right or definitive figure. It is only one of three numbers in the Report, arrived at on the basis of different assumptions and methodologies as clearly explained in the report. The intention was to bring out the seriousness of the flaw in the decision-making process of allocation of the 2G Spectrum. That the decision-making in this case was flawed is amply proved by the facts that a cabinet minister has been in jail and is only out on bail, the CBI is investigating possible corruption cases, and the Supreme Court has cancelled 122 licenses.

That the failure of the 2G auction in 2012 has no bearing on the CAG's report is obvious and well understood. If the market for 2G spectrum in 2007-8 had been as bad as it apparently is now, there would hardly have been any question of corruption.
The Government's motive in taking advantage of the failure of the 2G auction and resuming its campaign against the CAG at this stage is clearly to try and discredit the Audit Reports on all other matters, particularly the one on coal block allocations. This is evident from the Finance Minister's statement drawing from the 2G auction failure the conclusion that the numbers in the coal allocation report are `myths'. It is that campaign that R. P. Singh has chosen to support.

He makes a grievance of the fact that his draft was edited and changed at the headquarters of the Department. This is normal in all bureaucracies. Comments or objections or reports initiated from the field offices may be modified or sharpened or toned down or even dropped at the Headquarters. There is nothing sinister in this. It happens in the case of all reports. The CAG's office at Headquarters has a responsibility to make sure that the draft report is worthy of signature by the CAG and submission to the President of India. To make sure of the quality of the Report there is a system of peer review of the draft by a group of senior officers. R. P. Singh himself is said to have sat in on the peer review of his draft report. That process may result in changes in the draft report. Once that process is completed and the CAG has approved the draft, the initiating DG has to sign the report. That is normal departmental procedure. Not only did Singh sign the report, but he is also reported to have made a Power Point presentation on the 2G report to the Public Accounts Committee. How then can he come forward with reservations at this stage? Besides, his reservations are of no consequence. By signing and submitting the report to the President of India, the CAG has taken full responsibility for it.

As for Singh's insinuations of undue interference by the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the preparation of the 2G audit report, the reports and extracts published in the media reveal nothing improper. The CAG has in the past been described as the friend, philosopher and guide of the PAC, and interaction between the two is hardly surprising. PAC had taken up its examination of the 2G case well before the submission of the CAG's Report, and in that process, was in contact with the CAG. Chairman, PAC was anxious to present its own report quickly after the CAG's Report, and wanted the CAG to expedite his report. His request for an advance communication of audit findings before the formal submission of the Report was politely turned down. The extracts published in the media establish the firmness and correctness of his decision. There is therefore no question of any impropriety involved on the part of the CAG or his organization.

May we also express our surprise at Shri Manish Tiwari's demand that the CAG should engage in a public debate with him over the 2G report. Extensive consultation with the Ministry or organization concerned takes place at the draft stage. Once a Report has been finalised, signed and submitted to the President, there is no question of the CAG debating it with anyone. In fact once the report is submitted and is laid on the Table of the House; it becomes the property of the Parliament and is not open for debate in any other forum. The CAG has only to assist the PAC in its work. Any such debate outside the Parliament and that too involving the CAG who is a Constitutional authority would in fact be an impropriety. In the 2G case, the PAC has already discussed the Report. We are sure that Shri Manish Tiwari is well aware of all this. Knowing very well that it would not be proper for the CAG to enter into a debate with him, he has issued the challenge probably with a view to forcing the CAG to say `No' and then using that negative response to further damage the institution. His demand for a debate must therefore be dismissed as not deserving serious consideration.

Finally, the unprecedented, prolonged and fierce campaign by the Government and the Congress Party against the CAG is a deliberate assault on a functionary regarded by Dr. Ambedkar as the most important functionary in the Constitution. The purpose of the campaign is clearly to cripple that institution permanently. This is tantamount to an attempt to damage a crucial pillar of the basic structure of the Constitution. We respectfully bring this to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

Ramaswamy R Iyer, Former Secretary, Govt. of India
S. Krishnan, Former Additional Secretary, Govt. of India,
R. Parameswar, S. C. Anand, B P Mathur, J. N. Gupta , all former Dy CAG's
Other Senior Retired Officers of the Indian Audit & Accounts Service

New Delhi, 28th November 2012

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:


Monday, November 26, 2012

[rti4empowerment] RTIFED UPDATE: Rules to kill RTI : its too Serious to be ignored [2 Attachments]

[Attachment(s) from Rahul included below]

Good day Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Its Tuesday, November 27th 2012

Click for Mumbai, India Forecast

Dear Members and RTI Crusaders,

Following message has been received from  Commodore Lokesh. K. Batra (Retd.) <>
 Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM  raises important question of propriety as well law.
Your comments are invited on the issue so as a combined action may be initiated for the withdrawal of this Notification
dated 31 July 2012 amending the Central RTI Rules. 

Rules to kill RTI : its too Serious to be ignored
May be govt has not posted the Notification on RTI Rules 2012 since Parliment is in session and Section 29 of the RTI Act requires government to place the Notification in Parliament and get it passed. (Check on that).
Having sent you few posts giving my observations after just initial browsing of 2012 RTI Rules.
I once again went through and realised that 500 words and Postal Fee are relatively lesser issues viz. "Appeal to Commission".
I already said that the 'Presence of Appellant before the Commission has become mandatory if one does not have facilities for Video conferencing or find some one to represent him/her befor commission in Delhi. We know how many of Aam Aadmi can avail this living across the length and breath of our country. And what about 'Indian Citizens' Abroad'
Now Poor 'Aam Aadmi' to Face  Tigers from Public Authority  
Let us compare existing Rules Viz 2012 Rules 12 and 13 to find out how every change has gone against 'Aam Aadmi' an in favour of 'Public Authority'
Existing Rule (7)

"7.         Personal presence of the appellant or complainant. - (1) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, shall in every case be informed of the date of hearing at least seven clear days before that date.
(2) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may at his discretion at the time of hearing of the appeal or complaint by the Commission be present in person or through his duly authorized representative or may opt not to be present
(3) Where the Commission is satisfied that the circumstances exist due to which the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, is being prevented from attending the hearing of the Commission, then, the Commission may afford the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, another opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken or take any other appropriate action as it may deem fit.
(4) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person in the process of the appeal while presenting his points and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner."
In Rule 12. of RTI Rules 2012 the Appellant has been deprived of option of 'Not to be Present'.
If that was not enough, in New Rule 12 the Provision for "Appellant to seek Assistance" has been withdrawn."
Earlier during Commission's hearing CPIO and at most First Appellet Authority" (FAA) defending the case.
New Rule 13 empowers Public Authority to authorise any representative (probably it means Legal Pandits) or any officer to defend CPIO & FAA. 
Under RTI Rules 2012 : "Aam Aadmi has been dis-armed to face tigers of Public Authority"
This is the easy way Government found to "KILL RTI ACT"
To enable you to compare RTI Act viz Existing Rules vizProposed Rules (now approved), I am attaching a pdf file consisting of my comprehensive 'Analyses on Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules' that I had sent to DoPT in December 2010. To understand the finer may go through Page 15 onwards covering "Appeal Part". Time permitting you may browse the ealier pages too.
Also attached is RTI Rules 2012 notification for ready reference.
Government without caring for what People said have Bulldozed their way in framing RTI RULES 2012.
Raise your Voice before it is too late (before Parliament clears new Rules)
Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.)
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: lokesh batra <>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:42 AM
Subject: My take : 2012 RTI Rules

On the eve of Independence Day; government curtails people's Freedom to Know (Information). 
21 months ago, on 10 December 2010 Government seeks Citizens' Comments on "Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules". 
Thousands of people participated in this process by sending their valuable comments. 
Within days of receiving People's Comments, DoPT informs me that the folder containing Peoples' Comments is missing. 21 months later it is still missing.
Notwithstanding, Government goes ahead and Secretly promulgate amendment to RTI Rules and call it "RTI Rules 2012", amounting to diluation of the RTI Act.
Asking peoples' Comments which are thrown into drain is nothing but a 'Cruel Joke on Indian Citizens'
Specific comments are given in post below in trail.
One additional point.
Under Rule 13 of RTI Rules 2012,  CPIO are exempted to attend CIC hearing thus diluting the responsibility and accountability of CPIO mentioned in Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, 2005.    
Jai Hind     

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: lokesh batra <>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 9:18 PM
Subject: Urgent: 2012 RTI Rules attached

Further to my earlier post of today.
I am attaching a pdf file on G.Notification on RTI Rules 2012 dated 31 July 2012 (not attached)
Beside 500 word restriction  and postal charges beyond Rs.50/- .
Following observation made:
(a) If the appeal to CIC has discrepancy.. it will be returned to Appellant for completion and return.
(b)First Appeal is mandatory. (My take : What happens to Section 18 about complaints)
(c) Option for Appellant not to attend appeal in CIC has been withdrawn.
(My take: Either you find some one to represent you or have video facility ... you have to attend 2nd appeal... will it be possible for people living across the country and even abroad? Its a cruel joke on people).
If you go thru RTI Rules mailed in earlier post... you may find more areas of concern.
You may recap the sequence by going thru my earlier posts in the trail.
Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.)

Recall I had issued ALERT on the subject on 15 July 2012 (see my post in trail with few attachments):
Remember 18 months ago on 10th December 2010, DoPT had promulgated "Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules"  that generated lot of heat. Than there was deafening silence.
Till DoPT replied to my recent RTI of 07 June 2012 that file is with PMO since 11 January 2012. On 11 July 2012 I filed an RTI in PMO to know more about it. Rest is history.  
After I filed an RTI in PMO on 11 July 2012 (where the file was held since 11 January 2012 for PM nod) Govt moved fast and promulgated Amendment to RTI Rules. (RTI response from PMO still awaited. Now CPIO will tell me file is back in DoPT.)
At this stage I sent my ALERT post : Are we going to get sudden Announcement of "RTI RULES Amended" ?
(Read HT Story of 11 August 2012 below)
Govt puts limits on your right to information
Aloke Tikku, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, August 10, 2012
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: lokesh batra <>
To: xxxxxx 
Cc: xxxx
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 7:09 PM
Subject: ALERT: What's RTI Rules file doing in PMO?

ALERT :What's RTI Rules file doing in PMO?
I filed an RTI on 07 June 2012 in DOPT to know the status of "Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules" promulgated by DoPT on 10 December 2010. 

DoPT in response intimated:
(a) DoPT File on "Proposed Amendments to RTI Rules" is in PMO since 11 January 2012. 
(b) The folder on the subject containing Citizens' Suggestion on "Proposed Amendments to RTI Rules" is missing in DoPT. This was told to me even over a year ago when I went to inspect said file on 18 February 2011
I have since filed an RTI in PMO on 11 July 2012. (See Attachment PMO RTI (Rules) dt 11 July 2012.
LETS BE ON ALERT: Are we going to get sudden Announcement of "RTI RULES Amended" ?
{Commodore Lokesh. K. Batra (Retd.)}
Social & RTI Activist
Phone :0120 – 2538939


Surendera M. Bhanot

- Coordinator, RTIFED, Punjab Chandigarh   - President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh  - Life Member, Chandigarh Consumers Association
- Youth for Human Rights International - YHRI - South Asia
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: 919-888-810-811
PHONE: 91-172-5000970
FAX: 91-172-5000970

Mail Me

Your comments and feedbacks always welcome
at  as well as at

Working for God on earth does not pay much,    
but His Retirement plan isout ofthis world.
Help someone have a nice day,
With best wishes,
Cybugle@yahoo. com
Feel free to forward this post in its entirety
without changing the credits
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Attachment(s) from Rahul

2 of 2 File(s)

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)
Recent Activity:


[rti4empowerment] Declare Aadhar illegal - Missile scientist files suit


Good day Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Its Mon
day, November 26th 2012

Click for Mumbai, India Forecast

Declare Aadhaar illegal, pleads suit


Bangalore: Asuit filed in a city civil court in Bangalore
feels Aadhaar, the mega Unique Identification
project of the central government, is illegal.

Missile scientist Mathew Thomas and social activist
V K Somashekar jointly filed this suit.The
chairperson of the Unique Identification Authority
of India and chairperson of Planning Commission
of India are defendants in the suit.

The plaintiffs contend that the scheme was designed
for the benefit of fewprivate companies and
without any serious study. "There are complaints
of large-scale violations of these 'contracts of enrollment'.
The private companies which are enrolling
agencies employ temporary workers on a
contract basis.

Their antecedents are unknown. This is a risk
to both the nation and the people. They are implementing
the UID project in an absolutely irresponsible
manner. They have deliberately compromised
the rights of the people. The plaintiffs are
extremely concerned with the way the defendants
are abusing their position and powers, spending
huge amounts of taxpayers' money.Continuing with
Aadhaar is against the interest of citizens of India.
The said scheme is in violation of all known civil
rights and a disempoweringmechanism. It is against
all accepted norms of rule of law and fundamental
rights, guaranteed under the Constitution of India",
the suit claimed.·~ ,

The plaintiffs further claim that theAadhaar
scheme has been illegally designed without any
semblance of a statutory right with the officials
and other interested parties, who are by and large
private companies having substantial investments
in software technologies.

"The purpose of issuing a number to every resident
of India is a dangerous design and is being
issued with a mala fide intention of enabling surveillance
of the people, commercial exploitation of
demographic data, unjust-enrichment of some individuals,
national and transnational agencies, bureaucrats,
national and transnational monetary
agencies, fmancial institutions, insurance based
institutions, communication companies, imaging
companies, vested societies and organizations of
dubious background all at the cost of tax payer's
money," the suit claimed. .

The plaintiffs also feel the authorities have not
conducted any serious study on feasibility, implications
and pitfalls of the scheme. " The authorities
have not given any serious thought on the issues
of personal liberty, right to privacy and various
other issues of citizens of India," the plaintiffs
claimed while seeking an injunction order.

More details here

Your comments and feedbacks always welcome
at  as well as at

Working for God on earth does not pay much,    
but His Retirement plan isout ofthis world.
Help someone have a nice day,
With best wishes,
Cybugle@yahoo. com
Feel free to forward this post in its entirety
without changing the credits

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:


Sunday, November 25, 2012

[rti4empowerment] Crusade against corruption


RTI Activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal honoured with SR Jindal Prize
for Crusade Against Corruption

New Delhi; 22nd November, 2012: SJ Foundation has chosen to honour Subhash Chandra Agrawal with SR Jindal Prize for 2012 under the category `Crusade Against Corruption' for his untiring and continuous effort to expose corruption. He has used the Right to Information (RTI) Act to bring to light numerous corrupt practices including 2G Spectrum Scam and Common Wealth Games Scam. The decision was taken by a high level Jury headed by Mr. Justice R.C.Lahoti, former chief justice of India.

Subhash Chandra Agrawal is fighting against corruption, malpractices and irregularities in public life and for brining accountability in the judicial system with the weapon of RTI.

Some of Mr Agrawal's notable contributions in exposing corruption and lack of transparency are 2 G Spectrum Scam, irregularities and corruption in Commonwealth Games, Appointment of CVC, Regulation of fee structure by private universities, process of Judicial Reforms, File Notings being made public under RTI Act etc. Subhash Chandra Agrawal has been taking up issues of national and public interest vigorously by writing letters in newspapers also for which he holds the "Guinness World Record.'

Subhash Chandra Agrawal is awarded the `S R Jindal Prize – 2012' jointly with Late Satyendra Kumar Dubey, Sanjeeb Singh Katiyar and Ajay Shankar Dubey in the field of `Crusade against Corruption'. The Award carries a Cash Prize of Rs. 1 Crore to be shared equally. The total prize money this year will be Rs. 8 Crores where eight prizes of Rs. 1 Crore each will be awarded shortly in eight categories.

The S R Jindal Prize has been instituted last year to accolade exceptional service of current significance rendered by individuals or organisations for the welfare of Indian citizens in the country. It is expected that the recognition garnered by the S R Jindal Prize awardees will catalyze their efforts towards social upliftment. Further details are available at

SJ Foundation had honoured 27 Outstanding Selfless Workers, including APJ Abdul Kalam, Santosh Hegde & Anna Hazare, by bestowing S R Jindal Prizes at a glittering Ceremony held in February this year. Those honoured included Individuals and Institutions who are beacons of selfless service to the society with a total prize money of Rs. 7.30 Crores.

Last year, S J Foundation honoured fearless persons like Ashok Khemka and Manish Sisodia, with SR Jindal Prize under the category "Crusade Against Corruption"

Established in the year 1969, the SJ Foundation is an apolitical, non-religious and charitable trust in the field of education, health and social service. The foundation, besides extending financial support to other charitable institutions, has also directly set up several educational institutions and hospitals. The Foundation also assists the poor and deserving students through scholarships. More details are available
Jindal Prize
The "SR Jindal Prize" is instituted by the SJ Foundation to accolade exceptional service of current ...

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:


Saturday, November 24, 2012

[rti4empowerment] RTI News : 4,620 phone tappings in State in 4 yrs


[rti4empowerment] Open the gate please !



In the wake of R K Singh episode, where the retired DG in CAG has made certain serious allegations, I have sent another letter in pursuance to my representation dated 19 October 2012 in my individual capacity to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India proposing certain changes in the service conduct rules.

I have said in these representations that almost all the Government servants are regulated by their respective Conduct Rules which generally ban connection with Press or Radio and criticism of Government.  

I have said that with the RTI Act in operation and the Whistle Blowers Protection Act in anvil, the current environment demands that Service Conduct Rules are suitably modify to allow the Government servants to interact with Media as regards the corrupt practices, improper acts and illegal orders of senior officers, Ministers, public representatives etc and to criticize even the Government policy, if it is in the larger public interest and is connected with financial corruption, biases, prejudices and immoral acts. 

I have said that since Media has immense public impact hence the proper use of Media by the Government servants for eradicating corruption and arbitrary acts needs to be encouraged.

I present the link for the two letters sent by me dated 19/11/2012 and 24/11/2012 for your kind perusal and your comments/suggestions please.

Amitabh Thakur
# 94155-34526

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity: