MEDIA SAVVY JUDICIARY

Debate

Media-savvy judiciary good for consumer interest

By Sanjog Maheshwari

Thanks to the media-shyness of the judiciary, many cases, in which judicial pronouncements and decisions lay down principled and lawful guidelines for the government agencies to follow in all matters, never see the light of the day as the case files remain buried in the dusty confines of the courts’ record rooms. Way back in 2004, an NGO, Common-Cause, under the dynamic stewardship of its the then Director the late H.D. Shouri filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court contending that installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of water meters is the duty and the sole responsibility exclusively of the service provider in this case the government-owned Delhi Jal Board. However, millions of Delhi consumers aren’t any wiser about their right and the government-owned Delhi Jal Board continues to arm-twist the consumers to install, maintain and replace, as the case may be, the water meters privately at their own cost and responsibility otherwise they have to shell out consumptive charges at a presumptive average which is much higher than the actual average for the immediately preceding last one year consumption recorded by the DJB-installed meter.

For the obvious reasons, given the choice, not a single consumer out of several millions would like to go for private installation of meter at his own cost and responsibility. While a DJB-installed meter lasts for many years, the life-span of a privately-installed meter does not usually average more than a year. More often than not it is pronounced ‘faulty’ or ‘defective’ much earlier and the poor consumer ends up paying highly inflated bills raised on the basis of presumptive average consumption until he chooses to again fall prey to the vicious circle of installation-replacement-installation of the privately-installed meter at frequent intervals which is far more bothersome and costly affair than paying the inflated bills. Though in all such cases the DJB logically and also legally should raise bills at the actual average for the preceding last one year consumption as recorded by its own meter when that was operating as decided in yet another such case—R.C. Maheshwari vs. DJB—Judgment delivered by the District Forum, Janakpuri on 15-01-02 and upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Commission who while upholding the learned Lower Court’s decision, dismissed the appeal of the DJB as unnecessary (vide their orders dated 14-02-2006 and 06-07-2006; appeal case no. 257/02). The case assumes significance and importance not only for its landmark decision but also for a noteworthy observation made in it by the Commission headed by Justice J.D.Kapoor, President. Delivering the judgment which was to be referred to the reporters also as per the Court’s direction, the Commission inter-alia, laid down the guidelines to be observed in all such cases also. In most unmistakable terms Justice Kapoor observed, “Any amount received in excess or towards meter by the service provider have to be refunded and cannot be allowed even by any provision of law to be adjusted towards future bills. Retention of such amount or its adjustment towards future bills has to be followed by payment of interest.” The landmark judgment apart, the case generates an interesting debate on the tariff-plan and billing of the domestic supply of water as distinct from the billing of its industrial and commercial supply. In the case of the former, the water is consumed by the ultimate consumer to whom the commodity is gifted by the Mother Nature in great abundance and as freely as its two other life-sustaining gifts—air and sunshine—and the service-providing agencies have no role, whatsoever, to play in its production and as such have no authority to commodify it. While they are entitled to levy the service charges at the flat rates for the treatment of water and bringing it to homes through piped supply for domestic use, they cannot levy consumptive charge. The life-sustaining gift of the Nature belongs to all the living beings. Its ownership indisputably vests with the people and the owner cannot be charged for consuming a commodity that belongs to him. The consumptive charge is, therefore, levy-able only in case of commercial or industrial use of water and certainly not on its domestic supply. The establishment cannot take an alibi in citing ‘scarcity’. The culprits responsible for creating this interminably torturous ‘scarcity amidst plenty” syndrome are gross mismanagement, rampant corruption, unplanned development and urbanization, burgeoning population and so forth; certainly not the people. However, the fiduciary responsibility of the government to protect and keep the water bodies and resources clean and in excellent condition all the time is not waived.

The service-providing government agencies are very well aware of the fact that their services are miles behind the normal expectations of and otherwise much-tolerant and docile Indian consumer let alone the international standards. This awareness of the deplorable quality of their services makes them scary even before any measure for consumer-empowerment is hinted, let alone initiated. No wonder, they don’t want government to make them more accountable to consumers and resist any such move tooth and nail. Not only this, the establishment itself does not want expeditious disposal of such cases where a consumer is pitted against a government service-providing agency and they have many tricks up their sleeves to keep the consumer courts under a handicap. Even very simple cases go on dragging much after the judgment vindicating a consumer’s stand is delivered as it takes another long stretching legal battle before a common consumer can think of getting even a small slice of the reliefs granted. The gainful interaction between judiciary and media is likely to go a long way in alleviating the sufferings of hapless nobodies in their quest for justice.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Consumer gets little protection from law

Sanjog Maheshwari

THE CONSUMER Protection Law may not, prima facie, appear consumer-hostile but the ground realities under which it operates render it totally ineffective against the goverment-owned utilities, boards and organisations, etc.

If any government department, body, public utility concern or organisation rubs you on the wrong side, as an ordinary consumer the best options for you are: (a) to suffer patiently in silence, (2) bribe your way out of the problem. Do not agitate law through the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended by the (Amendment) Act 2002 unless you are a hard-core moralist ready to brave an extremely long drawn and relentlessly cruel legal battle in which all the odds are against you and the end of the tunnel may not be in sight during your life time.

For you Mr. Ordinary litigant, to be pitted against a formidable litigation-minded government, in quest of justice, would be like chasing the elusive mirage, a thoroughly nerve-wracking and disastrously expensive experience. Even the hardiest amongst you having nerves of steel will yearn to quit the legal battle in the midway but will find it not easy. Before long, he will realise that he is riding a tiger from which it is impossible to dismount unscathed.

The Consumer Protection Act has not so far conferred any power on the redress forums constituted under it to pass interim orders by way of injunction, etc., pending original proceedings instituted before the forums and as such in its present form offers no protection against the atrocities and dilatory tactics of the bureaucrats and officials of the litigant government agency concerned.

Further, in the long-standing consumer disputes the government and its agencies find it most convenient to file an appeal against each and every order passed by a lower court. In this three tier justice delivery system, an appeal against the orders of a district forum can be filed in the State commission against whose orders in turn, the decision would lie with the national commission and then the matter can go up to the Supreme Court.

For an ordinary litigant-consumer, it becomes an interminable legal battle against the almighty government which can easily afford infinite time, a battery of lawyers, unlimited resources in the form of taxpayers' money to spend in defending even a totally hopeless and defenceless case?

Moreover, the officials of the government and its agencies routinely flout the court orders when finally passed. They hold them in utter contempt and wait for the initiation of contempt proceedings. Evading presence to respond to the court's queries, frequently seeking adjournments, seeking refuge in myriad technicalities and resorting to other delaying tactics are the other bureaucratic practices that add to the endless woes of a litigant consumer against which even the courts are helpless.

Changes are overdue

Ironically, the Act treats the very much handicapped litigant consumer as evenly matched with and equal to an almighty and awfully powerful government. It thus ignores the obvious and fails to provide level playing ground for the consumer. Obviously in actual practice the Act operates heavily loaded in favour of the government and justice is routinely denied to the litigant consumer. Drastic changes in it are overdue.

The consumers are rapidly losing faith in this nascent consumer grievances redress and justice delivery system. In practice the Act miserably fails to provide any relief to an aggrieved consumer against the wrongs done to him by the government-owned service providers, agencies, public utility concerns, boards and organisations.

The bureaucrats should be forced to implement the court orders as soon as they are passed. Their penchant for going in for appeal against every order of the court and the tendency to wait for the initiation of contempt proceedings must be curbed with heavy hand. The Act needs to be amended to provide for built-in safeguards against those actions of the government which are inimical to the interests of the litigant consumers.

© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu

CGHS-2

Discrimination by CGHS

Second opinion: Sanjog Maheshwari

The healthcare and medical facilities provided under the Central Government Health Scheme suffer from several anomalies. While right to healthcare and medical facilities should be seen as an integral part of the right to life for all, the babus have ensured that world class healthcare, diagnostic and other medical facilities at posh private nursing homes, hospitals, healthcare centres at Government cost is available only to the MPs and other so-called VIPs. The nursing home facilities in Government hospitals are also mostly cornered by such higher strata beneficiaries.

Medical specialists attached to the CGHS dispensaries, if they happen to be of some calibre, remain unavailable on their slotted schedule, as for months on end they are away on what is termed as VIP duties -- attending to the VIPs and their families.

There also exists a complex classification and sub-classification of CGHS beneficiaries in various categories, based on which the scale of facilities admissible to them under the scheme is decided. The parameters and norms differ from beneficiary to beneficiary, depending on the scale of pay or pension, the position he holds or held in the Government, etc.

What is appalling is the fact that the pensioner-beneficiaries of autonomous bodies are not treated at par with their counterpart retired from purely Government service, particularly in the matter of grant of credit facilities in the recognised private healthcare centres, nursing homes, etc. Are they not as precariously placed both health-wise and resources-wise as their counterparts who retired from "purely Government service"?

The plight of an autonomous body pensioner, suffering from age-induced infirmities and debilitating diseases, is that he has to run around complying with absurd formalities, placating babus, getting department's permission before and after the treatment, incurring all expenses from his own slender resources on the spot in the first instance irrespective of the enormity of the amount of expenditure involved, etc.

Is the life of a Class IV employee less valuable than that of a Class I officer? As respected senior citizens of this country, all pensioners should be treated at par, particularly in the matter of healthcare and medical facilities.

Who says Delhi is liveable?

Who says Delhi is liveable?

Second Opinion: Sanjog Maheshwari Delhi is the most liveable city in India", proclaimed a recent survey. The findings are a reason for both elation and surprise. Elation, because any Delhiite would be proud to find his city's name at the top. It's surprising because the survey has called the city most liveable, irrespective of the fact that here people get killed with striking regularity for no fault of theirs. A case in point is the accidental death of hundreds of people under the murderous Blueline buses.

The uncontrolled sale of synthetic milk and milk products, adulterated food, spurious drugs, carbide-injected vegetables and fruits are other inalienable parts of a Delhiite's life. Interestingly, all this adulterated stuff and other basic necessities of life come at exorbitant prices.

Though the pollution level in the city has fallen after the introduction of CNG buses and measures taken by the Supreme Court, the remaining pollutants are enough to cause allergy to even non-asthmatic citizens. Besides the concentration of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, etc, Delhi's atmosphere is also filled with pesticides. A UNEP study has found heavy concentration of non-biodegradable endo-sulphans in its atmosphere. These are extensively used in pesticides sprayed by cash-rich farmers in the agricultural belt around Delhi. Their high concentration may cause cancer.

As for water pollution, Yamuna -- catering about 70 per cent of the drinking water requirements of the city -- has been turned into a big drain. All Delhiites know that hundreds of sewage canals empty into the river.

One can learn to cope up with pollution, but heinous crimes like rape, molestation, murder, loot, robbery and petty crimes like chain snatching, eve-teasing, which are being committed with impunity, add to the insecurity of the people. As if that were not enough, Delhi's infrastructure is under tremendous strain, thanks to haphazard growth, ever-increasing population and the influx of hordes of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.

It is said that there are three types of lies: Black lie, white lie and statistics. Researchers and the authors of the report declaring Delhi as the most 'liveable' city in the country seem to have relied too much on statistics

CGHS

SANJOG MAHESHWARI

C1A-42 B M.I.G. FLATS, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI-110 58

Ph. No. (011) 25531307

WHITHER CGHS?

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

The healthcare and medical facilities provided under the banner of Central Government Health Scheme (C.G.H.S) suffer from several anomalies, inadequacies, and discriminatory provisions. While Right to Healthcare and Medical Facilities should be seen as an integral facet of the right to life equally for all, irrespective of the individual’s status, the big babus have ensured that hassle-free world class healthcare, diagnostic and other medical facilities at posh private Nursing Homes, hospitals, healthcare centres at government cost and expenses is available only to the MPs, upper strata of the government employees and pensioners only. The nursing home facilities in government hospitals are also mostly cornered by such higher strata beneficiaries and generally remain out of reach of “commoners” among such beneficiaries. Medical specialists attached to the CGHS dispensaries, if they happen to be of some caliber, remain unavailable on their slotted week days of visit, as for months on end they are away on what is termed as V.I.P duties (whatever it may mean) - attending to the VIPs and their families.

There also exits a complex classification and sub-classification of CGHS beneficiaries in various categories; based on which the scale of facilities admissible to them under the scheme is decided. The parameters and norms differ from beneficiary to beneficiary depending on: the stage and scale of pay or pension, the position he holds or held in the government, whether an employee or pensioner of some “purely government department” (whatever it may mean) or Central Autonomous body, and so forth; as if the life of a “commoner” is of lesser value.

What is astoundingly appalling is: the pensioner-beneficiaries of autonomous bodies are not treated at par with their counterpart retired from purely government service- particularly in the matter of grant of credit facilities in the recognized private healthcare-centres, nursing homes etc. And this is where it hurts them most. Are they not as precariously placed both health-wise and resources-wise as their counterparts who retired from what they choose to call “purly government service”?

Even while they perpetuate and practice such blatant discrimination or for that matter make provisions for it in the rule book, they are not held accountable for the miseries caused thereby to the poor autonomous body pensioner- beneficiaries of the scheme. The traumatic experience and the plight of an autonomous body pensioner-beneficiary of CGHS- when in the evening of his life, suffering from age-induced infirmities and debilitating diseases, he has to run around complying with quite a few absurd formalities, placating highly inflated egos of concerned babus ( still afflicted with colonial mind-set), getting department’s permission before and after the treatment, incurring all expenses from his own slender resources on the spot in the first instance irrespective of the enormity of the amount of expenditure involved, making repeated rounds to the hospital for getting the bills verified by the CGHS medical authorities then to the department from which retired, submitting reimbursement bills that are very much watered down for one reason or the other, settling silly objections raised only for objections’ sake, facing callous indifference, unwarranted hostility, objections and rejections all the way- can better be imagined than described. He is subjected to this unreasonable discrimination only for the sin of his retiring from an autonomous body. While a pensioner-beneficiary retiring from an autonomous body like CSIR in a disgusting display of blatant discrimination is denied credit facilities in the CGHS empanelled Private Hospitals, Nursing Homes and other Health care Centres to which his counterpart retiring from the Government service is eligible, simmering discontentment among this section of beneficiaries is quite conspicuous. Why this should be so particularly when the C.S.I.R is a hundred per cent Central Government autonomous body working under the aegis and control of Ministry of Science& Technology, Govt. of India and the Prime Minister of India is its ex-officio President? For no fault of his a CSIR Pensioner-Beneficiaries is subjected to blatant discriminations even when he is required to make contribution to the Scheme similar in scale and amount to that of a similarly placed Central Govt. Pensioner; thanks to the whims, fancies and arrogance of the big Babus in the Government who insert discriminatory provisions in the rulebook with calculated impunity.

The anomalies are many. Why all pensioners and retirees not treated at par? Is the life of a Class IV employee who after retirement devotes all his spare time doing useful social work in the service of the community for the welfare and well-being of the people, in any way less valuable than that of a senior class one officer who spends whole day incessantly bragging and boasting about that “ wonderful note” he wrote on the office file while he was in service- even while there is no taker?

As respected senior citizens of this country, all pensioners should be treated at par particularly in the matter of healthcare and medical facilities; distinctions of posts and positions held, whether retired from so-called purely Govt. service or hundred per cent Central Govt. funded autonomous body must immediately go. A factory of discontentment seems to be working overtime within the C.G.H.S as more and more Autonomous body pensioners join the rank as its beneficiaries every year and to their great chagrin discover that they are being meted out step-motherly treatment even in matter so vital as healthcare and medical facilities for no fault of theirs. Superannuation is a great leveler. Among pensioners age and age only should be the criterion for according “Priority” in the matter of providing healthcare and medical facilities which otherwise should necessarily be unvarying in scale and standard for all the pensioners across the board. To set down criteria and considerations, other than age-wise seniority/ priority, would tantamount to travesty of truth, justice and fair-play- against all the canons of natural justice and fair-play. .

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI.

C1A-42 B M.I.G. FLATS,

JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110058

Ph. (011) 25531307

WATER

http://southasianmedia.net/articles/search.cfm

The Pioneer

Water is a life sustaining commodity freely and abundantly gifted by mother nature for all living beings. However, acute scarcity of drinking water is keenly felt particularly in the metropolitan cities of India, where the supply of potable water falls short of it's ever-rising demand.The irony will be apparent if we view the above scenario in the backdrop of the report of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, according to which human beings currently use only about half of the 12,500 cubic kl of freshwater, that is readily available from groundwater, rivers and lakes. Hence, globally neither is there a water shortage nor will there be one in the future. In fact, nature has been extremely generous in providing us far more freshwater than we require. India is still more fortunate. It receives more than 350 million hectare metres of rainfall every year. In addition, it is blessed with a vast network of rivers, not to mention of lakes and other water bodies. Why then this scarcity amidst plenty? Obviously, the culprit is bad water management coupled with corruption. The demand for the water in the metropolitan cities can be curtailed only by putting an effective check on population growth. Besides causing the scarcity of water, both overcrowding and senseless urbanisation of cities have created other serious and complex social problems, which inhibit solutions. Consequently, the cities are bursting at their seams. The governments embark upon unplanned development in pursuance of their populist measures throwing all caution to winds. However, the fiduciary responsibility of the government to protect and keep the water bodies and resources in excellent condition all the time is not waived. Underground water should also not be confused with other underground resources such as metals, rocks, fuel in liquid and gaseous forms, etc. In the case of the former, a life-sustaining commodity as freely given by nature as air and sunshine, the ownership indisputably vests with the people and, as such, the service-providing government bodies should not legally or morally be able to levy consumptive charge on the consumers for the simple reason that they cannot charge the owners for the consumption of their own commodity. The ideal thing would be to subsidise this essential service, not to levy the consumptive charge. It is unfortunate that few local city governments retain water ownership rights out of greed and caprice, and have lately started levying both consumptive and service charges based on presumed or measured quantum water consumption. This practice, though unethical and against all canons of natural justice, has gone unchallenged and fraud goes on unabated. If metering the domestic supply of water is essential to curbing misuse, the responsibility of installation, maintenance and replacement of water meters must lay on the service providers - in this case the civic bodies of local governments. Arm-twisting the consumers by levying penal charges for arbitrarily fixed consumption would, therefore, be highly unethical and against all the canons of justice. It would be tantamount to penalising the consumers for the governments' own lapses, shortcomings and dereliction of duty.Any move for the privatisation of this service, as some local governments are reportedly contemplating, would face grave legal and ethical implications. The essential point remains: How can governments, which do not even own the commodity, usurp authority in order to privatise it?

BOOK REVIEW-ANCIENT INDIAN ARCHITECTURE- (FROM BL0SSOM TO BLOOM)-by SANJEEV MAHESHWARI & RAJEEV GARG

ANCIENT INDIAN ARCHITECTURE- (FROM BL0SSOM TO BLOOM)-by SANJEEV MAHESHWARI & RAJEEV GARG- Publishers CBS New Delhi pp 237 Priced Rs 275/-

REVIEWED BY- SANJOG MAHESHWARI

Maheshwari and Garg’s book, Ancient Indian Architecure- From Blossom to Bloom, is already into its hard cover edition after being warmly received by the students and academics alike for the scholarly enterprise with which it weaves information and research into a seamless tapestry embellished with visuals and photographs that records in chronological order Vedic, Buddhist, Hindu and Jaina Architecture. The most interesting section of the title, however, remains the complex web of the Western theory of the Aryan invasion of India covered under the chapter Vedic Architecture. After placing on record the incontrovertible evidence of Vaastu-based architecture of Indus valley civilization in support of Aryan nativity of India, the authors preferred to take a clinical view by concluding “ Could be the Aryans came and settled in the sub-continent a few millennia earlier than it is now presumed.” Could be the compulsions of being teachers in a Central University weighed on them to compromise with the established Western theory of invasion albeit contrary to their own convictions and research based on Architectural findings after wading through an ocean of research material. Though the authors may have some reasons for it, it is disappointing as we expected more from the authors on the subject.

According to Prof C.K.Prahlad noted teacher at the University of Michigan, a teacher must do research to provide an edge to his students. Not so in India. Paradoxical though it may appear, the fact remains that in our blessed country teaching and research are the two mutually exclusive pursuits. Not very infrequently, a teacher applying his mind to research and authoring a text book at the same time, ends up hitting the dirt about himself and his research. Research as we know, do not guarantee conformity with the entrenched beliefs. In fact, most of the time, it disturbs them and the teacher-author finds it difficult cope with the disturbance that his research generates. While there are hardly any university in India where professional scholars of competence are encouraged to do significant research, a few in the teaching community who venture to do it of their own find themselves treading the treacherous terrain when their painstakingly done research work throws up the material and evidence which do not conform to the official version on the subject they are supposed to shove down the throats of the students whose immediate concern remains to get degrees to get into some lucrative jobs. Who will purchase the title that contains plethora of researched material not consistent with the official version which the students are expected to spill on their answer books? The authors of the book who teach architecture at the Aligarh Muslim University, who could not be the exception seem to have valid excuse for not doing what as a research scholar they were expected to do: that is to controvert the Western theory of Aryan invasion of India on the basis of the solid architectural evidence they had dug out to contradict the dubious theory. However, it would be in the fitness of things, if this meadow-dew refreshing, revisionist view of history is seen as an appeal to the intelligentsia of the day to agitate the brooding spirit of history.

The decades of unbridled politicization and bureaucratization of universities and academic institutions have chased out the spirit of research and enquiry from the campuses. What is left is the debris of mediocre presentations shoved down the throats of the bored students year after year. Most of the writings on, and teaching of , Indian architecture continues to recycle the hackneyed theories of the Western scholars in particular and their Indian minions in general.

The building and town planning principles as enunciated in the “Vaastushastra” were developed, propounded, known and practiced by the Vedic Aryans only. Years of research had gone into developing them. All buildings and structures etc. excavated from these and various other sites conform to the building and town planning principles enshrined in the “Vaastushastra”- an ancient Vedic science of planning cities and building structures that only vedic Aryans knew, propounded and practiced. Since the vedic Aryans were not idol-worshippers no temple like structure could be found anywhere in as many as 500 sites excavated at the Sindhu-Saraswati system. Interestingly no war weapons of any description has been found. Can anybody think of a weapon-less invasion? These and many other evidences obliquely cited by the authors conclusively establishes that the Harappan civilization- the gift of two rivers Indus and Saraswati- is an urban version of predominantly pastoral Vedic civilization evolved to cater to the security and safety requirements of the neo-rich and prosperous of the day and the Vedic Aryans, the original inhabitants of the subcontinent India were in fact the architects of the Mohanjodaro-Lothal-Harappa-Dholavira civilizations. The authors adroitly manipulated the drift to make all this incidental to the subject matter. What else could be the better way to drive home the point they are making? And that too without argument. Did Namier not exhort : “Do not argue with History”?

In the chapters following the one on Vedic Architecture, a thorough in-depth study of the architecture under the various important ruling dynasties of ancient India such as Maurya, Shung-Saatvahans, Gupta, Chalukya, Rashtrakuta, Pallava, Chola, Chandela, Ganga and many other regional dynasties such as Pratihara, Solanki, Parmara, Chera and so forth has been made in chronological order under dynaty-wise titled chapters. Replete with visuals ( graphics and pictorial depiction of the related structures ) at appropriate place alongside the relevant text, the title is a unique work of outstanding quality for which the authors deserve accolades. Points to ponder have been arranged at the end of each chapter. In an impressive Glossary 285 Sanskrit terms used in the text have been explained with consummate skill and clarity which alonwith an exhaustive Bibliography cunningly entices a serious student of Vaastu based Architecture to embark upon a course of unfolding further vistas in the region. However, the personal computer which the authors lovingly call “Pushyamitra” have had some tricks up its silly system otherwise there would not have been too many typographical errors. Given a little diligence they could have been avoided in the hard cover edition at least.

Despite the limitations, the book is undoubtedly a valuable addition to the library of Indian architecture and history. If the excellent get up of the title with so many illustrations is any indication, the publishers have proved that the publishing has come off age in India. Reasonably priced the book does not make a dent in the pocket.

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

RTI-2005

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT-2005 DOES IT REALLY EMPOWER PEOPLE?

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

While Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to every citizen as his Fundamental Right, the fact remains that the people cannot effectively exercise this right unless they know. As early as in 1976, the Apex Court made an observation to this effect in the case of Raj Narain versus State of U.P. However, it took nearly three decades for successive governments at Centre to acknowledge that the people who pay taxes for running the government have a right to correct and complete information about how it is functioning and how their hard-earned money is being spent. In a democratic polity, it is the people who are the masters and as such must be in the know of various issues involved in the matter of governance and administration. In recognition of this fact, the Parliament enacted Right to Information Act-2005, which received the assent of the President of India on 15^th June,2005 and came into force with effect from 12^th October 2005- ( its earlier version- Freedom of Information Act-2002 having proved ineffective was soon repealed)

The new law has been invested with some important empowering provisions for the people, aimed at introducing elements of transparency and accountability in administration and to contain, if not completely eliminate, corruption. The all too gullible people of India soon started dreaming that now they will breathe in a corruption-free environment. However, the corrupt bureaucracy in the very first flush of Applications under the RTI law was so rattled that in their move to blunt its effectiveness, persuaded the cabinet committee to approve an amendment to exempt file notings and cabinet papers from disclosure under the Act. The proposed Amendment to the Act brought about within less than a year of the main Act coming in the force, was opposed tooth and nail by almost every right minded citizen. On the expected lines it was vociferously advocated and espoused by the politico-bureaucratic entrenched vested interests and the foot-dragging officialdom within the government. The malafide move was, however, foiled; thanks to the huge public outcry against the proposed amendment. Thus the Act survived the first blow “to take life out of it” as aptly observed by Sh.O.P. Kejariwal, Central Information Commissioner and the common man sighed in relief and celebrated the event.

However, the euphoria died too soon. How wrong we were in forgetting that we live in a society where more the things change, more they remain the same. Almost two decades back a similar piece of legislation was enacted under the title: “Consumer Protection Act-1986” to protect the interests of consumers. Its enactment was also greeted with the similar enthusiasm. “Now consumer is king,” they chanted joyously. Twenty years and three amending Acts later, the statute in its practical application is now so riddled with complexities and technicalities that as of now there is no protection under the Act unless a consumer is Somebody. The Amendments contain nothing which is consumer-friendly. In fact some of their provisions are patently consumer-hostile.

The RTI Act seems fated the same way. Because, if it is not the “killed” amendment then it is the dubious “Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007- passed on 13-06-2007 and hastily brought in force within a week i.e. from 21-06-2007- which is proving its un-doing. Ostensibly brought about “for better internal management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission so as to enable it to function effectively”, it actually puts the RTI Act-2005 way beyond the reach of a common man by rendering the process of seeking information under the Act an exorbitantly expensive, unduly complicated, complex, torturous and lengthy affair. Since the clever bureaucracy is so skilled in the art of dodging and has so many tricks up its dirty sleeves in giving the slip to inconvenient queries and disowning responsibility that it easily gets away without supplying the information it wants to conceal or at best by supplying incomplete information and loading the information-seeker with the rubbish he does not want that in 90 out of hundred cases one has to file Complaint or 2^nd Appeal to the Central Information Commission and 2^nd Appellate Authority- the apex body under u/s 18 or 19 of the Act. While what required is to address to the crying need of the day i.e. to force the officialdom to act more responsibly and also standardize the fees and procedure structure in the Act- which differs from State to State- and make it identical throughout the country, the Regulations, 2007 go on to prescribe a very costly, complex and cumbersome procedure for filing the Second Appeal with the apex body i.e. the CIC. Even at this stage the art of dodging in which the bureaucracy is past-master comes handy to them. For example, in a very simple case where an applicant had requested for the information etc. regarding the action taken on and the status of a few representations made by him to a public authority, the Central Information Commission allowed the public authority to get off without supplying any of the requested information. In their order, they observed, “ The information solicited herein is about policy matters for which no definite answer could have been given…………..” They, inter-alia, went on to say, “Yet the respondents are agreeable to allow the appellant to inspect the files / records related to his RTI request…………” (Case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00574 dated 19-0707). The order could be anything but a direction to the public authority to provide “ status report on the representations” as requested for by the appellant. A single stroke of pen scrubbed down all efforts made by the appellant and at the end of the day (or is it a year?) he was poorer by a few hundred rupees and as ignorant about the status of his representations as before filing the first and second appeals. In an identical case, on the request for information made to the CPIO NCDRC on 17/18-2-08 followed by the First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 31-03-08 in respect of a representation dated 05-12-07, the CPIO of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide his letter No. A-2001/NCDRC/2008 dated 22-04-08, inter-alia, informs that “ Section 4(1) (d) does not apply to a judicial proceedings conducted by a Court or Tribunal as it refers only to administrative and quasi judicial decisions of public authorities”. It is conveniently ignored that the appellant is simply interested in knowing the status of his representation dated 05-12-07: the date of its receipt in the Commission’s Registry, daily progress made on it with copies of the related file-notings etc.- a purely administrative matter which has nothing to do with the nitty-gritty of judicial proceedings. In yet another case public authority, Ghaziabad Development Authority, gets off-the hook by supplying grossly incomplete and mostly irrelevant information even after more than a year of the application under the RTI Act duly followed by the first and second appeals at the appropriate levels.(U.P. State Information Commission case No. S-245). These examples are only illustrative and by no means exhaustive. Of course, some success stories are also there but, considering the number of applications filed, they are abysmally few and far between. Thanks to the dubious Regulations 2007, the procedure has been rendered so complex and cumbersome that ultimately it burns you out and makes a deep hole in your pocket. At that stage while your cost and expenses mount, the culprit would, in most of the cases, escape punishment. No more do the foot-dragging and corrupt officials of public authorities feel like running for cover as the imposition of penalties on them under the RTI Act even for their acts of gross negligence and dereliction of duty is unthinkable. This, inter-alia, has undermined the faith of common man in the Act.

Moreover, some Government-funded autonomous bodies have not put in place a proper machinery to deal with RTI Applications. For example, CSIR Laboratories, by and large, have appointed the respective Controllers of Administration public information officers (PIOs). A senior scientist at the laboratory itself is the first appellate authority. All scientists in a C.S.I.R Laboratory, their seniority not withstanding, have to be dependent on Administrative and Accounts personnel for their official and office-related personal work. Even the senior-most among them has to toe the line of action taken by the Controller of Administration and to be acquiescent to everything the Controller of Administration does or does not do. None, except the director, is vested with the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against any of the delinquent staff under the Conduct Rules / Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules – C.C.S.(C.C.A) Rules The arrangement, for the obvious reasons, is not conducive to the result-oriented actions that are required to be taken so far as the proper implementation of the provisions of the R.T.I Act is concerned. In order to achieve the objectives of the RTI Act, it is, therefore, most urgently required that the respective Directors of the Laboratories should be appointed as public information officers (PIOs) and some high ranking officer at the C.S.I.R. Headquarters ( if not the Director General C.S.I.R himself) , the first appellate authority. As the top brass of the Indian bureaucracy adorns the high offices of Central Information Commissioners- the Second Appellate authority under the Act, it would make sense if the First Appellate authority is a disciplinary authority as well. Short of this, the Act, so far as the C.S.I.R. is concerned will continue to remain a lame duck. These are but a few among many such loopholes and lacunae which render the law ineffective. A thorough investigation backed up by prompt corrective measures is overdue.

One of the main objectives of the Act is to bring about systemic changes in governance and curb the devil-may-care attitude of foot-dragging and the corrupt officialdom. The rules of procedure should be simple, easy to follow and less expensive. CIC should see to it that mechanism is such that minimal number of applicants feel impelled to file 2^nd Appeal- all Information-seekers getting correct and complete information at the P.I.O. level itself. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things if the Regulations 2007 is scraped forthwith. In its place, the government should frame rules to make the procedure and fee-structure uniform, hassle-free, easier and public-friendly throughout the country with a view to encourage people to resort to this method of seeking correct and complete information. By all means, the RTI movement should be reinforced by seeker- friendly law, rules and regulations.

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI