ripfkerala-fightcorruption

Regional Seminar on RTI jointly organized by MEDIACT, MICCI &FES-INDIA on 30-31 March, 2008, Hotel Horizon, Thiruvananthapuram Presentation by the Secretary, RIPF

31-3-2008

The Information Commissions are the custodian of RTI Act. People appeal to the Commission against the difficulty in getting access to the official information and the Commission is the powerful tool to break the iron curtain of the official non-cooperation. An informed citizen is a better judge of the leadership. So the Commission has to maintain transparency and accountability in its decisions on the complaints and appeals. But we can see that in the past 27 months functioning of Kerala State Information Commission (KSIC), lacking transparency and accountability in its decisions.

Section 4 of the RTI Act,2005 makes it obligatory for pro-active disclosure of the particulars of 1) Commission’s organization, functions and duties 2) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability, and 3) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions. The Central Information Commission and all the other State Information Commissions have such rules of procedure. They have published such pro-active information envisaged under sec. 4 of RTI Act and have posted on their websites.

RTI application by RIPF Jerks the State Information Commission (SIC)

In the three issues of the Kerala Information Commission’s Quarterly Journal “Kerala Information Reporter” it can be seen that in all the orders included in the reporter the authenticity of such decisions are not given. The details of appellants/complainants and the respondents are given but at what levels and by which Information Commissioner(s), have taken such decisions are not given.

In KSIC, an appeal or a complaint or categories of appeals and complaints are being heard and decided by its promoters, a Single information Commissioner or a Division Bench of two Information Commissioners or a Full Bench of four Information Commissioners. So the people who read the “Kerala Information Reporter” must know the details about the promoter(s) of each and every decision and thereby the KSIC must maintain the possibility of transparency and accountability, obtained through Right to Information by the citizens.

So the KSIC, which is to hear appeals and to administer the RTI Act, is lacking transparency and accountability in its functioning and the facts obtained from the Commission’s file under RTI applications are bewildering and reveals how they have throttled the transparency Act.

To an RTI application of RIPF about the “Rules of Procedure” in KSIC’s decision making and work distribution among the Information Commissioners of KSIC, the Commission by its letter Nos. 7554/SIC-PIO/2007 dated 20-11-2007 and 28-12-2007 has informed that ‘the KSIC hasn’t have such rules of procedures and have not issued any orders on work distribution among the Information Commissioners’
But such decisions available with the web site: ‘www.infokerala.org.in’ of the Commission, reveals that there are such rules of procedure and work distribution. So the Commission is lying and has given false and misleading information to RIPF.

The following judgments disseminated in the Commission’s website ‘www.infokeral.org.in’ reveals that the KSIC has its own Rules of Procedure and work distribution:
Decisions of KSIC
Date Title
20-04-2007 Decision in AP number 57/2007/SIC filed by Shri. Sijo Abraham

20-04-2007 Decision in CP no: 130/2007/SIC filed by Smt. V.Santhanavally

20-04-2007 Decision in AP no: 161/2006/SIC filed by K.P. Vijayakumari

20-04-2007 Decision in AP number 74/2006/SIC filed by Shri.B.V.Kakkillaya

The first one (appeal No. 57/2007/SIC) was heard and decided by the Division Bench of the Commission consisting of S/Sri. Palat Mohandas (CIC) and V.V. Giri (IC). The second one (appeal No. 130/2007/SIC) by the single bench Sri. P.N. Vijayakumar (IC). The third one (161/2006/SIC) by the Full Bench consisting of CIC and 3 ICs. The fourth one (appeal No.74/2006/SIC) by Division Bench consisting of S/Sri. Palat Mohandas (CIC) and Sri. P.N. Vijayakumar (IC)

This web site of KSIC is not available now in the site. Instead a new web site ‘www.keralasic.gov.in’ has been opened. In this new web site also they have not included the pro-active disclosure about the procedure followed in the decision making process by the Information Commissioners and its transparency and accountability as envisaged under sec.4 of the RTI Act. The important decisions taken by the Commission are also not posted in the site.

The KSIC is not supposed to change the fundamentals of RTI Act. But KSIC has illegally jacked up its enquiry proceedings to fatten the bureaucracy. Such kind of collusion will do incalculable harm to citizenry rights. There is enough evidence and materials on record which justifies an enquiry by His Excellency the Governor of Kerala, under section 17 of RTI Act, about the 27 months’ functioning of the Kerala State Information Commission.

N. Rajendran
Secretary (RIPF)

“Citizen has the right to know Cabinet decision”

Print media reports are there on 02-03-2008 in the ‘Indian Express’ and the ‘Hindu’ that the State Information Commission in a complaint by T.Asafali, president of the Thalasserry based People’s Council for Civil Rights, ordered that a copy of the Cabinet decision with relevant notes sought by the citizen should be given to him within 15 days.

Indian Express reports that, “when a complaint against the rejection was lodged, the public information officer of the Home Department, K.K. Ramani was summoned by the State Information Commissioner. The Commissioner found that the rejection of information under sec. 8(1) (i) of the RTI Act was not justifiable. The Commissioner found that PIO of Home Department is responsible for the disposal of the request and ordered to supply a copy of the Cabinet decision with relevant notes to the citizen who made the request for information.

Which Information Commissioner did it?

But the name of the Commissioner who issued such an order / directive has not seen mentioned in the media reports. On an informal inquiry with the Commission officials it is told that such an order was passed against a complaint No. CP 456/2006 registered with the Commission, but they are reluctant to disclose the name of the Information Commissioner.

Why such a secrecy?

The Commission’s Quarterly journal “Kerala State Information Reporter” Vol I (issues I, II & III) contains important orders issued by the Commission. In all these orders included in the Reporter, the details of appellants and the respondents are given but by which Information Commissioner(s) and at what level(s); whether by a single bench/division bench/Full bench; have taken such decisions have not seen mentioned. The Annexure V to the Annual Report2006-2007 also do not have such details. So the decisions of the Commission are lacking transparency and accountability in the administration of RTI Act. Such decisions of the Commission without the authenticity of its promoters throttle the RTI Act.

But in the case of 4 decisions of SIC in their website (www.infokerala.org.in)it can be seen that the 1st (AP No.57/2007/SIC) and the $th (AP No.74/2006/SIC)were decided by the Division Bench of two Information Commissioners, the 2nd (CP No.130/2007/SIC)by a single Information Commissioner and the 3rd (AP No. 161/2006/SIC)by the Full Bench of 4 Information Commissioners and also the names of the Information Commissioners are seen mentioned in the web-copy of decisions.

The Commission is the custodian of RTI Act. People appeal to the commission against the difficulty in getting access to the official information and the commission is the powerful tool to break the iron curtain of the official non-cooperation.An informed citizen is a better judge of the leadership. Secrecy leads to misunderstanding; and misunderstanding leads to misinterpretation of facts.ACCOUNTABILITY and its exercise is central to healthy functioning of any system. The Commission is rather sick in this regard.

(Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides for pro-active disclosure of the particulars of 1) Commission’s organization, functions and duties 2) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability, and 3) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions.)

This provision is equally applicable to State Information Commissions also. The other State Commissions and the Central Information Commission have such pro-active disclosure. We demand transparency and accountability in SIC decisions and effective usage of RTI through e-governance.

However, RIPF put such kind of orders / directives of the Information Commissioner in disguise, to give access to Cabinet Notes to the citizens in the ‘HALL OF FAME’. Please read this and if you also have more about such kind of valuable decisions, put it in the hall of fame and offer your comments.

The New
Indian Express Kochi

SIC fails to redress grievance
Monday March 10 2008 11:10 IST

Manu Bharat
KOCHI: The Right to Information Act has undoubtedly proved to be a powerful weapon to bring transparency to the administration. But unfortunately, the implementing authority, the State Information Commission (SIC), doesn’t seem to address the grievance of the appellants satisfactorily.

The Right to Information Protection Forum (RIPF), an organization fighting for the right to information, has alleged that the Commission lacks the spirit of the rule in its functioning. As a justification for the allegations, the personal experience of the forum’s secretary has been pointed out.

The secretary of the forum N Rajendran filed an application under RTI Act seeking information on a government order relating to `One-Rank One-Pension’. Though the application was filed on May 5, 2006, he hasn’t yet received the required information.

``The Principal Information Officer of the Finance Department and the appellate authority gave me incorrect, incomplete and misleading information withholding 116 pages of the document and tampering with page numbers,’’ Rajendran said. The second appeal was filed by him before the Commission on August 23, 2006. The appeal No 99/2006/SIC was heard by the division bench of the Commission on November 7, 2006. The division bench, which found that the authorities had misled the appellant, issued directions to the department to provide him the missing pages. The order said that failure to comply with the direction would invite action under penal clause Section 20(1) of RTI Act.

``Ignoring the findings of the division bench and without informing the two commissioners who headed my case, another commissioner, who had not even been present at the hearing, dismissed the appeal,’’ said Rajendran. He later filed a Special Leave Petition on the matter which is still pending before the Commission.

To an RTI application filed by the RIPF about the `Rules of Procedure’ in decision-making and work distribution among the Information Commissioner, the Commission through a letter (No:7554/SIC-PIO/2007 dt 28.12.2007) informed that the ``SIC doesn’t have such procedures and has not issued any such orders’’.

``If the Commission fails to elicit the necessary information for the public from top bureaucrats, then the existence of such an authority itself is irrelevant,’’ he said.

The Supreme Court directs Centre, State,UTs to consider plight of the undertrials.
The Supreme Court, considered the plight of about 375 undertrials languishing in jails of India without trial for a long time, directed that those prisioners who have already served more than the maximum sentence shall be immediately released.

Kerala tops the list with 57 undertrials in its jails, without trial due to administrative negligence.
Interestingly Bihar has NIL, while West Bengal has 49 such victims of callousness of the administration.

The Right to Information Act, a silent revolution, became effective from 15-06-2005. The law grants a right to the citizens to question their governments, inspect government records, take copies thereof and participate in day-to-day governance. There is no secrecy anymore in governance, except the exempted information (Sec.8 & 9)

Right to Information Protection Forum (RIPF) is an independent not for profit NGO registered in Kerala under the Charitable Societies Act. To facilitate citizens file correct RTI application, a Help Desk has been set by RIPF.

Contact:
e-mail : ripfkerala@gmail.com
SMS / call : 9447345122 / 0471 2531159
By Post : Secretary, RIPF
TC-10/1068 (1), ARA 100
Vilabhagom Gardens
Mannanthala, Thiruvananthapuram 695015

Procedure for seeking information

I. The application procedure

1. Apply in writing to the SPIO, specifying the particulars of information sought for.
2. Reasons for seeking information are not required to be given.
3. You should deposit Rs. 10/- as application fee.
4. There is no prescribed form of application. The application can be made on plain paper. The applicant should, however, have the name and complete postal address of the applicant.
5. The information that you ask for should be very precise. If you ask vague questions you will get vague answers.

II. What is Information?

Information is any material in any form. It includes records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in an electronic form. It also includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any law for the time being in force.

III. What is the fee?

1. Application fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees ten only)
2. For availing copies
a) Rs.2/- for each page in ‘A4’ size paper
b) actual cost or price for samples or models etc.
c) for inspection of records, no fee fir the 1st hour, and a fee of Rs. 10/-for every subsequent 30 minutes.
d) in diskette or floppy or CD, Rs. 50/- (for each)
The application fee shall be by affixing court fee stamp or by cash remittance in the office of the SPIO or by demand draft/banker’s cheque/pay order or by remittance through Govt. Treasury under the h/a “0070-60-800-42 other items” – Please refer Govt. Notification in No. 11259/Cdn.5/2006 dated9-5-2006.

IV Time limit for getting information

1. 30 days from the date of application
2. 48 hours for information concerning the life or liberty of a person
3. If the interest of a third party are involved then time limit will be 40 days
4. failure to provide information within the specified period is a deemed refusal

V What could be the ground for rejection ?

1. If it is covered by exemption from disclosure. (Sec.8)
2. If it infringes copyright of any person other than the Stat. (Sec.9)

VI Who are State Public Information Officers? (SPIO)

SPIOs are officers designated by the public authorities in all administrative units of offices under Government to provide information to the citizens requesting for information under the Act. Any officer, whose assistance has been sought by the SPIO for the discharge of his or her duties, shall render all assistance and for the purpose of contraventions of the provisions of this act, such officer shall be treated as SPIO.

VII What are the duties of a SPIOs?

 SPIO shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and to render all assistance to such person.
 If the information requested is held by another public authority, the SPIO shall transfer the same, within 5 days, to such public authority and inform the applicant immediately.
 SPIO, on receipt of a request, shall as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within 30 days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sec. 8 or Sec. 9.
 If the SPIO fails to give decision within the period specified, he shall be deemed to have refused the request, and the fact intimated to the applicant (i) the reasons for such rejection, and (ii) the particulars of the Appellate Authority with the name and designation.

VIII. First Appeal

If an applicant is not supplied information within the prescribed time of 30 days or 48 hours, as the case may be, or is not satisfied with the information furnished to him, he may prefer an appeal to the first appellate authority who is an officer senior in the rank of SPIO. Such an appeal should be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of which the limit of thirty days of supply of information is expired or from the date on which the information or decision of the SPIO is received. He is to take a decision within 30 days of your filing appeal.

IX. Second Appeal

If you do not get a satisfactory response within 30 days from the first appellate authority or if the appellant is not satisfied with the order, he may prefer second appeal with the State Information Commission within 90 days from the date on which the decision should have been made by the first appellate authority or was actually received by the appellant. Every appeal has to be filed before the Commission with self attested copies of the impugned order and copies of the documents with proper index.

(The Information Commission has also jurisdiction to receive and inquire into complaints under section 18 of the Act, if the applicant face any harassment from the public authorities)

X. Disposal of appeals and complaints by the Commission

The only drawback in the Act is that specific timeframe hasn’t fixed for the disposal of appeals by the Commission.

XI. Mandatory Disclosure by Public Authorities

The Act makes it obligatory for every public authority to make self-disclosure in respect of the particulars of its organization, functions, duties, etc. as required by XVII items under section 4 (1) (b) of the Act. Section 4 (1) (a) of the act requires that the Public Authorities shall maintain all its records duly cataloged and indexed in a manner and form which facilitates the right to information. Some public authorities have published such information and have posted on their websites.

XII. The Punity Sting

The Act provides for punishment including penalty to the State Public Information Officers, Appellate Authorities and other employees of the Public Authorities. The defaulted officers are liable to be fined and are also subject to disciplinary jurisdiction under the concerned Service Rules, subject to adjudication by the Commission, under section 20 of the Act for following offences:

1. not accepting an application;
2. delay in furnishing information without reasonable cause;
3. malafidely denying information;
4. knowingly giving incomplete, incorrect, misleading information;
5. destroying information that has been requested.

According to Section 19 (8) (b) of the Act the State Information Commission has the power to grant certain amount towards compensation, by the officials under the public authority, for any loss or other detriment suffered by a complainant.

-

Don’t pay bribes to do the work for you, keep a check on that. Use Right to Information. Corruption is the misuse of public office for personal gain -

RTI activists seek permission of government to prosecute Finance Secretariat officials for forging and tampering with official records

The Right to Information Protection Forum (RIPF), a registered forum of civil rights activists, has sought permission of the Chief Secretary to prosecute the officials of Finance Dept including Sri. Joce Cyriac, Principal Secretary (Finance), now Additional Chief Secretary, under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, for forging and tampering the official records of the disposal file leading to ‘one rank one pension’ government orders issued in G.O (P) 180/2006/Fin. dated 18-4-2006.

On an RTI application with the Public Information Officer of Finance Dept. it is found that 116 pages from the current file section are seen removed and the remaining pages re-numbered with blue sketch pen, which did not match with the Note File of the disposal.

“The Cabinet decisions are communicated only in the form of Government Orders.” A note is written by a secretariat official to facilitate the disposal of a Govt. Order, which may contain a precise of proposals and suggestions made in the current file, regarding the course of action and final orders passed thereon. In file processing the opinions and suggestions contained in the notes shall be reflected in the current file.There is an intrincical complementary relatioship to both the note file and current file.

Though the Note file has 1 to 17 paragraphs in action, only the action taken documents as per paragraph 17, i.e. the e-records (electronic-records) of the approved G.O signed by the then Finance Secretary (in-charge) alone is available in the disposal file and the same is only match with the Current File (Correspondence File) and the Note File. All other corresponding documents (116 pages) with reference to paras 1 to 16 of the note file have been removed or destroyed.

Neither the 1st draft put up on 8-3-06 nor the final draft put up on 13-4-06 revised by Principal Secretary (Finance) are available with the current file section and either the minutes of the high level meetings convened by the Principal Secretary (Finance) or its deliberations are removed from the disposal file, on a comparison with the Note File, which reveals that forgery in official file has been committed. On an appeal under RTI Act with the State Information Commission, it has been observed that the 116 pages removed from the file are part and parcel of the file and the same do not be removed.

The advent of IT and e-governance has changed the mode of working of almost all the spheres of governmental business. Almost all the drafts are in e-records (electronic – records). Section 6 of the IT Act recognizes use of e-records. Section 7 of the Act provides for retention of e-records.
The term e-records, with reference to information means any information generated, sent, received or stored in a computer memory. So an e-record is not prone to tampering unlike paper based records.So the public authorities have committed a criminal offence.

RTI Act Jerks the State Information Commission (SIC)

The division bench of SIC consisting of 3 information commissioners namely Sri. Palat Mohandas, Sri. P. Fazaludeen and Sri. V.V. Giri, on 7-11-2006 considered the RTI appeal No.99/2006 relating to suppression of very valuable facts and furnishing misleading, incorrect and incomplete information by the public authorities of State Finance Department.

The important finding of the division bench is that the authorities have misled the appellant by suppressing 116 pages of official records which are part and parcel of the file, and tampering of remaining pages. (The remaining pages from 117 are re-numbered in blue sketch pen scoring original page numbers marked in ink). SIC had also held that both the Note file and the Correspondence file should match and any pages found missing in the correspondence file would render the information incomplete. So the Commission has given directions to the Public Authorities of Finance Department to give access to full text of the file including the missing 116 pages within a week to the appellant, if not the Commission will exercise its penal clause under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act. (Vide - minutes of the 35th meeting of SIC held at 10.30 AM on 7-11-2006 under item No. 148 in Appeal No. 99/2006/SIC, obtained from File No. 2680/SIC-Gen/2006 under RTI Act by paying the required fees) Even then Finance Dept. has given misleading information and the set of 116 pages, stated to be the part files of the original file, kept in a separate bundle, proved that they are fake documents. These unauthenticated e-records, stated to be the part of the Current File did not match with the Note File of the disposal.

Sri. Palat Mohandas IAS, an ex-bureaucrat and the Public authority Sri. Jose Cyriac IAS, a bureaucrat in power has colluded, coupled with malafide intention and discarded the provisions of RTI Act. Sri. Palat Mohandas has ignored the Division Bench findings of such violations and authorised Sri. P.N. Vijayakumar; another Information Commissioner, who hasn’t heard either the petitioner or the respondents on 7-11-2006, to adjudicate the said appeal.

To an enquiry by RIPF about the Rules of Procedure adopted for disposal of appeals by a Single Bench / Division Bench / Full Bench of the Commission, the Secretary as per his letter No. 7554/SIC-PIO/2007 dated 28-12-2007 informed that the Commission has not issued any Rules of Procedure or work distribution among the Information Commissioners. But such decisions available with the partly finished web site: ‘www.infokerala.org.in’ of the Commission reveals that there are such rules of procedure and work distribution. So the Commission is lying and has given false and misleading information to RIPF.

The CIC is not supposed to change the fundamentals of RTI Act; but he has illegally jacked up the enquiry proceedings of SIC to fatten the bureaucracy. Such kind of collusion will do incalculable harm to citizenry rights, as already pointed out to the Governor by the then Leader of Opposition during the selection process of an ex- bureaucrat as the CIC. There is enough evidence and materials on record which justifies an enquiry by His Excellency the Governor of Kerala, under section 17 of RTI Act about the functioning of the State Chief Information Commissioner.

Such kind of illegal action by the SCIC has forced us to form RIPF (Right to Information protection Forum) Kerala.

Please share your ideas as we are planning to move the court on the deliberate shielding of the corrupt by the highest level and such persons should be pulled up for their misconduct.

Kerala State Chief Information Commissioner and the RTI Act, 2005

A member of RIPF has had the opportunity to verify, under RTI Act, the file leading to the appointment of State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC), as per the communication of Government letter No. 36680/Cdn.5/07/GAD dated 5-5-2007. According to this file, His Excellency the Governor has first rejected the nomination of Sri. Palat Mohandas as SCIC because of the dissenting opinion of the then Oppossition Leader Sri. V.S. Achuthanandan, and returned the file to the then Chief Minister. Documentary evidence to prove that the Leader of Opposition had been consulted in appointing the SCIC as laid down in RTI Act, is not available in the Govt. File. If someone goes to the court of law and questions the validity of his appointment what will be his fate?

In G.O (P) No. 367/05/GAD dated 10-10-2005 Govt. decided to constitute the ‘State Information Commission’ and the then Chief Secretary Sri. Palat Mohandas IAS was appointed as the Special Officer (in-charge) for submitting necessary proposals for the implementation of the Act. Finally the Special Officer himself has managed to get into the shoes of State Chief Information Commissioner, after his retirement.

On hearing the name of him, for appointment as the SCIC, the present C.M and the then Leader of Opposition Sri V.S Achuthanandan objected to his appointment, because of the reason that he being an Ex- Bureaucrat, cannot maintain truth and allegiance to the RTI Act, and cannot perform the functions assigned to him in favor of the citizens, for whom the enactment was made for transparent and accountable governance by the bureaucracy. (There were media reports at that time about this) This doubt of the Leader of Opposition about discarding the RTI Act in favour of bureaucrats has become true in the case of appeal No.99/2006 considered by the Division Bench of the Commission. For more details please read the post ‘RTI Act jerks the State information Commission’, under the caption ‘Join the Legal Battle’

(According to the provision laid down under 15 of the RTI Act; Government have constituted a Committee consisting of the then (i) Hon. Chief Minister (Chairperson), (ii) Hon. Leader of Opposition and (iii) Hon. Minister for Finance and Excise (Members) for making recommendations to the Governor for the appointment of SCIC and 3 other State Information Commissioners.)

Please use your comments section to give your views.

A Quick Response from Unyielding University Authorities

It has come to the notce of RIPF that the Kerala University had prepared a short list for selection and appointment of 400 vacancies of Assistants and decided to interwiew the candidates without publishing the shortlist. RIPF applied RTI on 6-8-2007 and the University authorities informed that "since the recruitment procedure is strictly confidential matter until the preparation of the final rank list and so they cannot publish the short list before interview." But on my appeal dated 9-9-2007 with the appellate authority under RTI Act, the Registrar of Kerala University was forced to publish the short list of the candidates.

To my surprise, I have got a call on 8-10-2007, the due date of reply under RTI Act, from the Registrar's office and informed that the shortlist will be published on 9-10-2007 and the reply to my appeal will be sent soon. What a kind response? It wouldn't have been possible without RTI.

Then the University Registrar as per his letter No. RTI/24982/2007 dated 31-10-2007 informed me the following information.

Date of notification - 3-3-20o5
Total Number of applicants - 43358
Date of written test - 3-7-2005
Number appeared for written test - 37939
Date of finalisation of short list - 9-10-2007
(Important to note that on 6-8-2007 I have applied RTI and on 9-9-2007 the appeal and so the University Authorities are forced to publish the short list on
9-10-2007)
Total number of candidates short listed - 2114
Date of publication of short list - 9-10-2007
Date/dates fixed for interview - November 2007
If I have not applied RTI the University Authorities might have conducted the interview without publishing the short list and so that the selection process will not be in a fool-proof manner.
Thanks to RTI Act, 2005.

The RTI questionnaire dated 6-8-2007 to K U authorities

1. The date of notification inviting application for the post of Assistant
2. The total number of applications for the above post
3. The date of conducting writtrn test and the total number appeared
4. The authority which had conducted the written test
5. The authority which had conducted the evaluation of answer papers
6. The cut of mark if any fixed for short listing and the authority which had fixed the cut of mark and the date on which such a decision was taken
7. The date of finalisation of the short list
8. The total number of candidates shortlisted for interview
9. The authority which had approved the short list
10.The authority conducting the interview
11.The date of publication of the shortlist and the authority under the University Statutes which is empowered to publish the shortlist, and if not published the reasons and explanations for not publishing the shotlist, before the interview
12.Thedate / dates fixed for the interview

All the above cites issues arw under scanning and review by the Kerala Lok Ayukta

The RIPF (Right to Information Protection Forum) is a registered body of committed individuals working towards making our government and society more transparent and accountable, with relevance to which the Right to Information Act envisages:

1. The right of any citizen of India to request access to information available with public authorities;
2. The duty of government to pro-actively make available key information to all;

What is information?

Every citizen in India has the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under sec. 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution. The freedom of speech and expression is a preferred right even among the fundamental rights. The Right to information Act is merely an instrument that lays down the statutory procedure in the exercise of this right. The prerequisite for enjoying this right is knowledge and information. But without access to information, this was incomplete. The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed in the Airways case in 1995 that “the freedom of speech and expression includes the right to acquire information and to disseminate it.” Thus the law declared in India is clear. But for the last 57 years, the bureaucrats always kept guard on each information available with the public authorities as they were having the weapon of OSA (Official Secrets Act). Similarly the executive has the rules of disciplinary proceedings, judiciary has the contempt of court provisions and the legislature has the parliamentary privileges.

Now with the legislation of the RTI Act, every citizen in India has actually got the right to free speech and expression which includes the right to receive and collect information and disseminate it. With the advent of RTI Act the country finally belongs to the citizen of India, and it has become a tremendous weapon for the common people.

Objectives:

The RIPF, a non-government organization, is committed to promote right to information movement. The aims and objects of RIPF shall be to work in all possible ways to encourage democratic values in governance, for strengthening of practices and systems and to ensure just, transparent and accountable governance, free from corrupt practices.

Organisational structure

RIPF is registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific & Charitable Societies Act. As per the requirement of Societies Act, there is a General Body of members of RIPF, which consists of 15 members. Out of the General Body, an Executive Committee consists of 7 members is elected, which is required to run RIPF. This includes President, Secretary, Treasurer and four executive members. This core team is responsible for carrying out the day-to-day activities of RIPF and is answerable to the General Body.

Executive Committee Members

Mr. M. Nandanan (President)
Mr. N. Rajendran (Secretary)
Mr. P.B. Rajendrababu (Treasurer)
Mr. K.S. Sivarajan
Mr. K.M. Jalaludeen
Mr. B. Sugathan
Mr. B. Sasidharan

Contact us:
The Secretary, Right to Information Protection Forum (RIPF)
TC. 10/1068(1), Surya, ARA 100, Vilabhagom Gardens,
Mananthala, Trivandrum 695015.
email: ripfkerala@gmail.com
Tel: (0471)2531159 Mob:9447345122