RTI documents cannot be marked ‘not evidence’: GIC

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Monday, 28 October 2024.

The Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) has ruled against the practice of govt departments adding disclaimer stamps on documents provided under Right to Information (RTI). These disclaimers typically state, "Information provided under Section 7(9) of RTI Act in its present form cannot be considered as evidence."
In a recent order, it said that the practice was inconsistent with both state and central govt guidelines.
The commission highlighted the procedural dispute after Kalupur resident Pankaj Bhatt approached the commission with documents provided by the city deputy collector (East) office, which bore the controversial stamp.
Bhatt challenged the manner in which the documents were certified by a Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Ahmedabad collectorate. The documents bore the stamp, "Information provided under Section 7(9) of RTI Act in its present form cannot be considered as evidence".
During the hearing, state's chief information commissioner, Subhash Soni, noted that this stamping practice contradicted the circular issued by the state govt's General Administration Department (GAD) on Dec 29, 2015.
This GAD order states that each of the pages of the documents provided under the RTI Act should bear the stamp, "Records/Information provided under the Right to Information Act."
In his order dated Oct 16, Soni said, "The PIO must rectify the stamp on all the documents in accordance with the 2015 circular, and all future RTI responses must bear the correct certification." The order also referred to the Union govt's department of personnel and training (DoPT) order of Oct 2015.
Bhatt, who did not have the original documents during the hearing, agreed to present them to the current PIO for proper certification.
"The copy of any govt records provided by the govt under an Act is authentic. How can any stamp exist which states that they cannot be used as evidence? It is the court of law which decides. Such stamps are illegal and contravening to the RTI Act itself," Bhatt argued.

SIC slaps fine on former public information officer of Kochi Corporation

The Hindu: Kochi: Sunday, 27 October 2024.

The State Information Commission (SIC) has slapped a fine of ₹5,000 on a former public information officer (PIO) of the Kochi Corporation on charge of declining to make available relevant information with regard to select questions on a Right to Information (RTI) application.
RTI activist Raju Vazhakkala had filed the application in which there were two questions regarding the annual maintenance expenses of vehicles deployed for collection and transportation of waste to the Corporation’s Brahmapuram plant during the period between April 1, 2020 and December 2022. But the engineering wing assistant executive engineer, then PIO for the wing, in his response claimed that the said information had not been compiled and hence could not be made available. Subsequently, Mr. Vazhakkala filed an appeal with the SIC.
The Commission in an order had asked the first opposite party, Suresh K.G., to submit an explanation for not taking action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
In his explanation, Mr. Suresh said that as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, the PIO was not duty-bound to compile and make available information spread across various files. He added that there were 100-odd vehicles for waste movement for which there were as many files, and that they were in various sections for payment. Compiling them was a time-consuming process, which would take a toll on other important jobs, Instead, the applicant was informed that he could personally examine relevant documents in the presence of the authorities concerned, and that the applicant did not use that offer, he explained.
Mr. Suresh then appeared before the SIC personally. The Commission pointed out that while in the response to the RTI application it was said that the Corporation had deployed 58 vehicles, in his explanation Mr. Suresh claimed that there were over 100 vehicles. It was also pointed out that opposite party could have made available the copies of the documents as such with the help of the officials concerned under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act.
Consequently, State Information Commissioner K.M. Dileep in an order dated October 18 directed Mr. Suresh to pay ₹5,000 as fine within 30 days of the order failing which the Commission secretary would initiate revenue recovery proceedings.
Corporation sources on their part clarified that the relevant information did not come under the jurisdiction of Mr. Suresh who was the PIO for the engineering wing but under his counterpart for the accounts wing. Also, where voluminous documents are involved, it was common practice to ask the applicant to personally examine the documents for free for the first hour and then for a nominal fee for every hour since then as provided for in the RTI Act

CIC Ruling in RTI Case: GST Return Filing Data Can’t Be Provided U/S 158(1): Arpit Kulshrestha

SAG: Delhi: Saturday, 26 October 2024.

The Central Information Commission ( CIC ) noted that the GST returns information could not be filed u/s 158(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act ( CGST Act ), 2017. It was cited that the General Laws could not override the special law with the Non-Obstante Clause carrying the Supreme Court’s decision in the case Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla.
CIC addressed an RTO application furnished via the appellant dated January 31, 2023, asking for the GST payment information for Vadamalayan Hospital in Madurai from 2007 to 2022. The GSTIN of the hospital was specified in the request.
On February 8, 2023, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) citing that the urged data was not available in their office instructed the appellant to contact the CPIO of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division, for additional assistance.
The appellant aggrieved from the answer filed a First Appeal on April 7, 2023, but did not obtain a resolution. Therefore the appellant presented the case before CIC via a second appeal.
In the hearing, both parties were present through video conference. It was claimed by the appellant that the data was not furnished via the respondent, while the CPIO elaborated that identical data has been asked in another RTI application dated February 28, 2023, which stresses that GST was executed from July 1, 2017, making the previous request from 2007 unfeasible. CPIO mentioned section 158(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, which precludes the GST return information disclosure.
Post analyzing the facts of both parties, the commission carried the position of the respondent. The CIC directed a Delhi High Court ruling (W.P.(C) 340/2023) that distinguished between the Right to Information Act, 2005, as a general law and Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as a special provision concerning the disclosure of information related to the taxpayer. It was specified under distinction that the special law shall take precedence over the general law for the matter of conflict.
The ruling of the Delhi High Court stresses that the particular process for revealing the data for the third parties under the Income Tax Act should be fulfilled and the same need could not be transferred to the other authority under the general RTI act, CIC marked.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, the Information Commissioner, determined that the refusal to provide the information was warranted according to the CGST Act, and the appellant has the option to seek the information directly through the relevant CGST Act channels.
Therefore the commission discovered that the respondent had furnished an answer and no additional interruption was required. Hence affirming the limits of the data disclosure under the pertinent tax statutory the appeal was disposed of.
(Bethuran vs. Commissionerof CGST and Central Excise: Read Order)

सूचना का अधिकार: क्‍या रह पाएगा असरदार? - राज वाल्मीकि

News Click: National: Friday, 25 October 2024.

वर्ष 2014 यानी जब से भाजपा सरकार सत्ता में आई है तब से चिंता का विषय है कि सूचना के अधिकार को लगातार कमज़ोर किया जा रहा है।
19 और 20 अक्‍टूबर 2024 को सूचना के अधिकार को लेकर राजस्‍थान के ब्‍यावर में जिस तरह का आयोजन हुआ उसे आरटीआई एक्‍ट में पुन: प्राण फूंकने का शंखनाद कहा जा सकता है। यहां यह बताने का प्रयास किया गया है कि यह जनता के प्रयासों से लाया गया कानून है और जनता ही इसे जिंदा रखेगी। पर वर्तमान सरकार के कार्यकलापों के चलते सूचना के अधिकार के समक्ष कुछ चुनौतियां खड़ी हो गई हैं।
हाल ही में ब्‍यावर में राजस्‍थान सरकार द्वारा सूचना का अधिकार यानी Right to Information (RTI) का म्‍यूजियम बनाने के लिए एक हेक्‍टेयर भूमि आवंटित की गई। म्‍यूजियम का शिलान्‍यास 20 अक्‍टूबर 2024 को किया गया। इसी संदर्भ में सूचना के अधिकार के अनुपालन पर सवाल उठे। जिस पर यहां चर्चा की जा रही है।
संक्षिप्‍त पृष्‍ठभूमि के तौर पर बताते चलें कि जनता के आंदोलन के बाद सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 15 जून 2005 को संसद द्वारा बनाया गया था और राष्‍ट्रपति की अनुमति के बाद 21 जून 2005 को आधिकारिक राजपत्र में अधिसूचित किया गया था।
इसके बाद 12 अक्‍टूबर 2005 को इसे लागू किया गया था।
सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के तहत नागरिकों को सरकार के कामकाज में पारदर्शिता जबावदेही बढ़ाने, भ्रष्‍टाचार रोकने, और लोकतंत्र को मजबूत बनाने में मदद मिलती है। इस अधिनियम के तहत नागरिक सरकारी दफ्तरों से सवाल पूछ सकते हैं।
राष्‍ट्रीय सुरक्षा से संबंधित दस्‍तावेजों को छोड़कर बाकी की जानकारी देने के लिए सरकारी विभाग के सूचना अधिकारी जिम्‍मेदार होते हैं। उन्‍हें एक महीने के अंदर इसका जबाव देना होता है। जबाव न देने की स्थिति में उन पर अनुशानात्‍मक कार्रवाई होती है।
संवैधानिक कार्यों को लागू करवाने और लोकतंत्र को सशक्‍त बनाने सूचना का अधिकार महत्‍वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाता है।
वर्ष 2014 यानी जब से भाजपा सरकार सत्ता में आई है तब से चिंता का विषय है कि सूचना के इस अधिकार को लगातार कमजोर किया जा रहा है।
बता दें कि 1996 में राजस्‍थान के ब्‍यावर में 40 दिन तक सूचना के अधिकार के लिए आंदोलन शुरु हुआ था जिसके निरंतर प्रभाव से 2005 में हमारे देश को सूचना का अधिकार कानून मिला।
लेकिन तब से लेकर अब तक यानी 2024 तक काफी परिवर्तन आया है। ऐसा लग रहा है कि सूचना का अधिकार कानून अपनी अंतिम सांसे गिन रहा है।
अब सूचना के कानून के तहत जरूरी जानकारी नहीं मिल रही हैं। यहां तक कि सूचना के अधिकारियों की नियुक्तियां भी नहीं हो रही हैं। किसी भी विषय के बारे में यह कह कर जानकारी नहीं दी जाती कि यह राष्‍ट्रीय सुरक्षा का विषय है भले ही विषय राष्‍ट्रीय सुरक्षा का न हो। उदाहरण के लिए अफ्रीका से खरीदे गए चीतों के विषय में आरटीआई के तहत ब्‍योरा मांगा गया तो इसे राष्‍ट्रीय सुरक्षा का विषय बता कर जानकारी नहीं दी गई।
ऐसे समय में राजस्‍थान के ब्‍यावर में जश्‍ने-संविधान मनाया जाता है। आरटीआई के म्‍यूजियम का शिलान्‍यास किया जाना एक सुखद पहल है।
सूचना के अधिकार के लिए राजस्‍थान के ब्‍यावर के किसान मजदूर शक्ति संगठन के सदस्‍यों घूंघट वाली महिलाओं से लेकर मैगसेसे पुरस्‍कार प्राप्‍त सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता अरूणा राय, निखिल डे, लाल सिंह और शंकर (जिन्‍हें मामा के नाम से जाना जाता है) जैसे सामाजिक कार्यकर्ताओं के साथ मिलकर लगातार दस वर्षों तक संघर्ष किया।
इस आयोजन में जमीन से जुड़े किसान-मजदूर से लेकर उच्‍च शिक्षित लोगों, सुप्रीम कोर्ट के पूर्व जजों तक ने शिरकत की।
मैगसेसे अवार्डी अरूणा राय कहती हैं कि सूचना के अधिकार और ब्‍यावर की दोस्‍ती बहुत पुरानी है। सूचना का अधिकार आंदोलन जब 1996 में शुरु हुआ था तब बीड़ी मजदूर, खेतिहर मजदूर मेहनतकशों से लेकर ब्‍यावर शहर के शिक्षाविदों, बुद्धिजीवियों, सामाजिक कार्यकर्ताओं, ब्‍यावर के आम नागरिकों सभी ने हमारा साथ दिया था। सब के साथ मिलकर एक ऐसी अद्भूत समझ बनी थी कि यदि लोकतांत्रिकों मूल्‍यों को आगे लेकर जाना है तो हम सभी को एक साथ आना होगा। एकजुट होना होगा। इस तरह ब्‍यावर ने हमें एक रास्‍ता दिखाया था।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट के पूर्व जस्टिस एस मुरलीधरन ने कहा कि सूचना का अधिकार लोगों द्वारा लाया गया है। उनके अनुभवों के कारण यह बन पाया था। आगे भी उनके अनुभव काम आएंगे। आगे आने वाले लोग जान पाएंगे कि यह अधिकार क्‍यों लाया गया था। क्‍यों जरूरी है। और हमें इसकी रक्षा करना क्‍यों जरूरी है।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट के पूर्व जस्टिस मदन लोकुर आरटीआई म्‍यूजियम के बारे में कहते हैं कि लोगों के लिए यह म्‍यूजियम महत्‍वपूर्ण साबित होगा। क्‍योंकि आरटीआई के लिए मूवमेंट करीब तीस साल पहले शुरु हुआ था। बहुत से लोगों को इसके बारे में मालूम नहीं है। वे इसके माध्‍यम से जान पाएंगे। और आगे चलकर सूचना के कानून की रक्षा करेंगे।
सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता व पीयूसीएल की राष्‍ट्रीय अध्‍यक्ष कविता श्रीवास्‍तव कहती हैं कि सूचना का अधिकार जनता का हक है। इसके लिए वह अदालत में जा सकती है। अपने अधिकार का इस्‍तेमाल कर सकती है।
इसमें कोई शक नहीं कि सूचना का अधिकार एक सशक्‍त हथियार है जनता के हाथ में। सरकारी मनमानियों को रोकने का एक टूल। क्‍योंकि सरकार को भी कहीं न कहीं यह भय रहता ही है कि जनता आरटीआई के तहत आवेदन देकर कर हमारे कार्यों का लेखा-जोखा ले सकती है। हमारा भ्रष्‍टाचार उजागर हो सकता है। हालांकि सरकार यदि ईमानदार हो तो उसे कोई खतरा सूचना के अधिकार से नहीं है। पर जिस सरकार की नीयत और करनी-कथनी में फर्क होता है उस पर आरटीआई की तलवार लटकती रहती है। यही कारण है कि फासस्टिवादी अघोषित तानाशाही सरकारों की नजर में सूचना का अधिकार कानून (आरटीआई एक्‍ट 2005) आंखों की किरकिरी बन गया है। इसलिए ऐसी सरकारें आरटीआई एक्‍ट को निरंतर कमजोर करना चाहती हैं। कई प्रकार के बहाने बनाकर जानकारी देने से बचने की कोशिश करती हैं।
ऐसी वर्तमान परिस्थितियों में जनता को विशेष सतर्क और सावधान रहने की जरूरत है। इस कानून को लाने में जनता ने जिस गंभीरता और कड़ी मशक्‍कत से काम किया था आज उसे बचाने के लिए भी उतनी ही मेहनत, सतर्कता, जागरूकता, एकजुटता की जरूरत है ताकि हमारा यह सूचना का अधिकार कानून जो कि एक सशक्‍त हथियार है भोथरा और औपचारिकता मात्र न बन कर रह जाए।
(लेखक सफाई कर्मचारी आंदोलन से जुड़े हैं। विचार व्यक्तिगत हैं।)

Gammanpila invokes RTI to get records of evidence by Ravi Seneviratne

Daily Mirror: Sri Lanka: Friday, 25 October 2024.

Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) leader former MP Udaya Gammanpila yesterday requested the information officer - Presidential Secretariat in writing to provide him with records of evidence given by Public Security Ministry Secretary Ravi Seneviratne before the committee headed by A.N.J. De Alwis in probing the Easter Sunday attack.
He said he learnt reliably that Mr. Seneviratne admitted before the committee that he made a mistake by keeping the letter regarding the intelligence warning on the attack for 12 days without taking any action as the DIG in charge of the Criminal Investigation Department at that time.
He said he is seeking these reports in terms of the Right to Information Act.

Mumbai-Ahmedabad Bullet Train Project: NHSRCL Declines To Reveal Operational Date In RTI Response, Shares Financial Details

FPJ: Mumbai: Friday, 25 October 2024.
The National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL) has not provided a tentative date for the commencement of operations for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project. This was revealed in response to a Right to Information (RTI) query submitted by Mumbai-based activist Ajay Bose.

The National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL) has not provided a tentative date for the commencement of operations for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project. This was revealed in response to a Right to Information (RTI) query submitted by Mumbai-based activist Ajay Bose. On October 1st 2024 Bose has sought the details regarding to the tentative date of starting of operation on Mumbai -Ahmedabad bullet train corridor.
On October 24, 2024, replying to the Bose. NHSRCL stated that the requested information regarding the project's operational date does not fall under the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
While the operational date was not disclosed, the NHSRCL provided financial details. The total sanctioned budget for the project is Rs 1,08,000 crore, with Rs 60,381 already spent by March 31, 2024.
Ajay Bose had submitted the query on October 1, 2024, seeking the expected commencement date for the bullet train services between Mumbai and Ahmedabad. However, the NHSRCL did not share this information in their official response. When contacted an official of National High Speed Rail Corporation said we will check on tomorrow.
The Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project has faced multiple delays and challenges, including issues related to land acquisition, project cost overruns, and shifting timelines.

Sri Lankan Air Force now requires ‘certified copies’ of ID for any RTI requests

Tamil Guardian: Sri Lanka: Friday, 25 October 2024.

The Sri Lankan Air Force (SLAF) has faced criticism for demanding certified copies of National Identity Cards (NICs) from individuals seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a practice that is not legally required.
The controversy surfaced when a Tamil resident from the North was told by the SLAF's RTI office to provide a certified copy of their NIC, even though they had already submitted a standard copy, which is usually sufficient.
Under the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016, there is no stipulation requiring applicants to submit certified NICs or any additional documents. The law aims to ensure transparency and access to information for all Sri Lankan citizens without unnecessary barriers. The SLAF's internal directive, which purportedly aims to verify the identity and citizenship of RTI applicants, has been seen by many as an unjustified bureaucratic hurdle. Critics argue that this extra requirement disproportionately affects the Tamil people of the North-East, where security forces often impose such measures, potentially as an intimidation tactic.
The officer responsible for this directive claimed it was necessary to prevent fraudulent or anonymous applications, but human rights activists and legal experts view it as a violation of the RTI law’s spirit, which emphasizes ease of access to information.

Show Proof of Marriage, Get Personal Information on Estranged Spouse’s Income: Information Commissioner - By Vinita Deshmukh

Moneylife: Pune: Friday, 25 October 2024.

Break-ups of young couples’ marriages has been a common phenomenon since the last decade or so and it has been reflected in the Right to Information space, with either of the estranged spouses seeking information on their respective spouse’s personal information like income tax returns, salaries, investments and so on.
There have been several past central information commission decisions which have ordered income tax offices to bypass the `personal information’ exemption clause under section 8 of the RTI Act in such cases and release information on the ex-spouse’s basic income details.
Early this week, on 21 October 2024, central information commissioner (CIC) Vinod Kumar Tiwari ordered that the RTI applicant (name withheld) should submit detailed proof of her being legally married and that the divorce matter is in the judicial court, within four weeks; to procure the required information.
CIC Tiwari, in his order, directed that the central public information officer (CPIO) of the income tax office, Gurgaon should ascertain that the RTI applicant “is the legally wedded wife of xxxxxx xxxxxx and there is a maintenance case/ matrimonial case pending before the judicial court. She is directed to submit complete relevant documents before the respondent public authority, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.”
On receipt of the same, CIC Tiwari has directed the CPIO of the income tax office to “provide the generic details of the net taxable income/ gross income” of the estranged husband for the period asked for in the RTI application, free of cost, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from her. No other personal information of the third party can be divulged to the appellant under the RTI Act.
The RTI applicant had sought the following information way back in January 2023 for the period between 2021 and 2023:

• Income earned by xxxxx xxxxx
• Details of taxable/ gross/ net income
• Salary earned, income from other sources, expenses incurred, etc. related to his income
• His properties and assets
• Rebates, exemptions, etc. if any claimed by him
• All his bank accounts linked with his above-mentioned PAN

CPIO Sandeep Giri predictably declined information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act, stating it would cause an “unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual” and that it “does not have any relationship to any public activity or interest.”
CIC Tiwari, reflecting on the earlier CIC decisions on this issue, observed that “It is relevant to note that this bench has dealt with cases bearing the same factual matrix and the stance that has been maintained by it so far is that certain information sought for in the above mentioned RTI application pertains to the personal information of a third party and stands duly exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”
However, he added that “A judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of central public information officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra, wherein the import of ‘personal information’ envisaged under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank vs. CS Shyam; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. central information commissioner & Ors and RK Jain vs. Union of India.”
The exemption clauses in personal information include thus: “Precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that:
Personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information.
Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information.
Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information.
Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…”
In the case of disputes between a husband and wife, CIC Tiwari referred to a 2009 Delhi High Court ruling (Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India). The court said that in private matters like this, the protection against disclosure provided by section 8(1)(j) should not be removed. However, CIC Tiwari also mentioned several high court orders where the income tax authorities in Bangalore filed cases with the Karnataka High Court. In these cases, the court allowed the "gross income" of a spouse to be disclosed, citing the right to maintenance.
In one of the second appeal decisions in 2018 by CIC Prof Shridhar Acharyulu, he had opined that “Information about assets, income and investments of spouses cannot be protected as personal information between spouses, in view of the public interest in the maintenance of families and domestic peace. The proviso to section 8(1) (j) read with section 8(2) of the Right to Information Act entitled the appellant to get information because of overwhelming public interest and her interest in securing adequate maintenance for their daughter.”

Access to RTI underscored to uplift people's livelihood

BSS: Bangladesh: Thursday, 24 October 2024.

Speakers at a programme underscored the need for ensuring access to information for elevating the livelihood of marginalised people, including women, for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
They said free flow of information has important roles in hastening the social development process along with ensuring transparency, accountability and good governance in public offices.
However, efforts are progressing to empower women through need-based interventions side by side, strengthening government and civil society institutions and expanding networks for information access.
They came up with the observation while addressing a booth camp meeting on Right to Information at Mohanpur upazila parishad hall room on Tuesday discussing and devising ways and means on how to raise mass awareness about the Right to Information issue.
On behalf of its project titled "Advancing Women's Right of Access to Information in Bangladesh", the Association for Community Development (ACD) organised the meeting financially supported by USAID and technically assisted by The Carter Centre.
Upazila Nirbahi Officer Ayesha Siddika, Project Implementation Officer Tarikul Islam, Youth Development Officer Syaid Ali Reza, Administrative Officer of Mougachi Union Parishad Abdur Razzak, Administrative Officer of Baksimoil Union Parishad Razia Pervin and Liaison Officer of the Carter Centre Sabrina Naz addressed the meeting.
Project Coordinator Subrata Kumar Paul moderated the discussion.
Terming access to information as vital, the discussants viewed that unhindered flow of information by all government and non-government organisations needs to be ensured for expediting development and ensuring good governance everywhere in society.
The project is being implemented in Ward Number 16 and 17 under Rajshahi City Corporation (RCC) and Haripur and Damkura Union in Paba Upazila and Mougachhi and Bakshimoil Unions of Mohanpur upazila in Rajshahi district.
As a whole, the project is intended to create a congenial environment where women, especially the Dalit and marginalised are able to enjoy the Right to Information from government and non-government agencies for protecting their fundamental rights.

The reality of transgender welfare boards in India: An RTI investigation : Written By- Vaivab Das

The News Minute: National: Thursday, 24 October 2024.
This investigation through RTIs, first-hand narratives from various transgender welfare board members, trans/queer rights activists, and judicial observations, reveals compelling reasons for India to shift away from nominal representations, and demand transformative reforms.

In his speech on the last day of the Budget Session of the 17th Lok Sabha, Prime Minister Narendra Modi remarked: "Those who are on the margins have been reassured that there is a government.” These margins or “Lakshman Rekha” (circle of protection) reminds us of the predicament of Sita, in the Hindu mythological epic Ramayana, who was asked to trust the protection of men against the violence of other men. But for transgender persons in India, neither side of the margin seems to offer a dignified life.
On one hand, 19 states and Union Territories across India still don’t have a welfare body for transgender persons, as legally stipulated. Of these, four are UTs controlled by the Union government, and eight states have the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as the party in power or as an alliance partner in the government. The 17 states and UTs that do have a welfare board for trans persons are mostly running rudderless without a policy framework, compliance mechanism, or any power.
These non-transparent, non-accountable and in some cases, non-existent bureaucratic bodies are turning into phantom forums that act as a countermeasure to diffuse people’s movements that rise to hold governments accountable to their legislative promises.
On the other hand, only 5.6% of transgender persons (as per the 2011 census) in the country have applied for a transgender identity card revealing the inaccessible nature of identity card application and the futility of such a document for a marginalised transgender person when the state doesn’t actually provide rights or welfare measures that benefit them.
This investigation through RTIs, first-hand narratives from various transgender welfare board members, trans/queer rights activists, and judicial observations, reveals compelling reasons for India to shift away from its tendency to celebrate nominal representations, and demand transformative reforms to right the historical wrongs carried out against transgender and gender non-conforming persons.
Boards exist, but only on paper:
Rule 10(1) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2020 which states, “The appropriate Government shall constitute a welfare board for the transgender persons for the purpose of protecting their rights and interests of, and facilitating access to schemes and welfare measures framed by the Government.”
Presently, 17 states and Union Territories have notified a Transgender Welfare/Justice/Development board under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019 and rules 2020. This includes Assam, Bihar, Chandigarh, Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.

We took a closer look at these notified boards, and this is what we found.
The majority of the states which have notified a transgender welfare board have held less than one meeting per year since their creation.
The functioning of welfare boards in Gujarat, Jammu & Kashmir, Chhattisgarh, Manipur and Tripura remains undisclosed till today.
Gujarat had notified a transgender welfare board in 2019 in collaboration with UNAIDS. According to its members, the board did not hold a single meeting until October 14 this year five years after the board was formed.
Of the remaining 12 states and UTs, only four held meetings in 2023 namely, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Chandigarh, and Maharashtra.

In Mizoram not a single meeting of the board has been convened since its creation.
In states like Manipur, since 2017, the welfare board remains practically defunct. Last year, the Governor of Manipur reconstituted the 17-member board with only one transgender woman and one transgender man represented in the body.
This year, Punjab and Haryana High Court in a PIL filed by Yashika, a transgender student, observed that the Chandigarh Transgender Welfare Board has been acting as a cosmetic feature for the government and did not meet sufficiently to discharge its duties.
The Amicus Curiae (an impartial adviser to a court of law), appointed by the Kerala High Court in Kabeer v. State of Kerala 2021, noted in their report that the Kerala State Transgender Justice Board had not convened a single meeting in the reported year.
The National Council for Transgender Persons constituted under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has just held two meetings in the last four years since its creation.

Only five states have developed a state-level transgender policy, namely, Kerala, Karnataka, Assam, Odisha, and Maharashtra. Assam is the only state in India which has extended quasi-judicial powers to its welfare board. It is a form of delegated authority to ensure compliance with its recommendations under various provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019.
These boards are also not immune to political abandonment when there is a change of ruling party in the state. For instance, the Maharashtra transgender welfare board was a brainchild of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) an alliance of the Shiv Sena (Uddhav faction), NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) and Congress and was allocated Rs 5 crore in the 2020 Maharashtra Budget. In 2022, when the MVA government was dislodged from power by the Mahayuti alliance of the BJP, Shiv Sena (Shinde faction), and NCP (Ajit Pawar faction), no subsequent budgetary allocations were made for the welfare of transgender communities in the following fiscal years.
The trips and traps of representation:
In 2014, in the NALSA vs Union of India case, the Supreme Court of India accorded constitutional recognition to a transgender person’s right to self identity their gender, and judicial directives were given to appropriate governments (Union and state) to assist their lives.
In 2019, the Indian Parliament passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act (TG Act), which envisioned a two-pronged approach to reach out to transgender persons an inclusive approach by formulating a transgender identity card to ‘quantify’ what transness means for the state; and a convergent approach by constituting a nodal body (the welfare board) as a forum comprising of transgender persons and bureaucrats from various in-line ministries/departments at the Union or state level. This nodal body has to protect the rights and interests of transgender persons and facilitate their access to schemes and welfare measures framed by the government.
Both these approaches are riddled with flaws.
Representation of transgender persons in the governance apparatus constructed around the TG Act has two issues the trip and the trap.
First, the Government of India, like its British colonisers, lumped various indigenous and gender non-conforming identities under the single label of “transgender.” This oversimplifies the diversity of gender-nonconforming experiences and identities in India.
In states where boards do exist, it is trans women who have had gender affirmation surgeries who are represented most. Trans men, non-binary persons, and intersex persons barely get a seat.
Ani Dutta, a professor at the University of Iowa, in their research, notes the tendency of Indian bureaucracy to create complicated regulatory rules around judiciary ordained recognitions. In the context of India’s stark socio-economic disparity, only those with resources, community networks, and relative social privilege can navigate these bureaucratic processes to get a transgender identity card.
There are intricate social divisions within the transgender communities. Trans women who have undergone gender affirmation surgeries enjoy a higher social status than trans women who have not undergone nirvana (ritualised castration) or gender affirmation surgeries. This understanding of gender “authenticity“ is implicitly replicated in the TG Act Rules 2020. Section 6 and Section 7 create two class groups Section 6 enables someone to self-identify as transgender but Section 7 adds a condition to the principle of self-identification that requires medical intervention to identify as a man or woman. This classification undermines the spectrum of gender fluidity endemic to India.
Trans women who can undergo nirvana or gender affirmation surgeries and identify as “female“ are the most dominant, visible, and debated narrative of India's story on the principle of self-identification. The predicament of kothis (a term used for trans women who have not had gender affirmation surgeries, and for gay or bisexual men in some contexts), trans men, intersex persons and genderqueer persons, remain sidelined. It is why the possession of a government-issued transgender ID card under its current provisions is becoming a “representation (power) trip” for some on the margins of our society.
For instance, in 2023, when the Hyderabad North Zone police arrested 19 transgender women, “the community mobilisation to resist these illegal arrests was impeded by discussions on how ‘men dress up as a transgender persons’ to run begging rackets in the city and bring a bad name to the trans community,” a genderqueer activist (who prefers to be unnamed) privy to discussions on a trans-queer forum says. In the backdrop of this “authentic us” v. “Imposter them” politics, 19 gender nonconforming persons were stripped naked by the police to examine their genitals.
There is also little diversity in who gets represented in welfare boards, where they are constituted. Kanmani Ray, a lawyer and a transgender woman, says, “Not all transgender persons live in gharanas/jamaats, not all transgender persons can separate from their natal families, forms of violence experienced by transgender persons are different. What we see in welfare boards is that intersex persons and trans men are sidelined in discussions. Like any other marginalised social group, we face intra-community violence and unequal power relations.” The bureaucracy of welfare boards ignores these realities.
The fact that these boards have transgender persons in them is a “representation trap” they offer public visibility to marginalised persons but also make them appear politically complicit in the government’s apathy. While trans and gender non-conforming persons look up to the members of the welfare boards to effect change in their material conditions, the representatives themselves have little power to change policy or even call meetings, as is evidenced by the number of sittings of these boards in most states and UTs.
In 2023, when a group of transgender members of the Telangana Transgender Welfare Board wrote to the Additional Director General of Telangana Police seeking action against a gang of men who were routinely robbing and assaulting trans persons across Hyderabad. The police department ignored these petitions, according to activists. The members of the welfare board could do little as the body has no quasi-judicial powers to investigate the issue or take any action unlike the national and state human rights commissions, women’s commissions, and child welfare bodies.
Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli, an RTI activist, says, “My nominated tenure to the transgender welfare board of my state started and ended without the nodal ministry or its officials outlining the policy framework and power of the board.”
The truth about trans “rights”:
In the 10 years since the NALSA judgement, the needle of social equality hasn’t moved in the “rights” direction in India. This truth is most apparent in the returning figure of a trans person to the judicial corridors to plead for promised but undelivered rights.
Sangama and Nisha Gulur, on behalf of Jeeva an organisation working for the upliftment of transgender persons had to file a PIL with the Karnataka High Court in 2020 for horizontal reservation for trans persons in public employment opportunities. In 2021, Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli and others in Telangana had to knock on the Telangana High Court’s doors for life-supporting amenities during COVID-19. Kantaro Kondagiri had to petition the Odisha High Court in 2022 to seek a trans woman's right to inherit the pension of a parent, which in law is made available to the unmarried daughters of any deceased pensioner. Zena Sagar, a Dalit transgender student of the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute had to move to the Calcutta High Court in 2023 after being denied hostel accommodation because of her gender identity.
Transgender persons struggling for livelihood and resources are still viewed as a public nuisance by the state. Earlier this year, the Pune police commissioner Amitesh Kumar imposed a begging ban against transgender persons in the city with absolute disregard to the 2021 advisory circular issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs which said that obstructing a transgender person’s access to public space would be a violation of section 18 of the TG Act.
Contrary to PM Modi’s resounding claim “We have given transgender persons an identity,” the latest data from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment confirm only 5.6% of the enumerated transgender persons in 2011 have applied for a TG identity card. Why would trans and gender non-conforming persons enlist themselves on the state’s registers without the Indian government proactively working on various dimensions of citizenship like equal and dignified access to family, property, housing, healthcare, social security, education, and employment?
A cursory look at the Union government’s budget allocations and actual expenditure on trans welfare explains why transgender persons continue to exist on the margins in a welfare-centric polity like India. In 2021-22, the government allocated Rs 20 crore for the Comprehensive Rehabilitation for Welfare of Transgender Persons however, only Rs 1.91 crore was spent. In 2022-23, the allocation increased to Rs 30 crore, but the actual amount spent was only 0.4% of this allocation a paltry Rs 12 lakh.

During the last interim budget presentation, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman claimed that providing more people access to existing government welfare schemes is the welfare story of PM Modi’s ten years of governance. However, the exclusion of transgender persons from the Gender Budget Statement and the systematic refusal to mainstream their access to government programmes and schemes beyond the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment shred these high claims.
Raghavi, a lawyer and trans rights activist from Delhi, says, “The insufficient investment in gender-inclusive infrastructure across public institutions and scattered sensitisation programmes for various in-line departments discredits the government’s much-touted saturation-approach.”
Reform or reimagine?:
The reform sought by trans activists we spoke to has three urgent demands power redistribution, inclusive representation and decentralisation.
Grace Banu, a Dalit trans rights activist from Tamil Nadu, points out a fundamental flaw in the design of transgender welfare boards: “The majority of decision-makers on the boards are cisgender men or women, the staff aiding the functioning of these boards are cisgender. Transgender persons are a nominated minority in the composition of a board constituted in their name.”
Vyjayanti adds, “The design of the transgender welfare board does not meaningfully redistribute power to transgender persons, who hold representation on these boards. The power to convene a meeting rests with a bureaucrat, the power to publish the deliberations of these meetings remains with the nodal ministry/department, and the implementation of actionable points remains dependent on the goodwill of various department officials.”
The nominal representation of trans persons on the board without any power makes them a rubber duck to face pushback from trans-queer communities on the government’s inaction. “We get a seat, not say,” remarks Vyjayanti.
Rituparna Neog, associate vice chairperson of the Assam Transgender Welfare Board, explains the material limitations of these boards. “The lack of annual allocation of funds for the functioning of the welfare board impairs the ability of its transgender members to intervene in any emergency situations related to the community.” The notion that social work is a self-financed undertaking restricts the participation of working-class and unemployed community organisers in these nominated roles. No welfare board in India offers its members a nominal salary to carry out the board's work. Except for Tamil Nadu, various welfare boards in India do not even provide travel allowance to their transgender members to attend board meetings.
Grace, Vyjayanti, and Rituparna agree on the fact that most welfare boards do not have prescribed policy guidelines for their nominated members to push for an actionable agenda, nor are these bodies accorded quasi-judicial authority like various human or women's rights commissions to enforce compliance. These boards need to be converted into statutory independent commissions with legal permits to oversee compliance with the government agenda, and take cognisance of human rights violations being committed against trans and gender non-conforming persons within their administrative jurisdiction.
Regarding inclusive representation, Arun Karthik (He/Him), a member of the Tamil Nadu Transgender Welfare Board and a trans man, explains the structural inequality within these representative boards. “Currently in Tamil Nadu whenever a trans man wants to report an incident in the TG welfare board meetings, other members (bureaucrats and trans women) do not provide them equal space or attention,” he says.
He adds, “The schemes and benefits being provided by the Tamil Nadu government are disproportionately offered to trans women. Till 2023, the Government Orders (GO) released by the Social Welfare Department of Tamil Nadu (the nodal body for the Transgender Welfare Board) used to only mention the term Thirunangai (the Tamil word for transgender women) as beneficiaries. It was a term popularised by the late ex Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu K Karunanidhi for trans women in the state. The government officials repeatedly reject the applications of trans men under these schemes as these circulars do not mention the term trans man or Thirunambi (nambi denotes man).” It is a telling reality of the popular imagination that remains hinged on the idea that transgender means trans women.
Further, there is a need for decentralisation. Tashi Choedup, a trans-feminine Buddhist monastic (nunk) and a nominated member of the Telangana Transgender Welfare Board, suggests, “The government needs to decentralise its work of actualising trans rights. Local transgender persons, with a more situated awareness of local politics and conditions, need to be involved and employed at a district level to enable the transfer of welfare schemes and opportunities to transgender constituents.”
Don Hasar, a trans/queer rights activist and community organiser from Himachal Pradesh says, “I live in a mountainous terrain, where even to beg the government to enact the provisions of the TG Act or access the TG ID card, is a time-consuming and expensive ordeal. One has to travel eight hours from the mountains to the valley to furnish a representation to the designated department and further wait for a bureaucrat to entertain our query. For a lot of unemployed and working-class trans persons, it is not feasible in terms of time, money and access.”
Disha Pinki Sheikh, the state spokesperson of Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi and a trans woman, says problems need to be seen within their context. “Transgender persons living in Mumbai have different issues from the ones in Pune or Vidarbha. Our capacity to collectivise as a bargaining group also differs. For a community which has been historically discriminated against, there is a greater need for local participation than nominal representation. The government needs to involve transgender persons in different regions of the state to make and implement a policy in a participatory sense,” she says.
“For instance, when the government announces an entrepreneurial or start-up scheme at a state level and does not notify its eligibility rules and application process to its various districts, a transgender person from a rural area in Nagpur would not have the capacity to follow up on the opportunity like a person who has the support of CBOs/NGOs concentrated in cities,” Disha explains, “In urban localities, there is greater collaboration between different civil society actors human rights groups, lawyer networks, and media professionals. Hence, the work of holding the government accountable is shared. In less affluent regions, it is a lonely battle. The transgender applicant has to carry the burden of informing the local government offices of such a scheme, and then await its implementation at a district level. If it does not come through, they must again carry the burden of summoning the appropriate government to a court of law or give up opportunities in silence.”
There is a constitutional urgency to these demands. However, the entire framework of transgender welfare boards carries one caveat with no easy answers. The welfare boards which presently act in an advisory capacity have transgender persons as members who are appointed by the government, rather than elected through any democratic means or communitarian consensus. Thus, it becomes difficult to ascertain whether one privileges the government's will which appoints them, or the community with which they share their identity.
Moreover, the consensus across the political aisle on restricting transgender and gender non-conforming persons’ direct access to the power of law-making and limiting it to welfare boards is symptomatic of India’s pervasive transphobia and the reluctance of various governments and political parties to invest in changing prevailing social attitudes among its population.
Vaivab Das is a PhD student at the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi and a Fulbright Fellow at the University of California Berkeley. They research at intersections of gender, sexuality and law.
This story was produced as part of the InQlusive Newsrooms Media Fellowship 2023. InQlusive Newsrooms is a collaborative project by The News Minute and Queer Chennai Chronicles, supported by Google News Initiative, and is working on making the Indian media more LGBTQIA+ sensitive.

I&B Ministry Refuses to Disclose Info on Content, Status, Consultative Process of Broadcasting Bill

The Wire: New Delhi: Thursday, 24 October 2024.
In response to RTI requests by activist Anjali Bhardwaj, the government denied information citing Section 8(1)(d) and section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

The Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has refused to provide details of the status of the Broadcasting Service (Regulation) Bill, including a copy of the bill that was circulated to select stakeholders in July 2024, the list of persons with whom it was shared, responses received through the Right to Information (RTI) have revealed.
Transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj, through an RTI, had sought to know a list of names of all stakeholders with whom the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill was shared in July 2024, a copy of the text of the bill, and records authorising the sharing of the bill.
In its response, the MIB has said that the draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill was “placed in the public domain on 10.11.2023 along with explanatory notes for comments of the stakeholders and the general public, which is available at this Ministry’s website www.mib.gov.in. In response, multiple recommendations/ comments/ suggestions were received including from various Associations.”
Ministry response silent on current status, refers to old statement
The ministry response stated that certain parts of the draft bill was updated subsequently and a fresh draft will only be published after detailed consultation.
“Series of consultations were held with the stakeholders on the draft Bill subsequently and based upon the deliberations therein, certain parts of the Bill were updated and shared with certain participants for comments. However, it has been decided to provide additional time till 15.10.2024 to solicit comments/ suggestions on the draft Bill placed in public domain on 10.11.2023 itself and that a fresh draft will be published after detailed consultations,” it said.
It added that the bill is at the drafting stage and referred to a statement on X (formerly Twitter) put out by the ministry in August.
The old draft version the Ministry referred to had all draconian features of a fully controlled media environment and a bid to push digital media into government and executive control. Right to Information or RTI applications had at least partially revealed the negative feedback that MIB had got after the first draft was circulated.
In its response to the RTI request seeking a copy of the bill and the names of the stakeholders to whom it was circulated, the ministry has refused to provide it by citing t Section B(l)(d) of the Right to Information Act 2005.
“It is informed that Section 8(l)(d) of the Right to Information Act 2005 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information and Section 8(l)(e) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. Given the above position, the information requested in the RTI application is denied,” it said.
In a statement, Bhardwaj said that the ministry has invoked the exemption “without demonstrating how the disclosure would ‘harm the competitive position of a third party’ and which is the third party whose interests would be harmed.”
‘Selective sharing of a version of the bill raises serious questions’
“The secrecy in the deliberation and consultative process is alarming given the far-reaching consequences of the bill. The selective sharing of a version of the bill raises serious questions about the consultative process,” Bhardwaj’s statement said.
“The Ministry has not provided any specific response to the queries on whether the 2023 or 2024 versions of the Broadcasting Bill have been withdrawn. No specific exemption clause has been cited to deny the information sought. As a result, there is no clarity on the status of the Broadcasting bill,” the statement added.
“This violates peoples’ right to information and erodes public trust in the law-making process. The failure to furnish requisite information will be challenged in the appeal process under the RTI Act.”
The ministry’s statement on X in August came after about 14 copies of watermarked versions of a variation of the December draft to select ‘stakeholders’ was put out in July.
Once news got out on August 12, that the government has also asked for a return of the physical copies of the second draft it had put out, critics of the bill saw it as the Modi government putting the bill on ice.
The draft bill had evoked criticism for looking to bring all news and news-adjacent content online text, podcasts, audio, video under its sole regulatory oversight. In December 2023, the Internet Freedom Foundation had written that: “By expanding the restrictive regulations currently applied to cable tv and radio, to “Over-the-Top” (“OTT”) content & digital news published by individuals/ companies, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (“MIB”) is allowing for executive control over online free speech and artistic content.”

AMC rejects RTI request, asks councillor to prove he’s Indian

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Thursday, 24 October 2024.

An elected councillor recently found himself on the receiving end of a head-scratching bureaucratic snafu. Kalu Bharwad, an independent councillor from Lambha ward, was denied information about a local waste-to-energy plant under the Right to Information (RTI) Act because, according to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC), he didn't "apply as an Indian citizen". Interestingly, Bharwad had submitted his RTI request on his official letterhead issued by the same civic body questioning his citizenship!
It seems being elected doesn't automatically prove your citizenship, said Bharwad, who had sought clarification on whether the construction plans for a waste-to-energy plant, approved by AMC's solid waste management department, had been sanctioned. However, the AMC urban development department denied his request.
The refusal was based on a technicality: Bharwad had not attached proof of citizenship with his application, as required under new RTI rules. The rejection, however, sparked controversy, as Bharwad is an elected representative, and his letterhead clearly identified him. After raising the issue with higher authorities, AMC officials admitted their error and assured Bharwad that the necessary information would be provided in due time.
Bharwad explained, "The civic body has approved various waste management projects in the Pirana area of the city. The waste-to-energy plant near our village has raised several concerns, especially after a noisy trial run. We wanted to know whether the project had been properly approved. But instead, my application was denied on the grounds of citizenship." He added that the matter has since been resolved, with the request now being processed by the proper department.
An AMC official, speaking anonymously, clarified that under the updated RTI guidelines, applicants must declare their Indian citizenship and attach proof of identification. "In cases where this is not done, applications are rejected and the applicants are asked to submit the requests again. This time ensuring that they sign the declaration on the form affirming they are Indian citizens, and submit their ID proof," the official said.
In this instance, the oversight occurred because Bharwad's ID proof was not included, but the error was promptly corrected, and the application is now being reviewed, the official added.

RTI museum foundation stone laid in Rajasthan with focus on digital exclusion

The Hindu: Jaipur: Thursday, 24 October 2024.
Eminent lawyers, former judges and hundreds of people participate in function.

Social activist and president of the National Federation of Indian
Women, Aruna Roy, with former judge of the Supreme Court
Justice Madan Lokur, social activist Nikhil Dey and others during
the foundation stone laying ceremony of the Right to Information
(RTI) Museum, in Beawar, Rajasthan,
Sunday, October 20, 2024 | Photo Credit: PTI

The foundation stone for a people’s Right to Information Museum was recently laid at Beawar, the birthplace of the RTI movement, in the presence of eminent lawyers and former judges with focus on digital exclusion in social security pensions. About 13.5 lakh people in Rajasthan have been waiting for release of their pensions, which were stopped following a discrepancy in the digital database.
Hundreds of people from all walks of life gathered in Beawar to attend ‘Jashn-e-Samvidhan’ organised as a festival of democracy and RTI. Former judges Madan B. Lokur, Govind Mathur and S. Muralidhar, lawyers Prashant Bhushan and Prashanto Chandra Sen and social activists Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey addressed the gathering, while laying emphasis on ensuring social security of vulnerable sections of the population.
The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), which has been waging struggles for people’s rights relating to land, minimum wages and forests, had organised a prolonged dharna in Beawar in April-May 1996 demanding an RTI law, when it was unheard of.
The dharna, which lasted for 40 days, went on to become a movement for transparency, accountability and participatory democracy and led to the establishment of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI). The movement forced the Rajasthan government to pass the State RTI Act in 2000, after which Parliament enacted the RTI Act in 2005.
An aesthetically built RTI memorial came up at the dharna venue, Chang Gate, in 2016 to give recognition to peasants and labourers who launched the campaign for their right to know the way the government functioned and spent public money. The RTI museum will be designed with focus on documenting the RTI movement’s history and various provisions in the law.
A stone slab with the Preamble of the Constitution inscribed in Hindi and English was laid on the RTI museum’s land on June 12 this year. Ms. Roy said the museum would function as a resource centre for reference and learning on rights-based movements and serve as a central repository and archive for all the documents, materials and film footage available with the MKSS and other organisations.
Justice Lokur, the former Supreme Court judge, said people from all generations should come together to save the Constitution. “There is no justification for stopping the social security pensions on any ground… It is a form of corruption. Pension for all the eligible people should be restored without delay,” he said.
Activists pointed out that the pensions of about 13.5 lakh people had been cancelled in the State with the reasons marked as ‘dead’ or ‘out of State’ during the annual verification exercise. A large number of the beneficiaries were deprived of their pensions because of a mismatch in the digital database of the Central and State governments.
Mr. Bhushan, public interest lawyer in the Supreme Court, said the space for dissent and protest was being curtailed in the country and the people’s voice was being suppressed. He said the people should fight on the ground and in the courts to secure their rights and hold the bureaucrats and elected representatives accountable.
A tribunal heard the instances of denial of pensions in Beawar and Jawaja on the occasion, while affirming that the loss of pension had left beneficiaries without crucial financial support necessary for food security, old age, disability and health. The MKSS also demanded that the State government notify rules to implement the Minimum Guaranteed Income Act, 2023.