Make public the details of cases where orders were reserved: CIC to SC
-6th August 2011
The central information commission (CIC) has directed the Supreme Court (SC) to make public the list of all such cases where the arguments were over, but judgments were reserved. Currently, the apex court does not maintain case details in this form either on its website or on any other platform where public can access it.
During the hearing on Wednesday, the Supreme Court’s public information officer argued that the court ordinarily passed orders within 2 – 4 weeks of reserving the orders. “About those few rare cases in which orders were not passed for a longer period, no specific data was being maintained,” said Smita Vats Sharma, CPIO.
The CIC ruled that the total number of such cases in which orders were reserved should be duly intimated to the general public. “Now that the benefit of computerization is available, placing such data in the public domain should not be particularly difficult. Therefore, if the Supreme Court is not maintaining such data, it should do so now in order to facilitate the citizens to learn about the status of pendency before the Supreme Court,” said the order.
The CIC was hearing the case of commodore Lokesh K Batra. In December, the applicant filed RTI application with the high court and Supreme Court asking the total number of cases pending for judgements where arguments had been heard and Judgements are reserved in the year 2007, 2008 and 2009.
While the high court provided him with the data, the apex court told him that it did not maintain data in that manner making the applicant move the CIC.
“The supreme court said that it does not have the data on cases where judgments were not passed beyond 2- 3 months of the closure of arguments. Does that mean that such cases would never come beofe the benches? This is absurd,” said the applicant.
IAS officers’ assets details available under RTI: HC
The Madras high court has held that assets details of IAS officers furnished to the government in a sealed cover can be made available under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Inspection of asset details of the officer concerned can be allowed as well, it further held.
An appeal by V Madhav said that on February 12, 2009, he applied to the public information officer (PIO) of the public department seeking permission to inspect the five latest statements of assets’ disclosure submitted by 10 IAS officers, including the chief secretary. It was rejected by the PIO and the appellate authority on the grounds that the information was exempt under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.
The information commission contended that the assets declaration related details were personal information, the disclosure of which would have no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. The commission also said the information furnished in a sealed cover is “held” by the government to ensure confidentiality.
While the government pleader said the information about the IAS officers in question was made available on the website as per a circular of the Union ministry of personnel , public grievances and pension dated April 4, 2011, V Krishna Ananth, counsel for the petitioner, said the information on a website may not be authentic as it was liable for hacking. The information also had no evidentiary value , he said.
In light of the direction from the central government on disclosure of assets by IAS officers, counsel contended there could not be any impediment for the Commission to allow the appellant to access information sought for in his application. In its order, the bench of justices D Murugesan and K K Sasidharan said, “We find force in the above submission.”
Passing orders, the bench held that the disclosure of such information under the provisions of the act would ensure a culture of openness. A sound administrative system leading to efficiency and effectiveness could be achieved. It would further result in involving a better form of government, the bench said, adding that the relief sought for in the writ appeal be considered.
Government defends CBI’s exemption from RTI, cites national security
In a decision that may embarrass an embattled UPA government, the Central Information Commission on Friday held that the Centre’s action in placing the CBI on the list of organisations exempted to provide information under the RTI Act was against the spirit of the Constitution.
The CIC order comes within weeks of the Union Government’s controversial notification issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) on June 9 which put the CBI in the second schedule of the Right to Information Act 2005. This enabled the CBI exemption available to “security and intelligence” organisations like IB and RAW from the scope of the transparency law.
The June order of the government was criticised by various quarters as CBI is already investigating cases relating to Common Wealth Games 2010 and 2G spectrum scam. “This commission rules that the said notification of 9/6/2011 is not in consonance with the letter or spirit of section 24 of the RTI Act, since it constricts the citizen’s fundamental right in a manner not sanctioned by the law,” Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said.
The Commission quashed the notification by allowing a complaint filed by Justice (Retired) R N Mishra seeking copy of the FIR and other details relating to Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam case which had put several members of judiciary including the higher judiciary under the scanner for allegedly swindling employees’ money for personal gains. After going through the functioning and mandate of the CBI, the apex panel under the transparency law ruled that CBI is not an “intelligence or security organisation”.
“Since no reasons have been advanced, citizens are likely to deduce that the purpose of including CBI in the second schedule was to curb transparency and accountability from the investigations of several corruption cases against high-ranking government officers,” Gandhi said, noting that the CBI was a multi-disciplinary investigating agency. Rejecting the CBI plea, the commission directed the probe agency to provide the details sought by Mishra by July 25.
Also the notification issued by DoPT on June 9 would be construed as prospective in nature only without there being any “express stipulation” in it.
Government defends CBI’s exemption from RTI, cites national security
The Government says it is working for a tough anti-corruption body through the Lokpal Bill. But it is now defending its action of shielding the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from the Right to Information (RTI) Act. “The CBI is investigating various matters which involve national security. Therefore based on the opinion given to us by the Attorney General, we have done it (exempted the CBI),” V Narayanaswamy, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, told NDTV on Monday.
The CBI has refused to make public, the information about disproportionate asset cases against government servants, including bureaucrats and ministers. The Centre, through a notification issued on June 9, had placed the agency in the organisations listed in the second schedule of Section 24 of the RTI Act, which also comprises intelligence and security agencies. “The Government of India…has placed the Central Bureau of Investigation at Serial Number 23 of the second schedule of the Right to Information Act, this act is not applicable to the Central Bureau of Investigation,” CBI joint director Prabodh Kumar said in reply to an RTI application filed by activist SC Agarwal.
Mr Agrawal had filed four RTI applications, three months before CBI got exemption, seeking details of corruption cases accusing officials and ministers of amassing disproportionate assets. The questions asked by him pertained to recoveries done by the agency from the accused and fine slapped on corrupt officials on the orders of courts.
The Central Public Information Officer of the agency refused to provide information, saying it was “voluminous”.
In his appeal before the Central Information Commission, Mr Agrawal pleaded that since his petition and first appeal were filed prior to date of notification exempting CBI, provisions of the said notification should not be applicable to his case. “Even otherwise, section 24 of RTI Act clearly stipulates that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation shall be provided even if some organisations are placed in second schedule of RTI Act,” Mr Agarwal said.
Former Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah has criticised the CBI’s stand. “Exempting CBI would amount to misapplication of Section 24 of the RTI Act much against the intention of Parliament, and militating against a primary objective of the Act, which as stated in the Objects and Reasons is ‘to contain corruption’,” Mr Habibullah said. The former Chief Information Commissioner who demitted office on September 30 last year said apprehensions cited in some quarters that through RTI Act CBI could be “compelled” to give sensitive information about probe cases, and reveal identity of crucial witness, are “mistaken” as section 8 of the RTI Act provides safeguards against such information.
CBI sources told PTI that the provisions of section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 gives case-to-case basis of application of exemption. However, they said it is not possible to decide in such a fashion on secrecy of individual documents or pieces of information. “Seemingly innocuous or unobjectionable” pieces of information might seem harmless but when placed in conjunction with each other, the “mosaic of a dangerous picture” affecting the security of the nation can emerge, they said.
DOPT order on RTI transfer inconsistent with law
-June 18, 2011
The point was raised by the cabinet secretariat during a hearing of a plea filed by Mumbai based RTI activist Chetan Kothari. The cabinet secretariat had said information is not maintained centrally, and is scattered across different public authorities.
Citing the DoPT order on transfer of application, it had asked Kothari to file separate RTI applications with different departments to get the information.
Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, however, said, “There are numerous instances where RTI applications have been transferred by one public authority to another and none of them appears to know where the information is.”
Gandhi said in this scenario for public authorities to take a position that they would only transfer to one public authority is “unreasonable”, and the law does not state this. “There is nothing in the (RTI) Act which would shows that Parliament intended that the transfer should only be to one public authority.”
He added, “It also appears that DoPT’s office memorandum is in contravention of the General Clauses Act 1987 and interpreted Section 6(3) of the RTI Act wrongly… The Commission rules that DoPT’s office memorandum is not consistent with the law.”
CIC orders Rajya Sabha to disclose the register of members’ interest of MPs
-June 8, 2011
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed Rajya Sabha to disclose the register of members’ interest submitted by MPs to the Ethics Committee [Please find the order:CIC ORDER]. The information relates to MP’s declarations of Remunerative Directorship, Regular Remunerated Activity, Shareholding of Controlling Nature, Paid Consultancy, Professional Engagement.
The decision was based on an appeal filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) after being denied the information by Rajya Sabha Secretariat claiming that the information was personal in natured and held in fiduciary capacity.
However, the grounds on which the RTI and the 1st Appeal was rejected by the PIO and the Appellate Authority were not found relevant by the Chief Information Commissioner, Mr. Satyananda Mishra.
The information sought included copies of the statements of current members of the Rajya Sabha submitted under ‘register of members’ (business and commercial) interest’. The application also requested information as to how many Rajya Sabha members had given this information and how many hadn’t.
ADR had filed the RTI application with Rajya Sabha Secretariat on July 20, 2009. The RTI when rejected was followed by the 1st appeal which was also rejected by the Appellate Authority. The appellate authority this time added sub section (1) (c) (breach of privilege of Parliament or State Legislature) of section 8 of the RTI Act.
The CIC ruled that, “The knowledge among the citizens about the pecuniary interest of MPs in various companies and other business establishments would help them to keep a better watch on their representatives when they would be with policy and other legislative matters affecting the interests of such companies and business interests”.
This information pertains only to Rajya Sabha MPs as such a rule is not there in Lok Sabha. ADR has sent letters to the Lok Sabha speaker and to the members and chairman of the Ethics Committee of Lok Sabha requesting them to introduce the register of members’ interest in the Lok Sabha too. We are however yet to hear from them.
As soon as we get this information, we will analyse and share with everyone.
CIC orders Foreign Ministry to reveal Bhopal letters
-1st June 2011
Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed Ministry of External Affairs to make public all letters that it has issued or received concerning Bhopal gas leak of December 1984. The decision came on an appeal filed by the RTI activist Afroz Alam “Sahil” who was denied his request for information by the Foreign Ministry since the matter of extradition of Warren Anderson is sub judice.
“A matter sub judice is not ground enough for denying information about the matter, as has been well settled law held in various previous decisions,” wrote Information Commissioner Mrs. Annapurna Dixit asking the ministry to reveal information sought by Afroz Alam by June 10th.
The information sought includes all correspondence between the ministry and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from April 1984 to July 1995; photocopies of all letters written by the ministry to any department; letters received by the ministry from the Central Government and the Madhya Pradesh Government concerning Bhopal gas leak; and details of all expenditure incurred by the ministry.
Mr. Alam had filed his RTI application on June 10th, 2010 which was replied on August 13th, 2010 stating that information was not readily available regarding letters exchanged with CBI. For other matters the ministry said it is consulting with the Law Ministry. Perturbed, Mr. Alam filed another RTI on August 25th to which the information officer of the ministry replied on September 9th, 2010 referring to the previous RTI application. Therefore, on November 13, 2010, Afroz Alam filed an appeal which was heard and ruled on May 5th, 2011.
During the hearing the Information Officer of the Ministry of External Affairs stated that the information sought is related to the extradition matter of the former Union Carbide CEO Warren Anderson and since this is under consideration by the Government of India and is sub judice and therefore cannot be revealed. The ministry also denied incurring any expenses related to Bhopal disaster.
Rejecting MEA’s claims, Commissioner in her ruling stated that it is evident that “the information sought relates to one of the world’s worst industrial catastrophes resulting in death, disability and maiming of thousands of people all over Bhopal. The information therefore, is of significance to the general public, especially the families of the victims who have been awaiting justice since over last two decades.”
Leak of methyl isocynate from Union Carbide’s Bhopal plant on the night of Dec 2-3, 1984 killed thousands and the disaster continues for residents of the area affected by the leak. Victims continue to struggle for justice and compensation.
CIC asks RS Chairman to decide privilege issue
The Central Information Commission has asked Rajya Sabha Chairman to take a decision on whether disclosure of file notes, under the RTI Act, on notices and questions received from members will be a breach of Parliamentary privilege.
The transparency panel, while deciding the case of an RTI applicant who had sought to know questions and discussions that took place in the Rajya Sabha against the Central Information Commission, has referred the issue of privilege to the Chairman of the House.
Applicant Anita Chabra had also demanded note sheets prepared by the Secretariat on these questions and notices for discussions received from members. The information was denied by the Secretariat citing section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act which exempts from disclosure information which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.
“This Commission realises that there is no exact codification of Parliamentary Privilege. In view of this the Commission requests the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to consider whether giving this information would be a breach of privilege of the Parliament,” Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said.
He directed that disclosure of information would depend on the decision of Chairman Rajya Sabha.
The Rajya Sabha Secretariat , while declining to disclose the information, had said it works on the behalf of the Chairman and decisions like notices received from the MPs are taken in terms of the Rules of Procedure of the House.
“…and in this process the Secretariat is exercising the powers and functions of Chairman Rajya Sabha. The decisions arrived at in terms of the said rules are privileged and protected from disclosure into the public domain,” the Secretariat said.
It said the control on the business of the house falls with the jurisdiction of the house itself and this is the Parliament Privilege.
“This being so, it is not felt appropriate to divulge the decision taking process in relation to the business of the house,” it said.
Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said, “This is an interesting proposition but if this is to be accepted, various protection given to certain bodies would be extended far beyond its intended purpose.”
He pointed out when any institution or person denies a citizen’s fundamental right, great care needs to be taken.
“However, the majesty and privilege of the Parliament also have to be respected with equal care for democracy to function properly…If the Honourable Chairman comes to the conclusion that giving this information will not be a breach of privilege of Parliament the PIO is directed to provide the information,” Gandhi held.
Citizens’ rights score over privacy issues: CIC
The Central Information Commission has ruled that annual confidential reports of government servants cannot be treated as secret, saying “citizens’ right to information has greater primacy with regard to privacy.” The government has, so far, refused to provide the annual confidential reports (ACRs) by citing the exemption provision of personal information under the Right To Information Act (RTI).
The ACR evaluates the work and performance of a public servant on an annual basis. The labour ministry invoked the clause saying the information had no relation to public interest, while refusing to provide details of ACRs of 17 officials.
VK Sharma of Kolkata had sought information regarding the promotion of these officers in October 2010.
Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, however, said that privacy is a cultural notion related to social norms and cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the citizen’s fundamental right to information.
“Parliament has not codified the right to privacy, so far. Hence, in balancing the right to information of citizens and the individual’s right to privacy, the citizen’s right to information would be given greater weightage,” said Gandhi, in his order.
Gandhi also said information such as property details, conviction or acquittal of a public servant of criminal charges, which is routinely collected by a public authority and provided by public servants, cannot be construed as an invasion of privacy.
“Similarly, citizens have a right to know about the strengths and weaknesses as well as performance evaluation of all public servants,” he said, while asking Prakash Tamrakar, public information officer of the ministry, to provide the information sought.
In addition, the order also said that ACRs were first treated as secret by the British, under the Officials Secrets Act of 1923.
But over the years, the trend has drastically changed, with even the judiciary recognising rights of the citizens to access information to bring transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government.
As per the RTI, the Officials Secrets Act (OSA) is not applicable anymore wherever citizens seek access to information, except the exemption provisions under the information law.
In a conflict, RTI Act will prevail over Supreme Court rules: CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that in a conflict between the Right to Information Act and the internal rules of a Public Authority, the RTI Act must prevail. It would prevail even if the internal rules pertain to the Supreme Court.
CIC Shailesh Gandhi passed this order in a case, in which information on certain judicial records was sought from the Supreme Court under the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FFA) in the court held that any information on judicial records could be accessed only under Order XII of the Supreme Court rules.
The judicial records pertained to letters written to judges by R.S. Misra, appellant in the case. Mr. Misra, who wrote the letters in connection with a Special Leave Petition filed by him, wanted to know their status and filed an application under the RTI Act.
Mr. Gandhi held that the Supreme Court could not cite internal rules to deny information if it had been sought under the RTI Act. Further that information could be denied only if the information sought was prohibited under the RTI Act itself.
“The right to information is a fundamental right of the citizen of India. This has been clearly recognised by the Supreme Court in several decisions and subsequently codified by Parliament in 2005. The RTI Act was enacted with the spirit of ensuring transparency…Section 3 of the RTI Act lays down that subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, all citizens shall have the right to information… Further Section 22 of the RTI Act expressly provides that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI Act. In other words, where there is any inconsistency in a law as regards furnishing of information, such law shall be superseded by the RTI Act. Insertion of a non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act was a conscious choice of Parliament to safeguard the citizens’ fundamental right to information…If the PIO has received a request for information under the RTI Act, the information shall be provided to the applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act and any denial of the same must be in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only..”
Raja refuses to disclose I-T details under RTI
CHENNAI: Former union telecom minister A Raja, who is in Tihar jail in the spectrum scam, has objected to the disclosure of his tax returns by the income-tax department under the Right To Information (RTI) Act.
Acting on his objection, the department has rejected the RTI application filed by V Gopalakrishnan, an activist in KK Nagar. Gopalakrishnan, in his application dated March 15, 2011, asked the department to furnish the copies of income-tax returns of Raja for ten years from 2000-01 to 2010-11.
The public information officer (PIO) of the Trichy income-tax office sent a letter to Raja on April 5, calling for his objections, if any, in furnishing the copy of his income-tax returns to the applicant. In response to the communication, Raja’s representative S Muthukumarasamy sent a reply saying, “The personal details of income-tax returns and other details are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The details called for are not eligible to be issued under the RTI Act.” He also quoted two decisions of the Central Information Commission (CIC) delivered in July 2006 and February 2007 in support of his objection.
On his part, Gopalakrishnan mentioned in his application a 2009 decision of the CIC arguing that the income-tax returns should be disclosed under the Act. The PIO in his RTI reply said there was no public interest involved in the disclosure.
Stating that he had sought for Raja’s objection as per section 11 of the Act since the applicant had sought for a third-party information, the PIO said: “I am not satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought for by the applicant. Accordingly, I decline to furnish the information.”
In the case of deputy chief minister MK Stalin, whose income-tax return copies were also sought for by the applicant for the years 2006-07 to 2010-11, the PIO of Chennai income-tax office rejected the application without even calling for Stalin’s objections.
“You (the applicant) have not made out any case in the larger public interest. I am satisfied that the disclosure of such information is not in any public activity or interest,” the PIO said.
On Tuesday, TOI reported the objections raised by chief minister M Karunanidhi, Union home minister P Chidambaram and Union textile minister Dayanidhi Maran to disclose their income-tax returns under the RTI Act. Following their objections, the income-tax department rejected the RTI queries seeking their IT-returns.
BJP files RTI on funds use
Shillong, April 27: The Meghalaya unit of the BJP today sought information through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, on the slow processing of certificates for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Scheduled Castes (SC) by the state government.
“Smelling a rat” in the utilisation of funds meant for the OBCs, Scheduled Castes and minorities in the state, BJP general secretary Dipayan Chakraborty said, “We feel minorities in Meghalaya are being taken for a ride and the schemes are not being implemented by the Congress-led government. Similarly, it is not seen where the state government spends the central funds meant for OBCs and Scheduled Castes.”
Chakraborty, who was seeking information from the public information officer of the social welfare department, wanted to know about the number of certificates and the total amount of funds procured in the past five years from the Centre.
Elaborating, the BJP leader questioned the amount of funds that was utilised in the past five years for the welfare of the OBCs, Scheduled Castes and minorities in the state.
He also wanted details about the schemes under which the funds were utilised.
Governor is a public authority: Goa Information Commissioner
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner Motilal Kenny on Thursday ruled that the Governor was a “public authority” and does come within the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Mr. Kenny pronounced the verdict on a complaint filed by lawyer-activist Aires Rodrigues against Governor S.S. Sidhu. He directed the Public Information Officer at the Raj Bhavan to furnish Mr. Rodrigues within 30 days the information sought by him under the RTI Act.
Mr. Rodrigues complaint against the Governor follows the stand taken by the Raj Bhavan that the Governor is not a public authority and does not come within the purview of the RTI Act.
Mr. Rodrigues had sought from Raj Bhavan, under the RTI Act, details of the action taken on the complaints made by him to Mr. Sidhu against Advocate-General Subodh Kantak. He had sought copies of noting sheets and correspondence pertaining to the processing of his complaints against the Advocate-General.
Mr. Rodrigues, in his petition to the State Information Commission, said the office of the Governor was a constitutional post within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2 (h) (a) of the RTI Act. He submitted that as the Governor was a public authority, the Raj Bhavan was bound to furnish the information sought and the refusal to furnish information was unreasonable, mala fide and without reasonable cause.
Lawyers appearing for the Raj Bhavan had argued that the Governor was not a “public authority”.
Mr. Rodrigues submitted that the violation of the law by the Head of a State was a bad precedent and was obstructing the enforcement of the RTI Act.
Even the President complied with the provisions of the RTI Act. Mr. Sidhu was the only Governor in the country who was not complying with the RTI Act claiming that he was not a “public authority,” Mr. Rodrigues submitted.
Indian RTI Conference Adopts 12-Point Shillong Declaration
Montek Clarfies on Application of RTI Act on PPP Projects:
Some observations made by Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia regarding application of the RTI Act to PPP projects have been quoted out of context by media. The factual position is, therefore, being clarified through this Press Release.
The Chief Information Commissioner had sent a letter to the Dy. Chairman, Planning Commission suggesting that conditions should be built into every PPP agreement requiring the respective concessionaire to provide information regarding their projects under the RTI Act.
The aforesaid letter of CIC has been referred by the Planning Commission to the Law Ministry for advice regarding the appropriate response. This is because Information Commissions are statutory authorities, and their role and jurisdiction is determined by the RTI Act. Any clarification by the Planning Commission can neither expand nor restrict their role. It is for the Information Commissions to decide, whether and to what extent, the provisions of RTI Act are attracted by the PPP concessionaires. The Deputy Chairman is in favour of full disclosure by public authorities of all relevant aspects of PPPs and performance under them.
It is further clarified that concession agreements are executed by the respective Ministries and not by the Planning Commission. So far as the Planning Commission is concerned, it has published several Model Concession Agreements (MCAs) for PPP projects. These MCAs provide for full disclosure of the Concession Agreement, the Maintenance Manual, the Maintenance Programme and the Maintenance Requirements in respect of each project. Where an MCA is followed, any person can obtain certified copies of these documents from the respective concessionaires.
Bring PPP under RTI, CIC tells Plan panel
Central Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra has written to the Planning Commission suggesting that all future contracts entered into by the government with a private firm under the Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement should be in the public domain and brought under the Right to Information Act.
At present, the Act doesn’t refer to PPP contracts.
Saying that big-ticket infrastructure projects are mostly via the PPP route and involve “substantial amount of money,” Mishra has, in a recent letter addressed to Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, suggested that at the stage of proposal, the PPP agreement should be published on the Ministry or department’s website.
He urged the Plan panel to consider that a PPP entity should be deemed to be a public authority for the purpose of RTI Act.
A public authority, as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act includes a non-governmental body only if it is substantially financed by the Central government. Mishra uses this argument to make his case saying that in all projects handed over to a PPP entity for building, operating or maintaining, “the land, if not any other resources, given by the government forms a vital component of the project and to that extent, can by deemed to be substantial financing.”
Functioning of CIC:
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has 116 sanctioned posts, excluding the information Commissioners. The CIC has sent a proposal for revising the sanctioned strength to 160.
15,476 appeals and complaints were pending in the CIC as on 31.01.2011. The CIC disposed of 19,482 appeals/complaints during the year 2009-10 and 20,583 during the period April 2010 – January, 2011.
CIC was allocated a sum of Rs. 1233 lakh in the year 2008-09 and Rs 1183 lakh in the year 2009-10. BE for CIC in 2010-11 is Rs 1234 lakh.
This information was given by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Shri V.Narayanasamy in written reply to question in the Lok Sabha.