Tata Sons Faces IPO Uncertainty With RBI Deliberating On CIC Surrender Plea

NDTV Profit: National: Thursday, 21 November 2024.

Tata Sons has submitted its application to surrender its core investment company registration this year, the Reserve Bank of India confirmed, responding to a Right to Information Act query last week.
The application for the surrender of certificate of registration by Tata Sons was submitted on March 28, 2024. "The application submitted by Tata Sons for surrender of COR as a CIC is under examination," the RTI act said.
This has come as Tata Sons, classified as a CIC under the Reserve Bank of India's Scale-Based Regulation framework, is expected to list by September 30, 2025.
According to the rules laid down by the regulator, upper-layer NBFCs are expected to list within three years of the list being created.
Tata Sons' application to surrender its CIC status is seen as a potential way to sidestep the RBI’s regulations, which will allow the company to remain private.
In 2022, the RBI introduced scale based regulation framework, which imposes stricter governance and transparency norms on systemically important non-banking financial companies.
Bankers are of the view that Tata Sons would require six to eight months to prepare for an IPO. On the other hand, experts have warned that organizing an IPO of this scale would typically require at least six to eight months, leaving Tata Sons with a narrowing window for compliance.
If the RBI accepts the company's proposal to surrender as CICI, the company would be exempted from listing norms, bypassing the governance and transparency requirements mandated for listed companies.
So far, Bajaj Finance, L&T Finance and LIC Housing Finance have stepped up their efforts to comply with the RBI's listing norms.

Long delays in responses undermine Telangana’s RTI framework

The Hindu: Hyderabad: Thursday, 21 November 2024.

Those seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act have been facing long delays in getting responses. The absence of a reconstituted and fully functioning Telangana State Information Commission has exacerbated the problem.
A visit to the website Telangana RTI Online shows that though it has 114 ‘Public Authorities’ (such as several tahsildars of mandals), it lacks many others like tahsildars of mandals coming under the GHMC.The website shows that 3,508 citizens have registered with it and filed a total of 4,806 RTI requests. Another 544 first appeals have been preferred.
The case of Md. A. Akram illustrates the current situation. He filed an RTI request in March this year, seeking data on the number of cases the State government had handled concerning Indian workers employed in West Asian countries. Despite complying with a payment request of ₹150 from the government, the information sought has not been shared with him.
“There is a provision in the RTI Act that enables providing information in an electronic format. Nevertheless, I complied with their request for payment [for offline response]. But I am yet to receive the information,” Mr. Akram said, adding that successive governments the previous BRS administration and the incumbent Congress-led one failed to prioritise the establishment of a robust RTI framework.
Activists voiced concerns regarding the government’s delay in reconstituting the State Information Commission, a panel crucial for addressing second appeals and ensuring accountability. “A large number of RTI applications remain pending with the State Information Commission. The commission is like a watchdog that keeps the RTI mechanism running effectively,” an RTI activist, who sought anonymity, said, underlining the growing backlog of unresolved appeals.
Kareem Ansari, associated with the RTI portal youRTI.in, highlighted that queries filed on critical issues such as the Musi river development, demolition drives and the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) have been met with prolonged silence.
“We sought to know whether Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) had been prepared, the modalities and other related details. These queries are often transferred between departments sometimes to the Irrigation Department and other times to a tahsildar’s office but we received no response for two or three months. The RTI is a tool for transparency. When this transparency is lacking, it is the authorities’ responsibility to take note and implement remedial measures,” said Mr. Ansari.
An RTI request filed in February this year seeking updates on the appointment of information commissioners and a Chief Information Commissioner received a terse response: “The information related to the appointment of information commissioners will be furnished as and when the process of appointment is completed.”

હવે આરટીઆઈ હેઠળ માહિતી આપવા માટે પણ લાંચની માંગણી

Gujarat Samachar: Rajkot: Wednesday, 20 November 2024.
ખાણ ખનીજ વિભાગના ક્લાર્કે આરટીઆઈ હેઠળ ખૂટતી માહિતી આપવા માટે રૃા. 10 હજારની લાંચ માગી હતી

રાજકોટ : સરકારી તંત્રોના વહીવટમાં પારદર્શિતા રહે અને ભ્રષ્ટાચાર અટકે તેવા હેતુથી ૨૦૦૫માં આરટીઆઈ લાગુ કરવામાં આવ્યો હતો. તે વખતે કોઇને કલ્પના નહીં પણ હોય કે આરટીઆઈમાં માહિતી આપવા માટે જ ભ્રષ્ટાચાર કરાશે. સુરેન્દ્રનગરના બહુમાળી ભવનમાં આવેલી ખાણ ખનીજ કચેરીના જુનિયર ક્લાર્ક અમૃત ઉર્ફે આનંદ કેહરભાઈ મકવાણાને આરટીઆઈ અંગે માહિતી આપવા માટે રૃા. ૧૦ હજારની લાંચ લેતા  આજે એસીબીએ રંગેહાથ ઝડપી લીધા હતા.
એસીબીના સૂત્રોના જણાવ્યા પ્રમાણે ફરિયાદીએ સીલીકા રેતીની લીઝની માગણી કરી હતી. જે લાંબા સમયથી પેન્ડિંગ હતી. તેના માટે જરૃરી માહિતી મેળવવા માટે ફરિયાદીએ આરટીઆઈ કરી હતી. જે સંદર્ભે કચેરી દ્વારા અધૂરી માહિતી આપવામાં આવી હતી.
બાકી રહેલી માહિતી આપવા માટે કચેરી ખાતે માહિતી આપવાની પ્રક્રિયા કરતાં આરોપીએ રૃા. ૧૦ હજારની લાંચની માંગ કરી હતી. પરંતુ ફરિયાદી લાંચની રકમ આપવા માંગતા ન હોવાથી જામનગર એસીબીનો સંપર્ક કર્યો હતો. જેના આધારે રાજકોટ એસીબી એકમના ઇન્ચાર્જ મદદનીશ નિયામક કે.એચ. ગોહીલના માર્ગદર્શન હેઠળ પી.આઈ. આર.એન. વિરાણીએ ટ્રેપ ગોઠવી હતી.
જે દરમિયાન આરોપી સુરેન્દ્રનગરના બહુમાળી ભવન ખાતે આવેલી ખાણ ખનીજ વિભાગની કચેરીના ગેઇટ પાસેથી જ ફરિયાદી પાસેથી રૃા. ૧૦ હજારની લાંચ લેતા રંગેહાથ એસીબીની ઝપટે ચડી ગયા હતા. એસીબીએ આરોપી સામે ગુનો દાખલ કરી તપાસ આગળ ધપાવી છે.

HC judge, journalists among 161 applicants for 8 vacancies at CIC

Business Standard: New Delhi: Wednesday, 20 November 2024.
The Central Information Commission has one Chief Information Commissioner and 10 Information Commissioners. The transparency watchdog has eight vacant positions of Information Commissioners

The government has received 161 applications for eight vacant positions of Information Commissioners at the Central Information Commission with applicants from varied backgrounds including a sitting Delhi High Court Judge expressing interest in the job, according to a DoPT list.
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has given the list of 161 applicants in response to an RTI query filed by Commodore Lokesh Batra (retd).
The list contains names of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta of Delhi High Court, Special Commissioner Delhi Police Rajender Pal Upadhyay, serving and retired officers from armed forces Lt Gen Jaiveer Singh Negi, Group Captain Praveen Shukla, Capt (IN) Abhay Kumar Paluskar, Lt Gen Paramjit Singh Minhas, Lt Gen Manoj Kumar Mago, Lt Gen Harsha Gupta, Lt Gen PR Venkatesh, Lt Gen Ranbir Singh Salaria among others.
Journalist GK Suresh Babu associated with Janam TV from Thiruvananthapuram, retired Professor of Political Science from Mysore University Muzaffar Hussein Assadi are also among the applicants.
Former Indian Forest Service Officer Pankaj Asthana, Ajay Bhatnagar are also among the 161 applicants.
The Central Information Commission has one Chief Information Commissioner and 10 Information Commissioners. The transparency watchdog has eight vacant positions of Information Commissioners.
The CIC is the highest appellate authority in the RTI matters with powers to levy penalties upto Rs 25,000 on government officers who do not furnish responses to RTI petitions in a timely manner or violate provisions of the law.
The Department of Personnel and Training had issued advertisement seeking applications for the post of eight Information Commissioners on August 14 this year.
According to the procedure in the Right to Information Act, particulars of interested persons are invited through advertisements in newspapers and through the DoPT Website.
The names of applicants are sent to a search committee (constituted by the Prime Minister) and chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.
Names of all the candidates including the shortlisted ones along with their applications is sent to the Committee headed by the Prime Minister which also includes Leader of the Opposition, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the prime minister.
The names cleared by the three-member committee are appointed by the President for a period of five years or the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.

ગુજરાતમાં ભ્રષ્ટાચાર વકર્યો, RTI ની માહિતી માટે લાંચ લેવાનો પ્રથમ કિસ્સો

Gujarat First: Surendranagar: Tuesday, 19 November 2024.

RTI : કેન્દ્ર સરકાર હોય કે રાજ્ય સરકાર તેના વિભાગો કેવી રીતે કામ કરે છે અને શું કામ કરે છે તેમજ ક્યાં-ક્યાં નાણા ખર્ચે છે ? આ માહિતી જાણવાનો સામાન્ય નાગરિકને અધિકાર છે. આ માહિતી અધિકાર એટલે કે, Right to Information Act. ભ્રષ્ટાચારની પોલ ખોલવા માટેનો કાયદો એટલે માહિતી અધિકાર. ગુજરાતના લગભગ તમામ સરકારી - અર્ધ સરકારી વિભાગોના ભ્રષ્ટાચારી બાબુઓને RTI નો કાયદો જરા સરખો પણ પસંદ નથી. ગુજરાત એસીબી (ACB Gujarat) એ સુરેન્દ્રનગરમાં નોંધેલા એક લાંચ કેસમાં સામે આવેલી હકિકતે રાજ્ય સરકારમાં ચાલતી બેફામ લાંચિયાવૃત્તિની પોલ ખોલી નાંખી છે.
RTI માટે લાંચ લેવાનો રાજ્યમાં પ્રથમ કિસ્સો:
સુરેન્દ્રનગર ખાણ ખનિજ કચેરીમાં સીલીકા રેતીની લીઝ માટે પ્રક્રિયા કરનાર એક નાગરિકની અરજી ફાઈલોમાં દબાઈ ગઈ હતી. લાંબાગાળાથી લીઝની અરજી પડતર હોવાથી અરજદારે RTI અન્વયે ખાણ ખનિજ વિભાગ પાસે માહિતી માગી હતી. જો કે, કચેરી તરફથી આપવામાં આવેલી માહિતી અધૂરી હતી. બાકી માહિતી મેળવવા માટે જુનિયર ક્લાર્ક અમૃત ઉર્ફે આનંદ કહેરભાઇ મકવાણા (ઉ. 57) એ અરજદાર પાસે 10 હજાર રૂપિયાની લાંચ માગી હતી. અરજદારે આ મામલે જામનગર એસીબીના પીઆઈ આર. એન. વિરાણી (R N Virani PI) નો સંપર્ક કર્યો હતો. સુરેન્દ્રનગર બહુમાળી ભવન ખાણ ખનિજ વિભાગ (Mines and Minerals Department) ના ગેટ પાસે ગોઠવવામાં આવેલા છટકામાં અમૃત ઉર્ફે આનંદ 10 હજારની લાંચ લેતા રંગે હાથ ઝડપાઈ ગયા હતા. અત્રે નોંધનીય છે કે, RTI ની માહિતી આપવા માટે લાંચ માગવામાં આવી હોય તેવો આ સત્તાવાર કેસ Gujarat ACB ના ચોપડે નોંધાયો છે.
નિવૃત્તિના આખરી પડાવમાં ઝડપાયો લાંચીયો ક્લાર્ક:
ગુજરાત સરકાર (Gujarat Government) ના ખાણ ખનિજ વિભાગમાં ભ્રષ્ટાચાર વિના એક કાગળ પણ ટેબલથી આગળ નથી વધતો. ખનન માફિયાઓ અને રાજકીય નેતાઓ સાથે ખાણ ખનિજ વિભાગની મીલીભગત જગ જાહેર છે. રાજ્યભરમાં થતા ગેરકાયદે ખનનની યાદીમાં સુરેન્દ્રનગર જિલ્લો અગ્ર હરોળમાં સ્થાન પામે છે. સૂત્રો પાસેથી મળતી માહિતી અનુસાર 10 હજારની લાંચ લેતા પકડાયેલા અમૃત ઉર્ફે આનંદ મકવાણા (રહે. લીંબડી, જિ. સુરેન્દ્રનગર) છેલ્લાં દસેક વર્ષથી સુરેન્દ્રનગર ખાતે ફરજ બજાવે છે. 85 હજારનો પગાર મેળવતા અમૃત ઉર્ફે આનંદ નામના આધેડ કર્મચારી આગામી બે મહિનામાં ખાણ ખનિજ વિભાગમાંથી નિવૃત્ત થવાના હતા.

Junior clerk caught taking Rs10,000 bribe to furnish details under the Right to Information Act (RTI)

Times of India: Rajkot: Tuesday, 19 November 2024.

A junior clerk of the mines and mineral department in Surendranagar district was caught taking Rs 10,000 as a bribe to furnish details under the Right to Information Act (RTI) on Monday.
Amrut alias Anand Kehrabhai, a class three officer, sought a bribe from the complainant who wanted reasons for the delay in the lease for silica sand. The application remained unprocessed for a long time.
After filing an RTI application to obtain the required details, the complainant received incomplete information from the office. Subsequently, Amrut demanded Rs 10,000 to provide the remaining details. The complainant, refusing to comply with the unlawful demand, approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which laid a trap and caught him outside the department's entrance.

चंबा में पंचायत सचिव पर 25 हजार का जुर्माना:राज्य सूचना आयुक्त ने दिया आदेश; RTI में मांगी सूचना की नहीं दी जानकारी

Dainik Bhaskar: Chamba: Saturday, 16 November 2024.

चंबा जिले में RTI के तहत मांगी गई जानकारी न देना पर विकास खंड मैहला के पंचायत सचिव पर 25 हजार रुपए का जुर्माना लगाया गया है। यह जुर्माना राज्य मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त आरडी धीमान ने लगाया है।
RTI कार्यकर्ता भगत राम ने सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 6 (1) के तहत निर्माण कार्य नहर ब्रहमाणी से गांव टिक्कर के लिए जारी किए मस्टर रोल के बारे में 4 फरवरी 2022 को सूचना मांगी।
RTI अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 7(1) के तहत यह सूचना उन्हें 30 दिन के भीतर प्रदान करनी अनिवार्य थी। लेकिन, लोक सूचना अधिकारी एवं पंचायत सचिव ने यह जानकारी उन्हें निर्धारित समय पर नहीं दी।
आग्रह करने पर भी नहीं दी जानकारी:
इसके बारे में आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता ने लोक सूचना अधिकारी एवं पंचायत सचिव के मोबाइल नंबर के वॉट्सऐप नंबर पर मैसेज कर उन्हें जानकारी मुहैया करवाने को लेकर आग्रह किया। इसके बाद भी उन्हें कोई सूचना नहीं मिल पाई।
इसके बाद RTI कार्यकर्ता ने पहली अपील विकास खंड अधिकारी मैहला के पास की और उनसे आग्रह किया कि लोक सूचना अधिकारी एवं पंचायत सचिव को निर्देश जारी किए जाएं कि वह मांगी गई जानकारी जल्द मुहैया करवाएं।
राज्य सूचना आयोग में की अपील:
इस पर विकास खंड अधिकारी ने अपील की सुनवाई के लिए 23 अगस्त 2022 की तिथि तय की। लेकिन, उस दिन किसी कारणों के चलते सुनवाई नहीं हो पाई। इसके बाद आगामी तिथि के दिन सुनवाई के दौरान पंचायत कर्मी को जानकारी मुहैया करवाने को लेकर निर्देश दिए गए। बावजूद इसके भी जानकारी प्रदान न करने पर RTI कार्यकर्ता ने दूसरी अपील हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य सूचना आयोग में कर दी।

We need a ‘public interest override’ in the RTI Act : Shamsul Bari, Ruhi Naz

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Saturday, 16 November 2024.

Since the interim government of Bangladesh assumed power in August 2024, we have been advocating for the immense potential of the Right to Information Act (RTI) 2009 in promoting transparent and accountable governance. In today's column, we highlight a crucial principle of transparency currently missing from our RTI Act but deserving inclusion: the "public interest override." The principle has been incorporated into the laws of many liberal democracies worldwide, making it a part of a larger global movement.
International standards for transparent governance, which have evolved since the end of the Second World War, advocate for the "principle of maximum disclosure" as the ideal for all RTI laws. It asserts that, as a general rule, citizens have the right to access all information held by the government, with very few exceptions. These exceptions should be as narrow as possible and aimed solely at protecting the state's legitimate interests. In other words, public interest should be the yardstick when balancing citizens' right to information concerning governance and the state's legitimate need to safeguard certain sensitive information.
RTI Acts, also known as Freedom of Information (FOI) Acts adopted by over 130 countries worldwide typically contain specific provisions known as Exemption Clauses, which permit public authorities to withhold certain information from citizens. This information often relates to national security, international relations, personal privacy, commercial confidentiality, etc.
To prevent misuse of these exemptions for withholding information of particular public interest, a "public interest override" clause has been added to most RTI laws enacted since 1990. This means that if the public interest outweighs the likely harm to the state's interest, even an exempted piece of information must be disclosed by public authorities, thus exempting the exemption clause. Public authorities must, therefore, carry out an inherent "harm test" when making decisions about information requests that may fall within the purview of the exemption clause.
The Bangladesh Act does not contain such an "override" clause. But given the country's recent surge for democracy, we believe it is time to consider its inclusion. This clause would require public authorities to justify their decisions more thoroughly when rejecting citizens' requests using exemption provisions.
Consider these examples from different parts of the world. In Ontario, Canada, the Information and Privacy Commission (IPC) deemed certain parts of records on a worker's death on company premises to be of compelling public interest. The release of this information would "help inform the public about what the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board had done regarding health and safety conditions at the company" and "inform public debate on the adequacy of current health and safety laws."
In another IPC case, there was a strong public interest in disclosing the probation file of a high-profile criminal, allowing the public to scrutinise the government's knowledge of the probationer at the time of his first conviction and whether correctional agencies acted appropriately in assessing his risk. This public interest outweighed the need to protect the personal information of a killer who later committed eight murders.
Conversely, in the UK, the application of the principle led to a decision against disclosure. A FOI request was sent to the office of the deputy prime minister for a copy of the London Resilience Team Report, which contained findings and recommendations for improving emergency planning and response arrangements in London to cope with serious terrorist incidents. The request was denied on national security and defence grounds and upheld by the ombudsman. Despite recognising the very strong public interest in matters that had the potential to cause harm to the security of London, the Appeals Court found that the benefit of disclosure outweighed the damage it may cause to security. The release could allow terrorists access to information about the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of London to respond to a terrorist attack.
Another UK case involved a journalist who suspected that a university was paying a staff member without any duties and asked whether the staff member was receiving a salary and for details of her duties. The university initially refused the request on grounds of the staff member's privacy, but the appellate authority ruled that the accountability of a public institution outweighed the privacy interests of the employee.
An Ireland case related to a request for information on the total expenses paid to each member of a group, including travel expenses, telephone and other related costs in a given period. The concerned authority initially anonymised the released information, arguing that the members' identities and how much each received was personal information that was entitled to exemption. On appeal, however, the Irish Information Commissioner mandated full disclosure, as the public interest in ensuring accountability for public funds was considered to outweigh the officials' privacy concerns.
In another UK case, an information seeker asked the Department of Agriculture and Food for certain records relating to two companies involved in poultry processing. It was refused on the grounds of protecting commercial interests. In its decision, the Information Commissioner recognised that the records contained information which could damage the reputation and commercial interests of the companies but found significant public interest in the matter since the department carried out regulatory functions in health, food safety, and disease control. He concluded that the interest of the public, as ultimate consumers of poultry products, outweighed the need to protect the commercial interests of the companies.
In neighbouring India, an RTI applicant sought information about the selection of eleven deputy directors of Mines Safety by the Union Public Service Commission. This was denied, citing exemption on personal privacy grounds. Faced with a complaint, the Information Commission ordered the release of the information with the seniority-cum-merit list of the selected candidates without, however, releasing their personal information. On appeal, the court ordered disclosure of personal information as necessary for larger public interest and hence exempt from the exemption provision of the law.
Applying the "public interest override" principle is not straightforward, as defining "public interest" can be challenging. RTI/FOI laws worldwide deliberately avoid doing so, mainly because such interests cover a wide range of situations which are not static but dynamic and evolve continually over time. Its application calls for individual determinations on the specifics of each case. It requires mature judgment and expertise by public authorities and the Information Commission. Despite these challenges, current developments in Bangladesh make it an opportune time to enhance the RTI Act to this higher standard.
(Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are chairman and assistant director (RTI), respectively, of Research Initiatives, Bangladesh, RIB. They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com.)

District Election Officer Rubbishes Pune Municipal Commissioner’s Decision To Deny Flood Report Citing Model Code of Conduct!: Vinita Deshmukh

Moneylife: Pune: Friday, 15 November 2024.

In a surprising justification from someone as senior as an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, the denial of information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has been attributed to the model code of conduct currently in effect in Maharashtra due to the upcoming assembly elections scheduled for 20th November.
Noted RTI activist Vivek Velankar sought information under section 4 of the RTI Act of certified copies of the two parts of the flood control report, submitted by a committee, after the flash floods in July 2024 in Pune that witnessed heavy disruption. While four lives were lost, many residential complexes in the city’s low-lying areas have been flooded, prompting the deployment of army personnel to expedite the evacuation efforts. Chief minister Eknath Shinde also swung into action. ANI news agency tweeted thus:
The Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) has a historic first to its credit, for the `RTI Open Day’ every Monday from 3pm to 5pm, to facilitate citizens to conduct inspection of files as per suo motu disclosures under section 4 of the RTI Act, in any department of this civic body.
Thus, RTI activist Velankar, in the last week of October 2024, visited the relevant public information officer (PIO) for copies of the flood control report which was submitted to the PMC by four engineers of this civic body. However, he was told that it was with municipal commissioner Dr Rajendra Bhosale. Accordingly, Mr Velankar visited Dr Bhosale and made the request. The latter took it out from his cupboard and showed the report to Mr Velankar.
Mr Velankar says, “The two-part report had detailed information about the reasons for the dangerous nature of flash floods which were largely human-made. These comprised encroachments on water bodies, flouting of rules by the builders, concretising natural small streams and so on.”
When Mr Velankar requested a copy of part 2 of the report immediately after having gone through it, Dr Bhosale declined, stating that the model code of conduct is in effect presently, due to the Maharashtra assembly elections and hence he was unable to provide it. Mr Velankar challenged him to give it in writing to which Dr Bhosale said he should make a formal request.
Thereafter, Mr Velankar submitted a formal request for a certified copy of part 2 of the flood control report which had crucial details of the reasons for the disaster. To this, Milind Chaturbhuj, PIO of PMC, officially parroted what his boss had told Mr Velankar – that Mr Velankar had already been shown the information, but the copy of the report could not be given due to the existing model code of conduct.

Mr Velankar approached Suhas Divse, collector of Pune, who now is also the district election officer, who dismissed the illogical reasoning of the municipal commissioner and his PIO. When Moneylife contacted Mr Divse, he reiterated that “The model code of conduct has nothing to do with denying information. However, it is not in my jurisdiction to direct a senior officer like the municipal commissioner to provide information. Hence, I have directed Mr Velankar to deal with it as per the provisions of the RTI Act and take the next step accordingly.”
Another RTI Activist, Vijay Kumbhar is shocked at this reply and stated, “It is strange that the report was shown to Mr Velankar but he was refused a copy of it because of the model code of conduct. How can a municipal commissioner who is a senior IAS officer, give such a foolish answer?”
Former central information commissioner (CIC) and RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi stated sternly, “What has the model code of conduct got to do with the RTI Act, which is a law? Have they suspended all laws in the state of Maharashtra because of the model code of conduct? If this is the stance of the IAS officer, then it must come after the state government and the election commissioner having an open position by declaring that all laws are officially suspended during election time. It is preposterous.”
First, we have largely bureaucrats who, after their retirement, become CICs to continue red tapism and now we have a serving IAS officer who either pretends or does not know the RTI law. Indeed, distressing.

Hindenburg Buch Allegations: SEBI Invoking Section 7(9) of RTI Act to Avoid Sharing Information Raises Further Questions: Pavan Korada

The Wire: New Delhi: Friday, 15 November 2024.
RTI Activist Lokesh Batra says SEBI’s application of Section 7(9) to RTIs is misguided. 'Section 7(9) was never intended as a shield to block access to information. It’s a practical measure for resource management, not a way to evade disclosure on critical public interest matters.'

In August 2024, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) released a statement asserting that its chairperson, Madhabi Puri Buch, had “recused herself in matters involving potential conflict of interest.” The statement was a response to allegations from the US-based short-seller Hindenburg Research, which claimed Buch held undisclosed ties to offshore entities linked to Adani Group. Yet recent developments have raised questions about SEBI’s transparency in addressing these potential conflicts.
Following SEBI’s announcement, a Right to Information (RTI) request was filed, seeking details on cases in which Buch had recused herself due to conflicts of interest.
SEBI responded that information on Buch’s recusals was “not readily available” and that compiling it would “disproportionately divert resources,” invoking Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. This response has left transparency advocates questioning SEBI’s commitment to openness, especially when its impartiality is under increased scrutiny.
In August 2024, as SEBI’s investigation continued, Hindenburg published a follow-up report shifting focus from Adani to SEBI itself. The report alleged that SEBI chairperson Buch had potential conflicts of interest due to undisclosed ties to offshore funds linked to Adani’s network. Hindenburg claimed that Buch and her husband held stakes in funds used by Vinod Adani, brother of Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani, to move funds and influence stock prices.
In response to these allegations, SEBI released a press statement on August 10, asserting that Buch had “recused herself in matters involving potential conflict of interest.” This public statement aimed to reinforce SEBI’s commitment to impartiality, suggesting that Buch had stepped back from cases where her neutrality might be questioned.
The RTI request and SEBI’s invocation of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act
After SEBI’s statement, an RTI request was filed to clarify Buch’s recusals, seeking specific details about the cases from which she had withdrawn. However, on September 20, SEBI’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) responded that information on Buch’s recusals was “not readily available” and collecting it would “disproportionately divert resources,” invoking Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. This section permits authorities to offer information in an alternative format if gathering it in the requested format would consume excessive resources but does not authorise outright denial.
Transparency advocate retired commodore Lokesh Batra criticised SEBI’s application of Section 7(9) as a means to avoid disclosure. “Section 7(9) was never intended as a shield to block access to information,” he said. “It’s a practical measure for resource management, not a way to evade disclosure on critical public interest matters.”
Moreover, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld SEBI’s refusal, adding an institutional layer to the decision to withhold this information. “If SEBI claimed in August to have detailed information on Buch’s recusals, then it should have been able to provide the information requested in the RTI. The refusal suggests a potential lack of transparency,” Batra added.
This discrepancy has raised further doubts about SEBI’s transparency and whether its use of Section 7(9) reflects a strategic manoeuvre to avoid releasing sensitive information rather than a legitimate resource constraint.
Why transparency matters in SEBI’s role as market regulator
Transparency is central to SEBI’s mandate as India’s primary market regulator. SEBI’s role includes safeguarding investor interests and promoting fair practices in the financial markets. With the rise of retail investment in India, transparency and regulatory impartiality have become even more crucial, as millions of new investors rely on SEBI’s oversight.
The RTI controversy raises significant questions about SEBI’s credibility. By declining to disclose details on Buch’s recusals, SEBI risks creating a perception of selective transparency, potentially undermining its assurances of impartiality in the Adani investigation. As one of India’s key regulatory bodies, SEBI’s commitment to openness is essential to maintaining public confidence, especially in cases with broad implications.
As India’s financial markets grow and attract more retail investors, SEBI’s transparency and credibility remain essential for sustaining investor confidence. Moving forward, SEBI’s willingness to adopt greater transparency standards could be crucial in defining its role as a trustworthy steward of India’s financial ecosystem.
Background: The Hindenburg-Adani report and SEBI’s investigation
The controversy over SEBI’s transparency dates back to January 2023, when Hindenburg Research published a report accusing the Adani Group of stock manipulation, hidden debts, and misuse of offshore tax havens. The report alleged that the Adani Group, one of India’s most powerful conglomerates, engaged in financial improprieties compromising the integrity of India’s stock market. The public outcry that followed spurred SEBI to investigate Adani’s financial dealings.
By early 2024, the Supreme Court of India had intervened, ordering SEBI to conduct a thorough investigation and monitor its progress closely. The Supreme Court’s involvement underscored the gravity of the allegations and mandated SEBI to act as an impartial watchdog of India’s financial markets.
Broader implications for regulatory accountability
This situation has led to calls for increased accountability within SEBI, particularly concerning the disclosure of recusals for potential conflicts of interest. Advocates argue that SEBI should adopt a policy of proactive disclosure, making public any recusals by senior officials like Buch in high-profile cases. “Such transparency protocols are standard in many international regulatory frameworks and could help reinforce SEBI’s credibility in the eyes of both domestic and international investors,” Batra said.
The demand for accountability is further fuelled by the perception that SEBI’s response to the RTI request reveals a gap between its public stance and its internal practices. Regulatory experts emphasise that SEBI’s role as a transparent, accountable authority is fundamental to its mission, and that public access to information on recusals is a necessary aspect of that role.
For now, SEBI’s actions leave a lingering question: Can a regulator responsible for overseeing transparency afford to keep its own practices under wraps?

IIM Ahmedabad violating reservation policy in teachers' recruitment? Here’s what RTI reveals

Edex Live: Ahmedabad: Thursday, 14 November 2024.
The RTI read, "At IIMA we do not maintain category-wise data of faculty members. Total faculty members at IIMA (as on 25 September): 103."

A Right to Information (RTI) filed by the All India Other Backward Castes Students Association (AIOBCSA) reveals the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad violation of not following category reservation for teacher recruitment. To note, IIM Ahmedabad is not the first institute violating the recruitment.
Taking this to X (formerly Twitter), the association said, "Why IIM-Ahmedabad is not following category wise rosters and recruitment?" Further it questioned, "How can IIM-Ahmedabad beyond constitutional provisions and social justice agenda of the country?"

Demanding the institute to implement the reservation policy for social justice, the association said, "Implement reservation policy!
The RTI read, "At IIMA we do not maintain category-wise data of faculty members. Total faculty members at IIMA (as on 25 September): 103."
The RTI was filed by AIOBCSC National President Kiran Kumar Gowd on August 27, 2024.
IIM Tiruchirapalli, Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) such as Gandhinagar, Bhubaneswar, Gujarat, Madras, and Bombay are few of the premier institutions who have made headlines for violating the recruitment policy.
As reported earlier, IIM Tiruchirapalli reports a vacancy of 48 reserved faculty positions. And IIT Gandhinagar reported zero Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) faculty. IIT Bhubaneswar has 12.96%, 5.6% and 0.4% of representation of faculty members hailing from OBC, SCs and STs, respectively, earlier RTIs revealed.
These instances at prestigious universities draw attention to how under-represented marginalised individuals are among the faculty members.

Southern Railway refuses to share inquiry report of Perumon train tragedy

The Hindu: Chennai: Thursday, 14 November 2024.
105 people had died in after several coaches of the Island Express fell into the Ashtamudi Lake in 1988

The Southern Railway has refused to disclose details of the investigation into the Perumon train tragedy, in which 105 people lost their lives when the Bangalore-Tiruvananthapuram Central Island Express derailed on a bridge, causing several coaches to plunge into Kerala’s Ashtamudi Lake on July 8, 1988.
The Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) stated that the final report by the Commissioner of Railway Safety, who investigated the accident, was “confidential”. He said that the inquiry reports were statutory documents and were exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The issue arose from a petition filed by Syamdas D., who requested a copy of the inquiry report on the Perumon train accident. The CPIO and First Appellate Authority denied the request, invoking Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, specifically, clause (b) (information prohibited by any court of law or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court) and clause (d) (information related to commercial confidence or intellectual property, where disclosure could harm a third party’s competitive position unless larger public interest justifies it).
Aggrieved by the refusal, the petitioner appealed to the Central Information Commission (CIC) saying that the details called for by him were wrongly denied.
In response, the CPIO argued that the Commissioner of Railway Safety had classified the report as a “confidential document,” not to be produced or cited as evidence in court. As a result, the information requested was considered expressly forbidden from publication under the RTI Act.
Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari, after reviewing arguments from both sides, upheld the CPIO’s decision, concluding that it complied with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Railway sources said that the exact cause of the Perumon accident remains undetermined.
Theories such as a tornado, excessive speed of the train on the bridge, faulty wheels, and poor track maintenance were suspected but never confirmed by any authorised agency till date.

RTI Act: बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट का बड़ा फैसला, सरकारी भर्ती परीक्षा के नंबर निजी नहीं, आरटीआई से ले सकते हैं जानकारी

News18: Mumbai: Wednesday, 13 November 2024.
RTI Act, Bombay High Court: 

बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट ने सरकारी भर्ती परीक्षा के संबंध में एक बड़ा फैसला सुनाया है. बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट के मुताबिक, सरकारी भर्ती परीक्षा में हासिल किए गए अंक सार्वजनिक होते हैं. आरटीआई के जरिए किसी भी कैंडिडेट के मार्क्स पता किए जा सकते हैं. इससे किसी की गोपनीयता या निजी जानकारी का हनन नहीं होता है.
बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट ने एक फैसले में सार्वजनिक पदों के लिए भर्ती प्रक्रिया को पारदर्शी रखने की बात की है. बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट के मुताबिक, सरकारी भर्ती परीक्षा में हासिल किए गए अंक निजी नहीं होते हैं. अगर कोई कैंडिडेट किसी अन्य कैंडिडेट के मार्क्स जानना चाहता है तो उसकी जानकारी आरटीआई के जरिए ले सकता है. सरकारी भर्ती परीक्षा के अंकों का खुलासा किसी की भी प्राइवेसी को भंग नहीं करता है.
पीठ ने ओंकार कलमनकर की तरफ से दायर याचिका पर यह आदेश जारी किया है. इसमें पुणे जिला न्यायालय में जूनियर क्लर्क के पद के लिए 2018 में परीक्षा में शामिल होने वाले उम्मीदवारों की तरफ से हासिल किए गए अंकों की डिटेल्स मांगी गई थीं. जस्टिस एमएस सोनक और जितेंद्र जैन की खंडपीठ ने कहा कि ऐसी जानकारी को रोकने से संदेह बनता है. यह पब्लिक अथॉरिटी और सार्वजनिक भर्ती प्रक्रियाओं के काम-काज में पारदर्शिता और जवाबदेही को बढ़ावा देने के लिए स्वस्थ नहीं है.
चयन नहीं होने पर दायर की याचिका:
मीडिया रिपोर्ट्स के मुताबिक, कलमनकर ने भी यह परीक्षा दी थी. लेकिन उनका चयन नहीं हो पाया. अदालत ने संबंधित अधिकारियों को याचिकाकर्ता को लिखित परीक्षा, मराठी और अंग्रेजी टाइपिंग टेस्ट और इंटरव्यू में चयनित उम्मीदवारों के अंकों को 6 हफ्ते के अंदर प्रस्तुत करने का निर्देश दिया. पीठ ने अपने आदेश में कहा कि मामला पुणे की जिला अदालत में जूनियर क्लर्क के पद के लिए चयन प्रक्रिया से संबंधित है. इसके लिए सार्वजनिक विज्ञापन के जरिए आवेदन मांगे गए थे.
सरकारी भर्ती प्रक्रिया में जरूरी है पारदर्शिता:
अदालत ने कहा कि सार्वजनिक प्रक्रिया हमेशा पारदर्शी होनी चाहिए. सरकारी भर्ती की चयन प्रक्रिया में उम्मीदवारों के अंकों को सामान्य रूप से पर्सनल डिटेल नहीं माना जा सकता है. इसलिए अंकों के सार्वजनिक होने से किसी को समस्या नहीं होनी चाहिए. पीठ ने नोट किया कि सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम यानी आरटीआई के प्रावधानों ने सिर्फ ऐसी पर्सनल डिटेल को निजी रखने की छूट दी है, जिसके बाहर आने से किसी का अहित हो.

From RTI protests to Ramadan at Khushwant Singh’s home: Syeda Saiyidain Hameed shares intriguing life stories in her new memoir ‘A Drop in the Ocean’

Times of India: National: Tuesday, 12 November 2024.

Activist-author Syeda Saiyidain Hameed’s memoir ‘A Drop in the Ocean’ was launched at India Habitat Centre in New Delhi on November 6, 2024. The launch was followed by a discussion between the author, social activist Aruna Roy, and Amitabh Behar. The book launch and discussion was not just a celebration of her work, but also her life and the power and influence of a woman’s story.The book was officially released by Aruna Roy, who also shared instances and incidents about Syeda's remarkable life, her achievements, and the inspirations that shaped her.
Opening the event, Aruna Roy introduced ‘A Drop in the Ocean’ as an emotional, heartfelt memoir that speaks volumes about Syeda’s work, life, and her journey. She talked about how women’s memoirs are deeply influential and almost transformative in the journey.
She recalled her olden days about the protests for the Right to Information Act, where Syeda had stood by her side, undaunted. She also described Syeda’s book as poetic and lyrical, and a story that touches readers’ hearts.
The discussion then continued with Amitabh Behar inviting Syeda to read a passage from her book. She shared a story of her upbringing, where her understanding of faith was more than just religion and communal rifts. She talked about how despite growing up between stories of mass killings and riots, friendships blossomed between children of different backgrounds, erasing the biases.
She also fondly remembered sharing Ramadan and iftar in Hindu households and her close bond with Khushwant Singh, who kept a special mat for her and hosted iftar gatherings for her.
Taking over the stage, Amitabh noted how reading ‘A Drop in the Ocean’ felt like a personal conversation with Syeda. He was also full of admiration about how the book blurred the line between the personal and political and gave a wholehearted review of its beauty.
Following this Syeda discussed her father's forward-thinking which was unfortunately often met with resistance. Elaborating on the political and personal merging, she recalled how she hushed her identity as a Muslim girl for a long time.
Turning the conversation into a light-hearted one again, Syeda laughed and shared with the audience her stories from her time in Miranda House, where she earned the nickname ‘Ms. Miranda Number 4’, and how she was teased at her home about it.
Following the topic of her charm, Amitabh asked Syeda about her debating days at Patiala Engineering College and the events that followed after. She warmly recalled how she was received by students of the college, and how the boys from PEC were smitten over the ‘Miranda beauties’.
Syeda also shared her fondness for Amitabh Bachchan, whom she would occasionally see on Delhi University’s U-Special bus, and the time she ran for the City Council, in Alberta, Canada.
Moving on, the conversation turned serious as she told people about her work with the National Commission for Women and the Planning Commission, and the difficult encounters she faced with honour killings and prejudice against women. Through her work, she witnessed both the resilience of women and the deep-rooted biases in society.
The event concluded with an engaging Q&A session, where Syeda expressed her gratitude to the audience for their presence.
The book launch and discussion was hosted by Speaking Tiger Publications.

Disclosure of marks obtained in public recruitment not violation of privacy: Bombay High Court

Bar and Bench: Mumbai: Tuesday, 12 November 2024.

A division bench led by Justice MS Sonak quashed earlier orders by the Pune District Court’s Public Information Officer and appellate authorities, which had denied disclosing marks, citing privacy concerns.
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that marks obtained by candidates in recruitment process to public posts can be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and disclosure of the same will not amount to violation of candidates' privacy
A Division Bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain quashed earlier orders by the Pune District Court’s Public Information Officer (PIO) and subsequent appellate authorities, which had denied the disclosure of such information citing privacy violation.
"Similarly, in the context of a public examination for selection to a public post, we are doubtful whether the disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates would amount to any unwarranted invasion of the privacy of such candidates. The legislature has advisedly used the expression 'unwarranted.' Therefore, not any and every invasion of an individual's privacy is exempted from disclosure. Only what is exempted from disclosure is unwarranted invasion," the Court said in its ruling.
The case originated from the recruitment process for the post of Junior Clerk at Pune District Court. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar, a candidate from Solapur, participated in the recruitment exams following an advertisement issued in 2018.
Kalmankar, who was ranked 289th in the Marathi typing test and 250th in the English typing test, was not selected for the position.
After his results were declared, Kalmankar filed a request under the RTI Act in February 2019, seeking his own marks, the marks of candidates ranked 1 to 363 and the selection criteria.
The PIO rejected Kalmankar’s request, citing Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts RTI Rules which classified such information as "confidential."
This decision was upheld by the First Appellate Authority in May 2019 and the State Information Commissioner dismissed Kalmankar’s second appeal in April 2021.
In his petition before the Bombay High Court, Kalmankar argued that knowing his own marks alone was insufficient for evaluating his relative position in the recruitment process. He sought the marks of other candidates to ensure transparency in the process.
Kalmankar’s lawyer, advocate Uday Warunjikar, contended that the marks of other candidates were not confidential and there was no legal justification for withholding them. He highlighted an example from Wardha where the District Court had disclosed the marks of all candidates on the notice board, suggesting that such transparency should be standard practice.
Warunjikar also argued that the rules cited by the PIO and the appellate authorities were either misinterpreted or inapplicable in this case.
Advocate Rajesh Datar, representing the PIO and the appellate authorities, argued that disclosing the marks of candidates would violate their privacy as the information was considered "third-party information."
He also cited Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts RTI Rules and Section 8(j) of the RTI Act which allow exemptions for personal information that could harm an individual’s privacy.
Datar further argued that Kalmankar’s request was vague and amounted to a "fishing expedition." He added that Kalmankar had expanded his request to include information about the names of interviewers which was impermissible.
In its ruling, the bench disagreed with the lower authorities.
It emphasised the need for transparency in public recruitment processes. The Court observed that the recruitment process for the Junior Clerk position at the Pune District Court was a public exercise initiated by a public advertisement.
"In that sense, this public process must be transparent and above board," the Court stated.
The Bench held that the marks obtained by candidates in such a public process cannot be regarded as "personal information" exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
"The marks obtained by the candidates in such a selection process cannot ordinarily be held to be 'personal information', the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest," the Court underscored.
The bench further observed that disclosing such information would not cause an "unwarranted invasion" of privacy of individuals.
Hence, the larger public interest in ensuring transparency and accountability in public recruitment justified the disclosure of such information.
The Court also clarified that not all personal information is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
"The legislature has advisedly used the expression 'unwarranted.' Therefore, not any and every invasion of an individual's privacy is exempted from disclosure. Only what is exempted from disclosure is unwarranted invasion," the Court emphasised.
The Court concluded by reiterating the principle that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" and transparency is essential in fostering trust in public institutions.
Dr. Uday P Warunjikar along with advocates Sumit Kate, Jenish Jain and Dattaram Bile appeared for the petitioner.
Advocate Rajesh S Datar appeared for the RTI authorities.
Additional Government Pleader SD Vyas appeared for the State.
[Read Order]

Disclosing candidate's marks in recruitment tests not violation of privacy, says court

India Today: Mumbai: Tuesday, 12 November 2024.
The Bombay High Court said that marks obtained by candidates in the recruitment process for public posts can be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)

While partly allowing a petition, the Bombay High Court on Monday said that marks obtained by candidates in the recruitment process for public posts can be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and it won't amount to violation of the privacy of candidates.
A bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain said, "Withholding such information unnecessarily allows doubts, however unreasonable, to linger, which is not very healthy in promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and public recruitment processes. Regarding RTI, it is repeatedly asserted that sunlight is the best disinfectant."
The bench was hearing a plea filed by a 33-year-old student from Maharashtra's Solapur, who had applied for recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk in the District Court at Pune in pursuance of an advertisement issued in March 2018.
He participated in the recruitment process and secured 289th rank in the Marathi typing test and 250th in the English typing test. He was called for the interview process, but his name was not included in the final list.
The petitioner, Onkar Kalmankar, enquired about it, but claimed he was not informed about his non-selection. Following that, he filed an RTI on February 20, 2019, for information about marks secured by him in the screening, Marathi typing and English typing tests, along with marks secured by the other 363 candidates in the screening test.
He also sought to know the criteria or the basis for selecting the selected candidates and other information in this regard with full details.
However, on March 6, 2019, the Public Information Officer declined to offer the petitioner any information on the ground that such information was “confidential”. Soon his appeals too were dismissed, following which he approached the high court in 2021.
Meanwhile, Kalmankar did get to know about his scores but advocate Uday Warunjikar, appearing for Kalmankar, submitted that the petitioner was entitled to know the marks secured by other candidates so that the petitioner could assess his relative position compared to the other candidates.
After going through all the arguments, the bench said, "in the context of a public examination for selection to a public post, we are doubtful whether the disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates would amount to any unwarranted invasion of the privacy of such candidates."
The bench reasoned that confidence in the selection process would be boosted by disclosing the marks obtained by all the candidates in the written test and interviews.
"Transparency and accountability in a public recruitment process should be promoted. The disclosure of marks in a public recruitment process cannot be said to be purely personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual," the court said.
Warunjikar submitted that the district judge at Wardha had disclosed the marks obtained by all the candidates on the Notice Board for a similar recruitment process. He submitted that there was no justification for the Pune District Court not to adopt the same standards of transparency.
Advocate Rajesh Datar, appearing for the authorities, submitted that the criteria for selection were already advertised and, in any event, discernible from the recruitment rules available in the public domain. Datar submitted that the information sought by the petitioner was vague, and the petitioner was embarking upon a fishing expedition.
Datar submitted that petitioner’s insistence upon disclosure of marks of other candidates involved a breach of their privacy, and such information constitutes third-party information.

‘Hospitals cannot withhold patient treatment records’

Times of India: Kollam: Monday, 11 November 2024.

Hospital managements do not have the authority to withhold patients' treatment records, said state information commissioner A Abdul Hakim. He was delivering the keynote address at the state-level graduation ceremony of acupuncture healers in Kollam.
The results of tests conducted on patients, surgeries performed, medications administered, and the patient's condition at the start and end of treatment should all be provided in a discharge summary. If it is not provided to the patient, the Right to Information Act is available for their protection, and the district medical officer will obtain and provide it within 48 hours, he said.
This should not be a mere scribble. Doctors who write prescriptions illegibly are denying the patient's right to know. He further explained that the private healthcare sector and the pharmaceutical trade have become exploitative fields. There should be auditing and research in the patient-friendly treatment method of acupuncture, Abdul Hakim added.
Eravipuram MLA M Noushad inaugurated the event. He said that only treatment methods that can provide the fastest recovery at the lowest cost should be encouraged. As many as 450 new healers graduated at the ceremony.