Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Friday, 27 November 2009
Is Chief Justice of Indian Supreme Court holding public office with oblique motives?
The Chief Justice of Indian supreme court is in news from last couple of moths for many bad reasons. He has emerged as biggest supporter of corruption, red tapism and bureaucracy. First he agued that his office is a constitutional body and does not come under perview of RTI Act 2005, Then he made an other attempt to block disclosure of judges assests under RTI.
Now He rattled by a spate of Central Information Commission (CIC) orders asking the judiciary to divulge details on sensitive issues like appointment of judges. Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan has written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seeking his help in exempting matters relating to administration of justice from the purview of RTI Act. [ Read Article ]
In his letter, he argued that "In USA, information about selection of judges could only be given to the public after 15 years of the event and in Australia, it was completely exempted from the purview of the right to information of public."
How on earth he can compare judicial and govt. machinary of US, Australia, UK etc with India. Entire world knows that Indian judiciary and govt. administration is immersed in curruption from HEAD to TOE.
An effective judicial system is best judge of function civil democracy. In any democratic country a judicial system must be transparent and work within the remit of defined laws.
Mr CJI does the Indian Judicial System is functioning ? Go and read your own words published in The Hindu news paper [ Judicial system in many States not proper: CJI ]
Mr CJI does the Indian Judicial System is honest and transparent ?
Go and read [India: Independence of and corruption within the judicial system (2007 - April 2009)]how other countries perceive indian judiciary that you are heading in this country.
According to the World Bank, "[a]lthough India's courts are notoriously inefficient, they at least comprise a functioning independent judiciary" (World Bank n.d.). The World Bank also indicates that in many states corruption investigations have "increased significantly" (n.d.). However, TI states that despite constitutional provisions for the independence and accountability of the judiciary in India, "corruption is increasingly apparent" (2007, 215).
Citing a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report, Global Integrity indicates that, in India, "initiatives like Right to Information (RTI) and e-governance, [as well as] computerization of judicial records for clearing [the] massive backlog of legal cases in courts ... have been instrumental in curbing corruption in the country" (2008).
Mr CJI, what has been achieved by the independence of judiciary over last 50 years ?
Increasingly apparent Corruption in judiciary
Hindi film dialogs, instead of justice
Backlog of 2.7 crore (27 million) cases pending with the trial courts, pendency of 40 lakh (4 million) cases in high courts and pendency of 53,000 cases in supreme court. [Data disclosed by Govt. of India]
If this is what you have given for the independence over last 50 years, then you and your fellow army of judges do not deserve any more independence. This kind of Judiciary has become a burdon and nuisance for indian public.
India need far more tougher RTI Act than any other country in this world. It looks like Mr K G Balakrishnan (CJI) is holding the public office with oblique motives. Indian public need to come forward and guard RTI against any attempt to dilute it. The Prime Minister of India must sack CJI with immidiate effect and he must prove himself to the world that he is serious about corruption in the country and he is willing to take action to root out evil of corruption.
Now He rattled by a spate of Central Information Commission (CIC) orders asking the judiciary to divulge details on sensitive issues like appointment of judges. Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan has written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seeking his help in exempting matters relating to administration of justice from the purview of RTI Act. [ Read Article ]
In his letter, he argued that "In USA, information about selection of judges could only be given to the public after 15 years of the event and in Australia, it was completely exempted from the purview of the right to information of public."
How on earth he can compare judicial and govt. machinary of US, Australia, UK etc with India. Entire world knows that Indian judiciary and govt. administration is immersed in curruption from HEAD to TOE.
An effective judicial system is best judge of function civil democracy. In any democratic country a judicial system must be transparent and work within the remit of defined laws.
Mr CJI does the Indian Judicial System is functioning ? Go and read your own words published in The Hindu news paper [ Judicial system in many States not proper: CJI ]
Mr CJI does the Indian Judicial System is honest and transparent ?
Go and read [India: Independence of and corruption within the judicial system (2007 - April 2009)]how other countries perceive indian judiciary that you are heading in this country.
According to the World Bank, "[a]lthough India's courts are notoriously inefficient, they at least comprise a functioning independent judiciary" (World Bank n.d.). The World Bank also indicates that in many states corruption investigations have "increased significantly" (n.d.). However, TI states that despite constitutional provisions for the independence and accountability of the judiciary in India, "corruption is increasingly apparent" (2007, 215).
Citing a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report, Global Integrity indicates that, in India, "initiatives like Right to Information (RTI) and e-governance, [as well as] computerization of judicial records for clearing [the] massive backlog of legal cases in courts ... have been instrumental in curbing corruption in the country" (2008).
Mr CJI, what has been achieved by the independence of judiciary over last 50 years ?
If this is what you have given for the independence over last 50 years, then you and your fellow army of judges do not deserve any more independence. This kind of Judiciary has become a burdon and nuisance for indian public.
India need far more tougher RTI Act than any other country in this world. It looks like Mr K G Balakrishnan (CJI) is holding the public office with oblique motives. Indian public need to come forward and guard RTI against any attempt to dilute it. The Prime Minister of India must sack CJI with immidiate effect and he must prove himself to the world that he is serious about corruption in the country and he is willing to take action to root out evil of corruption.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Supreme Court of India is *allergic* to transparency in the country
New Delhi: The suprme court today argued before the Central Information Commission (CIC) that Right to Information (RTI) cannot apply unless the sought information is"lawfully" held by an authority in a manner a title of property is held, which wasrejected by CIC.
Presenting the apex court's arguments before the Commission, advocate Devadatt Kamat said the word "held" as mentioned section 2 (j) of the RTI Act does not does not mean possession of it unless there is a sanction of law behind holding of information. Hence, there cannot be any Right to Information, he maintained.
Chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said the argument was not correct and would "strike out the root of the RTI Act" as in that case no information could be asked under the transparency law.
Habibullah said the word "held" mentioned in the section means ordinarily held adding it does not say lawfully held or held like property title as mentioned by apex court.
The CIC was hearing the plea of information rights activist SC Agrawal whose application seeking complete correspondence with the CJI in the case of justice R Reghupati of Madras high court being allegedly approached by a Union minister to influence his decisions was rejected by the supreme court registry.
Section 2 (j) says "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority
Presenting the apex court's arguments before the Commission, advocate Devadatt Kamat said the word "held" as mentioned section 2 (j) of the RTI Act does not does not mean possession of it unless there is a sanction of law behind holding of information. Hence, there cannot be any Right to Information, he maintained.
Chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said the argument was not correct and would "strike out the root of the RTI Act" as in that case no information could be asked under the transparency law.
Habibullah said the word "held" mentioned in the section means ordinarily held adding it does not say lawfully held or held like property title as mentioned by apex court.
The CIC was hearing the plea of information rights activist SC Agrawal whose application seeking complete correspondence with the CJI in the case of justice R Reghupati of Madras high court being allegedly approached by a Union minister to influence his decisions was rejected by the supreme court registry.
Section 2 (j) says "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority
Saturday, 21 November 2009
Is india really shining?
Corruption is a major systemic problem in India. Studies by the World Bank (World Development Report 2005) have found that corruption was the number one constraint for firms in South Asia and that the two most corrupt public institutions identified by the respondents in India (as well as in most countries in South Asia) were the police and the judiciary. Based on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, India has a score of 3.5 out of 10 in 2009 (a higher score means less corruption), and, tied with China to rank 76 out of 177 countries (with the range being 1.4 to 9.4).
Next, we consider two measures for the quality of accounting systems. The
disclosure requirements index (from 0 to 1, higher score means more disclosure; LLS
2006) measures the extent to which listed firms have to disclose their ownership
structure, business operations and corporate governance mechanisms to legal authorities and the public. India’s score of 0.92 is higher than the averages of all LLSV subgroups of countries, including the English origin countries, suggesting that Indian firms must disclose a large amount of information. However, this does not imply the quality of disclosure is also good. In terms of the degree of earnings management (higher score means more earnings management; Leuz, Nanda, and Wysocki 2003), India’s score is much higher than the average of English origin countries, and is only lower than the German origin countries, suggesting that investors have a difficult time in evaluating Indian companies based on publicly available reports. It seems that while Indian companies produce copious amounts of data, form triumphs over substance in disclosure and with an accounting system that allows considerable flexibility, there is enough room for companies to hide or disguise the truth.
The efficiency and effectiveness of the legal system is of primary importance for
12 contract enforcement, and we have two measures. First, according to the legal formalism (DLLS 2003) index, India has a higher formalism index than the average of English origin countries, and is only lower than that of the French origin countries. The legality index, a composite measure of the effectiveness of a country’s legal institutions, is based on the weighted average of five categories of the quality of legal institutions and government in the country (see Berkowitz, Pistor, and Richard 2003). Consistent with other measures, India’s score is lower than the averages of all the subgroups of LLSV countries, suggesting that India’s legal institutions are less effective than those of many countries, and that it will be more difficult for India to adopt and enforce new legal rules and regulations than other countries.
Finally, as for the business environment in India, a recent World Bank survey
found that, among the top ten obstacles to Indian businesses, the three which the firms surveyed considered to be a “major” or “very severe” obstacle and exceeding the world average are corruption (the most important problem), availability of electricity, and labor regulations. Threat of nationalization or direct government intervention in business is no longer a major issue in India. With rampant tax evasion, the shadow economy in India is significant. It is estimated to be about 23% of GDP.6 Creditor and investor rights were largely unprotected in practice, with banks having little bargaining power against willful defaulters. Large corporate houses often got away with default, or got poor projects financed through the state-owned banking sector, often by using connections with influential politicians and bureaucrats.
Next, we consider two measures for the quality of accounting systems. The
disclosure requirements index (from 0 to 1, higher score means more disclosure; LLS
2006) measures the extent to which listed firms have to disclose their ownership
structure, business operations and corporate governance mechanisms to legal authorities and the public. India’s score of 0.92 is higher than the averages of all LLSV subgroups of countries, including the English origin countries, suggesting that Indian firms must disclose a large amount of information. However, this does not imply the quality of disclosure is also good. In terms of the degree of earnings management (higher score means more earnings management; Leuz, Nanda, and Wysocki 2003), India’s score is much higher than the average of English origin countries, and is only lower than the German origin countries, suggesting that investors have a difficult time in evaluating Indian companies based on publicly available reports. It seems that while Indian companies produce copious amounts of data, form triumphs over substance in disclosure and with an accounting system that allows considerable flexibility, there is enough room for companies to hide or disguise the truth.
The efficiency and effectiveness of the legal system is of primary importance for
12 contract enforcement, and we have two measures. First, according to the legal formalism (DLLS 2003) index, India has a higher formalism index than the average of English origin countries, and is only lower than that of the French origin countries. The legality index, a composite measure of the effectiveness of a country’s legal institutions, is based on the weighted average of five categories of the quality of legal institutions and government in the country (see Berkowitz, Pistor, and Richard 2003). Consistent with other measures, India’s score is lower than the averages of all the subgroups of LLSV countries, suggesting that India’s legal institutions are less effective than those of many countries, and that it will be more difficult for India to adopt and enforce new legal rules and regulations than other countries.
Finally, as for the business environment in India, a recent World Bank survey
found that, among the top ten obstacles to Indian businesses, the three which the firms surveyed considered to be a “major” or “very severe” obstacle and exceeding the world average are corruption (the most important problem), availability of electricity, and labor regulations. Threat of nationalization or direct government intervention in business is no longer a major issue in India. With rampant tax evasion, the shadow economy in India is significant. It is estimated to be about 23% of GDP.6 Creditor and investor rights were largely unprotected in practice, with banks having little bargaining power against willful defaulters. Large corporate houses often got away with default, or got poor projects financed through the state-owned banking sector, often by using connections with influential politicians and bureaucrats.
India Corruption and Bribery Report
What is the amount of bribes requested by officials in India?
The above numbers clearly suggest that Bribery in India is at a grass root level with close 86% demands were done for $5000 or less (2,50,000 rupees or less, out which more than half were for $26 (Rs. 1300) or less.
Because, corruption takes place at such a grass root level, it is extremely difficult to contain it.
Having said that, 14 people out of 100 taking bribes are for amount more than $5000 (Rs. 2,50,000). Actually, if you look at the top officials are even more corrupt. I will tell you why I say that –
The number of big bosses is merely 1%-2% of all officials, yet according to the report 14% of bribes are of huge amounts, showing that big bosses are involved even more compared to low level officials who are taking bribes.
On a sidenote, China’s number is much higher with 24% of reported demands were for amounts between $5,001 and $50,000, 6% of reported demands were for amounts between $50,001 and $500,000, and 6% were
for amounts greater than $500,000. interesting…
What is the nature of Bribe Demands in India?
No guesses here – if you want to get your work done, bribe em’ ! thats what is quite clear and in line with the notion we have.
More than half of all the bribes were paid to get the work in time !
77% of all reported bribe demands in India are related to the avoidance of
harm, including securing the timely delivery of a service – which is actually a right of a person (such as clearing customs or having a telephone line installed) and receiving payment for services already rendered
Only 12% of the bribe demands were for gaining a personal or business advantage (including exercising influence with or over another government official, receiving inappropriate favorable treatment or winning new business).
One thing for sure, we are now used to this corrupt system and take it in our stride as part & parcel. We do not want to go extra lengths and take the easy way out. But this easy way out is actually the roots of corruption in India.
Who demand bribe in India?
No guesses here !
Whooping 91% of reported bribe demands originate from government officials in India.
The greatest sources of bribe demands, were from national level Government officials (33%), the police (30%), state/provincial officials and employees (16%), and city officials (10%) respectively .
Do you know which of the two Indian ministries ask for bribe more than other? – They are Customs office (13%) and Taxation and Water (9%).
China fares slightly well when it comes to Government officials taking bribe (85%) – Another major difference is that India Police (30%) are far more corrupt than their Chinese counterparts (only 11%).
What is the frequency of Bribe Demands in India?
Nearly 90% indicated being solicited for a bribe between two and 20 times.
Overall 60% people reported bribe demands of 5 times or lower from the same individual. However, 9% asked for bribes more than 100 times.
Compared to China, it differs significantly with 73% people indicating that they had received multiple bribe requests. Almost 20% of those individuals reported receiving more than 100 bribe demands in China.
In what form was the bribe requested?
Do you want any tips on how to give bribes? here is what our corrupt officials prefer..
If in doubt, give cash, as 92% of all bribes are preferred to be “cash or cash equivalent,” The next best thing is a “gift,” (5%) including requests for company products, jewelry and similar items. Less common still, at approx. 1% each, were requests for hospitality or entertainment items; travel for other than business purposes; and other assistance, such as
help with a visa, medical care, or scholarships.
Surprisingly, there were no reports in India of demands for “additional business” or “sexual favors.” In China, those demands accounted for a combined total of 7% of reported bribe solicitations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, there you have it – How, what, who and why of Indian Corruption.
[These numbers were gathered from BRIBEline, a project managed by TRACE International Inc., an anonymous online reporting tool that collects data about bribe solicitations made by official, quasi-official and private sector individuals and entities in India ]
Source: India Corruption & Bribery Report | India, Trends, corruption Download PDF version
The above numbers clearly suggest that Bribery in India is at a grass root level with close 86% demands were done for $5000 or less (2,50,000 rupees or less, out which more than half were for $26 (Rs. 1300) or less.
Because, corruption takes place at such a grass root level, it is extremely difficult to contain it.
Having said that, 14 people out of 100 taking bribes are for amount more than $5000 (Rs. 2,50,000). Actually, if you look at the top officials are even more corrupt. I will tell you why I say that –
The number of big bosses is merely 1%-2% of all officials, yet according to the report 14% of bribes are of huge amounts, showing that big bosses are involved even more compared to low level officials who are taking bribes.
On a sidenote, China’s number is much higher with 24% of reported demands were for amounts between $5,001 and $50,000, 6% of reported demands were for amounts between $50,001 and $500,000, and 6% were
for amounts greater than $500,000. interesting…
What is the nature of Bribe Demands in India?
No guesses here – if you want to get your work done, bribe em’ ! thats what is quite clear and in line with the notion we have.
More than half of all the bribes were paid to get the work in time !
77% of all reported bribe demands in India are related to the avoidance of
harm, including securing the timely delivery of a service – which is actually a right of a person (such as clearing customs or having a telephone line installed) and receiving payment for services already rendered
Only 12% of the bribe demands were for gaining a personal or business advantage (including exercising influence with or over another government official, receiving inappropriate favorable treatment or winning new business).
One thing for sure, we are now used to this corrupt system and take it in our stride as part & parcel. We do not want to go extra lengths and take the easy way out. But this easy way out is actually the roots of corruption in India.
Who demand bribe in India?
No guesses here !
Whooping 91% of reported bribe demands originate from government officials in India.
The greatest sources of bribe demands, were from national level Government officials (33%), the police (30%), state/provincial officials and employees (16%), and city officials (10%) respectively .
Do you know which of the two Indian ministries ask for bribe more than other? – They are Customs office (13%) and Taxation and Water (9%).
China fares slightly well when it comes to Government officials taking bribe (85%) – Another major difference is that India Police (30%) are far more corrupt than their Chinese counterparts (only 11%).
What is the frequency of Bribe Demands in India?
Nearly 90% indicated being solicited for a bribe between two and 20 times.
Overall 60% people reported bribe demands of 5 times or lower from the same individual. However, 9% asked for bribes more than 100 times.
Compared to China, it differs significantly with 73% people indicating that they had received multiple bribe requests. Almost 20% of those individuals reported receiving more than 100 bribe demands in China.
In what form was the bribe requested?
Do you want any tips on how to give bribes? here is what our corrupt officials prefer..
If in doubt, give cash, as 92% of all bribes are preferred to be “cash or cash equivalent,” The next best thing is a “gift,” (5%) including requests for company products, jewelry and similar items. Less common still, at approx. 1% each, were requests for hospitality or entertainment items; travel for other than business purposes; and other assistance, such as
help with a visa, medical care, or scholarships.
Surprisingly, there were no reports in India of demands for “additional business” or “sexual favors.” In China, those demands accounted for a combined total of 7% of reported bribe solicitations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, there you have it – How, what, who and why of Indian Corruption.
[These numbers were gathered from BRIBEline, a project managed by TRACE International Inc., an anonymous online reporting tool that collects data about bribe solicitations made by official, quasi-official and private sector individuals and entities in India ]
Source: India Corruption & Bribery Report | India, Trends, corruption Download PDF version
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Chief Justice of India admitted widespread misuse of law ( IPC 498-A ). Its clear failure to uphold the Constitution and the laws and he must resign.
Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, while delivering a valedictory address at east zone regional judicial conference has particularly stated:
Section 498 (A) (anti-dowry law) under CrPC was one of the most abused laws, and he further said that Judges are simply issuing summons and even warrants without properly verifying who are the accused. I have come across such cases in which the accused, sitting in Australia and other countries, are made accused when the case is lodged for the alleged offence of dowry:Read more...
There are, no doubt, that CJI know about wide spread misuse of IPC Section 498 (A), his statement suggests that misuse is at much wider scale. But it is rather very serious that he did nothing to stop this misuse. This send wrong signals and encouraging the "Legal Terrorists". Indian Tax payers pay him to protect their consitutional rights and civil librities. The Chief Justice of India is responsible for the suffering, wrongful confinement, illegal detention and false criminal litigations imposed on every indian due to this misuse of law. This act of utter incompetence and encouragement of legal terrorism at the hands of head of indian judiciary should never be tolerated by the public, and he must be held accountable for it.
These headless chickens when take oath of office, they say:
I, [name], having been appointed Chief Justice (or a Judge) of the High Court at (or of) ... do swear (or affirm) that the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.
The CJI has clearly failed to uphold the Constitution and the laws, for which he is appointend by the indian public. He should admit that he is not fit for the job and should resign from the top post without wasting any more money of indian TAX payers. A hard working nation like india need competent people for top jobs to build a healthy and prosperous nation not just for themselves but for their coming generations.
Section 498 (A) (anti-dowry law) under CrPC was one of the most abused laws, and he further said that Judges are simply issuing summons and even warrants without properly verifying who are the accused. I have come across such cases in which the accused, sitting in Australia and other countries, are made accused when the case is lodged for the alleged offence of dowry:Read more...There are, no doubt, that CJI know about wide spread misuse of IPC Section 498 (A), his statement suggests that misuse is at much wider scale. But it is rather very serious that he did nothing to stop this misuse. This send wrong signals and encouraging the "Legal Terrorists". Indian Tax payers pay him to protect their consitutional rights and civil librities. The Chief Justice of India is responsible for the suffering, wrongful confinement, illegal detention and false criminal litigations imposed on every indian due to this misuse of law. This act of utter incompetence and encouragement of legal terrorism at the hands of head of indian judiciary should never be tolerated by the public, and he must be held accountable for it.
These headless chickens when take oath of office, they say:
I, [name], having been appointed Chief Justice (or a Judge) of the High Court at (or of) ... do swear (or affirm) that the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.
The CJI has clearly failed to uphold the Constitution and the laws, for which he is appointend by the indian public. He should admit that he is not fit for the job and should resign from the top post without wasting any more money of indian TAX payers. A hard working nation like india need competent people for top jobs to build a healthy and prosperous nation not just for themselves but for their coming generations.
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Judiciary, Govt killing Right To Information Act (RTI)
Judiciary, Govt killing Right To Information Act (RTI):
The government and judiciary pose a serious threat to the Right to Information (RTI), and if citizens do not step in, it faces the danger of being destroyed, a Central Information Commissioner (CIC)has warned.
The widely prevalent and dangerous trend of resistance to transparency in their functioning by “those in power” will gradually kill the RTI Act, CIC, Shailesh Gandhi (62), said in a rare outburst while talking to Hindustan Times.
Governments across the country, irrespective of which party they belong to, follow a pattern of misgovernance and are opposed to transparency, he said.
“The judiciary has been granting stays on the orders of the information watchdog to provide information under the RTI Act, this will eventually kill it,” Gandhi said.
Government departments were rushing to courts to get stay orders against the decisions of information commissions to provide information to common man.
“Delays in courts in finally deciding such matters will destroy the RTI Act,” he said.
Questioning the Union and state governments commitment to the RTI, Gandhi said there was no transparency in the appointment of information commissioners.
“No norms are being followed, and information commissions have been turned into parking lots for favourites of the government of the day.”
No training was being given to new information commissioners, either at the Centre or in the states, nor was there any concern for resources, he said.
Gandhi, the first RTI activist in the country to be appointed an information commissioner last year, said, “The four year-old law (RTI) to provide information to common man is under threat of being weakened by the government mindset of amending it for its convenience.”
Expressing surprise at the silence of information commissions, Gandhi, a graduate of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bombay, said :“Tragedy is that the information commissions are silent.”
On courts’ interference in some decisions of the CIC, including the declaration of judges assets, he said :“Common man has already given up hope of getting justice from courts. Now if they continue to deny information by granting stays, I’m sorry but slow poison is being administered to the right to know.”
The government and judiciary pose a serious threat to the Right to Information (RTI), and if citizens do not step in, it faces the danger of being destroyed, a Central Information Commissioner (CIC)has warned.
The widely prevalent and dangerous trend of resistance to transparency in their functioning by “those in power” will gradually kill the RTI Act, CIC, Shailesh Gandhi (62), said in a rare outburst while talking to Hindustan Times.
Governments across the country, irrespective of which party they belong to, follow a pattern of misgovernance and are opposed to transparency, he said.
“The judiciary has been granting stays on the orders of the information watchdog to provide information under the RTI Act, this will eventually kill it,” Gandhi said.
Government departments were rushing to courts to get stay orders against the decisions of information commissions to provide information to common man.
“Delays in courts in finally deciding such matters will destroy the RTI Act,” he said.
Questioning the Union and state governments commitment to the RTI, Gandhi said there was no transparency in the appointment of information commissioners.
“No norms are being followed, and information commissions have been turned into parking lots for favourites of the government of the day.”
No training was being given to new information commissioners, either at the Centre or in the states, nor was there any concern for resources, he said.
Gandhi, the first RTI activist in the country to be appointed an information commissioner last year, said, “The four year-old law (RTI) to provide information to common man is under threat of being weakened by the government mindset of amending it for its convenience.”
Expressing surprise at the silence of information commissions, Gandhi, a graduate of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bombay, said :“Tragedy is that the information commissions are silent.”
On courts’ interference in some decisions of the CIC, including the declaration of judges assets, he said :“Common man has already given up hope of getting justice from courts. Now if they continue to deny information by granting stays, I’m sorry but slow poison is being administered to the right to know.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
