Moneylife: National: Sunday, September 17, 2017.
It is 12
years since the implementation of the RTI Act 2005, under which it is mandatory
for every public authority to voluntarily make information public on its
website as per Section 4 (a) and (b). However, it has been observed, time and
again, that most public authorities do not abide by this requirement, despite a
series of circulars from the DoPT (Department of Personnel & Training).
Even directives sent, time and again, by Central and State Information
Commissions asking all public authorities to ensure that they upload
information, have not helped. The only hope is that several CIC decisions on
second appeals issuing specific directives to public authorities will lead to
compliance.
The Sports Authority
of India (SAI) is a classic case of apathy towards transparency that is
mandated under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This column is about a number of
queries by an RTI applicant including
information on names of sportspersons who have failed anti-doping tests which
the SAI has stonewalled. As per the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) rules, it
is mandatory to publish names of those who failed doping tests. Its rule
states: ``MANDATORY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
If you are found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, that fact
will be made public. The idea is that this publicity serves as an important
deterrent to doping. An Anti-Doping Organizations must, except in the case of a
minor, publish the name of an athlete, the nature of the rules violation and
the consequences within 20 days after a final ruling. If the final decision was
that there was no violation, the decision may only be disclosed publicly with
the consent of the athlete.’’ Our NADA (National Anti-Doping Agency) also has
the same rules for public disclosure of names of such errant sportspersons.
But here is
what our Sports Authority of India (SAI) does; it not only does not publish
information, but has brazenly rejected it when sought under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act.
Here are some queries that were rejected:
- Certified copy of the list of drugs banned by SAI
- List of players tested positive in various events for use of drugs
- Certified copies of all requisition letters that SAI moved to NADA (National Anti Doping Agency) seeking action in the past two years (2015-16)
- Certified copy of various wrestling federations (state/regional/district/selection trial levels/any others come under title of Indian Olympic Association
- And so on…
Since SAI and
NADA (National Anti-Doping Agency) did not provide information, the RTI
applicant filed second appeals. The Central Information Commissioner (CIC) has
now ordered the SAI to provide the information within a certain time frame.
Let us
look at the CIC orders
1.
Deepak v. PIO, Sports Authority of India; Second Appeal : 21.04.2017 Hearing :
07.09.2017. Decided on: 8.9.2017.
Information
sought: Appellant sought a certified copy of the list of drugs that are banned
by SAI, certified copies of various drug analysis tests conducted by it,
certified copy of the list of players/contestants who tested positive for drug
during certain events, certified copy of a declaration that if there was no
drug analysis done at district or state level, how were national level drug
tests legitimised.
The appellant
received only part of the information. CIC Sridhar Acharyulu directed SAI to
provide the information within 15 days
2.
Deepak v. PIO, Indian Power Lifting Federation RTI : 31.03.2017. Second Appeal
:1.08.2017 Hearing : 07.09.2017
Information
sought: Appellant sought certified copies of all requisition letters that SAF
moved to NADA seeking anti-doping tests in the past two years (2015-16),
certified copy of ‘in competition’ and ‘out of competition’ anti-doping test
records performed by NADA upon its request/intimation letter to them for
conducting anti-doping during the period 2015-16, certified copy of
response/replication/execution record of anti-doping by NADA/other authority in
addition to copy of their denial, if NADA does not conduct anti-doping at
regional/district levels and prime and only barrier to qualify for national
champion then, certified copy of suggestions, intimation to them.
The
application was transferred to Sports Authority of India. The Indian Power
Lifting Federation replied that since their Federation does not receive any
grant-in-aid from Ministry of Sports Affairs or Sports Authority of India, they
do not come under the purview of RTI Act.
The CIC
directed SIA to facilitate inspection of files by the appellant within 15 days
3.
Deepak v. PIO, National Anti Doping Agency RTI -Second Appeal : 29.06.2017
Hearing : 07.09.2017. Decided On : 08.09.2017
Information
sought: Appellant made the following RTI request with reference to the earlier
requisition to SAI for not providing a response of NADA. This was with regard
to drug analysis seeking requisition letter from various federations, certified
copy of all the data ) i.e urine, blood, hair, skin etc, provide reason, scientific
explanation to substantiate your reply i.e. why drugs are classified into 'Out
of Competition' and 'In Competition’ classification. The reason, criteria and parameters that NADA
uses to collects sample only on position/Random basis during in-out competition.
CPIO replied
that details of the athletes cannot be disclosed and explained the entire
procedure as per which dope samples are collected in accordance with guidelines
of ‘International Standard of Testing and Investigations’. CIC, after perusal
of files and explanations provided by the Public Authority, was of the view
that complete information has been furnished to the appellant. However, as per
the National Anti Doping Agency (NADA), the names of such errant athletes come
under public disclosure. So, wonder why CIC was lenient. The NADA rules state
as follows:
Rule 14.3
Public
Disclosure 14.3.1 The identity of any Athlete or other Person who is asserted
by NADA to have committed an anti¬doping rule violation, may be Publicly
Disclosed by NADA only after notice has been provided to the Athlete or other
Person in accordance with Article 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 or 7.7 and simultaneously
to WADA and the International Federation of the Athlete or other Person in
accordance with Article 14.1.2.
Rule 14.3.2
No later than
twenty days after it has been determined in a final appellate decision under
Article 13.2.1 or 13.2.2, or such appeal has been waived, or a hearing in
accordance with Article 8 has been waived, or the assertion of an anti¬doping
rule violation has not been timely challenged, NADA must Publicly Report the
disposition of the matter, including the sport, 71 the anti¬doping rule violated,
the name of
the Athlete or
other Person committing the
violation, the Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited
Method involved (if any) and the Consequences imposed.
NADA must
also Publicly Report within twenty days
the results of final appeal decisions concerning anti-doping rule violations,
including the information described above.
.JPG)
.JPG)
