RTI

As of today, the Second Schedule will have the following organisations:1. Intelligence Bureau.
2. Research and Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat.
3. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
4. Central Economic Intelligence Bureau.
5. Directorate of Enforcement.
6. Narcotics Control Bureau.
7. Aviation Research Centre.
8. Special Frontier Force.
9. Border Security Force.
10. Central Reserve Police Force.
11. Indo-Tibetan Border Police.
12. Central Industrial Security Force.
13. National Security Guards.
14. Assam Rifles.
15. Sashastra Seema Bal. 
16. Directorate General of Income-tax (Investigation) .
17. National Technical Research Organisation.
18. Financial Intelligence Unit, India.
19. Special Protection Group.
20. Defence Research and Development Organisation.
21. Border Road Development Board.

RTI draft amendments 

1. Proof of service should be submitted by the appellant.. 
suggestion - Registery should provide the proof of service if appellant unable to

2. Proof of complaint to be served by the appellant made compulsory

3. Appeal closed in case of death of appellant 

4. CIC can dismiss the appeal without a chance hearing to the appellant 
suggesstion this is draconian measure and should be done away with 

5. Different fromats for appeal and  complaint.

Information commissioners will continue to wield an iron fist but inside velvet gloves, since, until the information
commission becomes a constitutional body, it will continue to face the Sword of Damocles — that of the governor, who is the appointing authority for information commissioners on the recommendation of the CM, cabinet minister and leader of the Opposition. But for the removal of the information commissioner, as per Section 17 of the RTI Act, a Supreme Court inquiry is necessary on the governor’s referral. During the period of inquiry, the governor can
suspend or even prohibit the information commissioner from holding office.

This issue needs to be addressed as it conclusively transpires that the actual punishing authority is not the governor but the SC, whereas the appointing authority is the governor. What also deserves mention is that the first UP information commissioner was unceremoniously ousted from office. The SC inquiry had found him innocent. It’s another matter that the inquiry report came out after he had passed.

2nd arc has said that CJI should be included within the selection commuttee

at state level too High court chif justice 

Sanno Devi, a person with speech and hearing impairment, who possessed an Antodyaya ration card, which is provided to the poorest of the poor, recalled how her ration was stopped in 2012 and it was the CIC which finally ordered a compensation of Rs 18,000 each to her and seven others whose ration had been stopped similarly. But the Delhi government challenged the order and took the matter to court. It lost there too but still did not release the compensation amount. It was only after the Delhi high court ordered a compliance of the order in December 2015 that Sanno Devi and others received the compensation amount.

All these cases highlighted the importance of the RTI Act in the lives of the poor and the needy.

The study had taken into consideration all the 27 RTI Act related orders of the Supreme Court, nearly 300 orders of the high courts from across the country and about 2,000 orders of the CIC and the state information commissions of Bihar, Assam and Rajasthan for a preparation of the study report.

non   imposition of penalty on PIO


 National Coordination Committee (NCC) may be set up under the chairpersonship of the Chief Information Commissioner with the nodal Union Ministry, the SICs and representatives of States as members. A provision to this effect may be made under Section 30 of the Act by way of removing difficulties. (para 5.6.4.d)

1 Section 30 of the Act stipulates as follows: “30 (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removal of the difficulty: Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act” 8.1.2 The implementation of the Act is yet to stabilize and it is perhaps too early to identify difficulties that may be encountered. The Commission however has identified some initial difficulties which could impede smooth implementation of the Act. These have been highlighted in the preceding chapters of this Report. Some of these would require taking recourse to Section 30 of the Act. These are reproduced below for ready reference: