<p>India&#39;s central bank refused to&nbsp;divulge whether the views of the chief economic advisor and finance minister were taken into account before the sudden announcement of demonetisation of high-value currency notes by prime minister Narendra Modi on November 8.</p>

<p>The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which was responding to a query under the Right to Information Act (RTI), said it could not answer the question since it did not come under the definition of &quot;information&quot; under the transparency law.</p>

<p>The applicant wanted to know whether the &quot;views of Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramaniam and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley were taken before announcement was made&quot;.</p>

<p>&quot;Query is in the nature of seeking opinion from Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) which is not defined as information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act,&quot; the RBI said in response to an RTI query.</p>

<p>Asked whether the information sought fell under &quot;seeking opinion&quot; from the CPIO, former Chief Information Commissioner A N Tiwari said, &quot;No. It does not. It is a fact sought by an RTI applicant. The CPIO cannot say an opinion has been sought from him.&quot;</p>

<p>&quot;How can it be called seeking an opinion? Whether someone was consulted or not is a matter of record. Had the question been that should views be taken then it would mean taking opinion,&quot; former Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said, expressing surprise at the response of RBI Central Public Information Officer.</p>

<p>The definition of information covers &quot;any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force&quot;.</p>

<p>The query was also sent to the Prime Minister&#39;s Office and the Finance Ministry but it remained unanswered even after 30 days of filing of the RTI application.</p>

<p>The applicant had also sought to know the designation and the names of officials who were consulted before scraping of old Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes.</p>

<p>&quot;The information sought relates to sensitive matters pertaining to discontinuation/withdrawal of bank notes. The information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(a) and (g) of RTI Act,&quot; the RBI said.</p>

<p>The monetary policy regulator also did not disclose if the decision to demonetise currency notes worth Rs 20 lakh crore was opposed by any official or minister, saying the information sought is &quot;hypothetical&quot; in nature.</p>

<p>It also cited Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act to deny minutes of deliberations related to demonetisation.</p>

<p>Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure the information which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence.</p>

<p>Information sought under Section 8(1)(g) would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.</p>

<p>The RBI has been denying information related to crucial aspects related to demonetisation citing exemption clauses. It recently refused to give reasons behind the demonetisation move.</p>

<p>Earlier, it had denied to Mumbai-based RTI Activist Anil Galgali information about distribution of currency to banks between November 9 and November 19 citing Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.</p>

<p>The central bank did not give any reason as to how this section would apply in the case of information sought by Galgali.</p>

<p>RTI Activist Venkatesh Nayak, who was also denied deliberations on demonetisation by the RBI, said: &quot;While confidentiality prior to announcing the demonetisation decision is understandable, continued secrecy after its implementation is difficult to understand when people are facing problems due to shortage of cash.&quot;</p>

<p>He said the refusal to disclose the minutes of the board meeting where the decision was taken is &quot;perplexing&quot;.<br />
<br />
(PTI)</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


India's central bank said it could not answer the question, since it did not come under the definition of 'information'

India's central bank refused to divulge whether the views of the chief economic advisor and finance minister were taken into account before the sudden announcement of demonetisation of high-value currency notes by prime minister Narendra Modi on November 8. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which was responding to a query under the Right to Information Act (RTI), said it could not answer the question since it did not come under the definition of "information" under the transparency law. The applicant wanted to know whether the "views of Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramaniam and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley were taken before announcement was made". "Query is in the nature of seeking opinion from Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) which is not defined as information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act," the RBI said in response to an RTI query. Asked whether the information sought fell under "seeking opinion" from the CPIO, former Chief Information Commissioner A N Tiwari said, "No. It does not. It is a fact sought by an RTI applicant. The CPIO cannot say an opinion has been sought from him." "How can it be called seeking an opinion? Whether someone was consulted or not is a matter of record. Had the question been that should views be taken then it would mean taking opinion," former Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said, expressing surprise at the response of RBI Central Public Information Officer. The definition of information covers "any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force". The query was also sent to the Prime Minister's Office and the Finance Ministry but it remained unanswered even after 30 days of filing of the RTI application. The applicant had also sought to know the designation and the names of officials who were consulted before scraping of old Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes. "The information sought relates to sensitive matters pertaining to discontinuation/withdrawal of bank notes. The information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(a) and (g) of RTI Act," the RBI said. The monetary policy regulator also did not disclose if the decision to demonetise currency notes worth Rs 20 lakh crore was opposed by any official or minister, saying the information sought is "hypothetical" in nature. It also cited Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act to deny minutes of deliberations related to demonetisation. Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure the information which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence. Information sought under Section 8(1)(g) would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. The RBI has been denying information related to crucial aspects related to demonetisation citing exemption clauses. It recently refused to give reasons behind the demonetisation move. Earlier, it had denied to Mumbai-based RTI Activist Anil Galgali information about distribution of currency to banks between November 9 and November 19 citing Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The central bank did not give any reason as to how this section would apply in the case of information sought by Galgali. RTI Activist Venkatesh Nayak, who was also denied deliberations on demonetisation by the RBI, said: "While confidentiality prior to announcing the demonetisation decision is understandable, continued secrecy after its implementation is difficult to understand when people are facing problems due to shortage of cash." He said the refusal to disclose the minutes of the board meeting where the decision was taken is "perplexing". (PTI)

RBI refuses to say if finance minister was consulted before demonetisation

<p>The funny thing about corruption is that it is always someone else who is corrupt. This holds true at all levels and everywhere in the world. Individuals say that government officials and businessmen are corrupt. Government officials and businessmen say political leaders are corrupt. Political leaders say countries and systems are corrupt. Countries say other countries are corrupt. International organisations say everyone is corrupt (except themselves), but to different degrees.&nbsp;</p>

<p>But we know that corruption is a two-way street. If there is no give, there cannot be any take.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>If everyone is implicated in corruption, willingly or unwillingly, then the solution must include everyone as well</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=If everyone is implicated in corruption, willingly or unwillingly, then the solution must include everyone as well" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>If this rather simple observation makes its way into such conversations, the arguments change gear quickly and predictably. Individuals lament that they have no choice but to grease palms to get their work done. Businessmen declare that they must keep political leaders happy to ensure the profitability of their businesses. Political leaders admit that they cannot run political parties without money. Even governments happily &lsquo;facilitate&rsquo; deals with any regime because national interest is supreme, and, completely disregarding conflicts of interest, international organisations take funds from all possible sources because they must first survive to be able to work for the larger public good.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In effect, this establishes a simple principle &ndash; that a practice, in this case corruption, becomes the norm only when practically <i>everyone</i> becomes a participant in it, whether as a giver or a taker, or both. &nbsp;</p>

<p>Does this, therefore, imply that almost everyone in the country is corrupt?&nbsp;</p>

<p>In his uncompromising way, Gandhiji certainly seemed to think so. &ldquo;A corrupt government and a corrupt police presuppose the existence of corruption among the people who submit to government and police corruption.&rdquo; From the legal perspective as well, the answer is, yes.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Anti-corruption laws mostly consider both the giver and the taker as equally culpable. The Prevention of Corruption Act of the Indian Penal Code, the (amended) Benami Transactions (Prohibitions) Act, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are well-known and contain clauses to this effect.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, when looked at from an ethical perspective, culpability depends on whether someone is participating in a corrupt practice knowingly and willfully. In other words, when corruption becomes the norm, almost everyone indeed becomes a participant in such practices, but only those who do so <i>knowingly and willfully</i> ought to be deemed corrupt.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Anti-corruption laws ignores the fact that a vast majority of ordinary people are forced to participate in corrupt practices simply to receive what is ordinarily their due</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Anti-corruption laws ignores the fact that a vast majority of ordinary people are forced to participate in corrupt practices simply to receive what is ordinarily their due" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Attempting to tackle corruption only through the legal framework, therefore, has several implications. First, a purely technical reading of anti-corruption laws ignores the fact that a vast majority of ordinary people are forced to participate in corrupt practices simply to receive what is ordinarily their due, for example, a government certificate. There <i>is</i> participation in a corrupt practice, but of the unwilling kind.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Second, establishing full knowledge of and willingness to participate in a corrupt practice is notoriously difficult in a legal context. This is a major reason why despite the widespread practices of corruption, legal convictions handing out appropriate sanctions have been few and far between. But, most importantly, when framed by the legal system, any anti-corruption effort can <i>only</i> be carried out as an individual action in individual cases.&nbsp;</p>

<p>While it is true that several popular social and political movements against corruption have seen the light of day, these too have, primarily, sought new legislation or new institutions as the outcome, which brings us back to the problem outlined above. It could be said that the Right to Information Act at least attempted to establish a more participatory process to fight corruption, but embedded as it is in the same legal system, its limitations are also beginning to show.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>When framed by the legal system, any anti-corruption effort can only be carried out as an individual action in individual cases</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=When framed by the legal system, any anti-corruption effort can only be carried out as an individual action in individual cases" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>How is demonetisation different then? After all, it is also a policy decision strengthened by supporting legislation.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The main difference is that it affects <i>everyone</i> and it obliges <i>everyone</i> to act. There is no individual action, and there is no individual court case. It is as widespread in its scale as corruption.&nbsp;</p>

<p>To revisit the original point, we know that when corruption is the norm, then virtually everyone participates in corrupt practices, whether knowingly and willfully or not. However, all our efforts to curb corruption so far have been structurally constrained to allow only individual investigations into individual cases of corruption. Clearly, focusing on individual actions to battle a widespread problem has not made much of an impact, or else corruption would no longer have been the norm.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Demonetisation has approached the problem very differently by including <i>everyone</i> in the process of battling corruption, knowingly and willfully or not. If everyone is implicated in the problem, then the solution must implicate everyone as well. There is far greater conceptual simplicity in such an approach.</p>

<p>No doubt there remain several difficult questions related to the efficacy of demonetisation in curbing corruption and its implementation. However, understanding the conceptual coherence of this action may allow us to think beyond the immediate and the individual.&nbsp;</p>

<p>After all, we have always wanted to clean up the system. But the simple truth is that <i>we</i> are the system. And demonetisation gives us the opportunity to clean corruption by cleansing ourselves. Just by standing in &ldquo;the queue to end all queues&rdquo;.&nbsp;</p>


Why demonetisation is conceptually different from previous anti-corruption efforts

The funny thing about corruption is that it is always someone else who is corrupt. This holds true at all levels and everywhere in the world. Individuals say that government officials and businessmen are corrupt. Government officials and businessmen say political leaders are corrupt. Political leaders say countries and systems are corrupt. Countries say other countries are corrupt. International organisations say everyone is corrupt (except themselves), but to different degrees. But we know that corruption is a two-way street. If there is no give, there cannot be any take. If everyone is implicated in corruption, willingly or unwillingly, then the solution must include everyone as well × If this rather simple observation makes its way into such conversations, the arguments change gear quickly and predictably. Individuals lament that they have no choice but to grease palms to get their work done. Businessmen declare that they must keep political leaders happy to ensure the profitability of their businesses. Political leaders admit that they cannot run political parties without money. Even governments happily ‘facilitate’ deals with any regime because national interest is supreme, and, completely disregarding conflicts of interest, international organisations take funds from all possible sources because they must first survive to be able to work for the larger public good. In effect, this establishes a simple principle – that a practice, in this case corruption, becomes the norm only when practically everyone becomes a participant in it, whether as a giver or a taker, or both. Does this, therefore, imply that almost everyone in the country is corrupt? In his uncompromising way, Gandhiji certainly seemed to think so. “A corrupt government and a corrupt police presuppose the existence of corruption among the people who submit to government and police corruption.” From the legal perspective as well, the answer is, yes. Anti-corruption laws mostly consider both the giver and the taker as equally culpable. The Prevention of Corruption Act of the Indian Penal Code, the (amended) Benami Transactions (Prohibitions) Act, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are well-known and contain clauses to this effect. However, when looked at from an ethical perspective, culpability depends on whether someone is participating in a corrupt practice knowingly and willfully. In other words, when corruption becomes the norm, almost everyone indeed becomes a participant in such practices, but only those who do so knowingly and willfully ought to be deemed corrupt. Anti-corruption laws ignores the fact that a vast majority of ordinary people are forced to participate in corrupt practices simply to receive what is ordinarily their due × Attempting to tackle corruption only through the legal framework, therefore, has several implications. First, a purely technical reading of anti-corruption laws ignores the fact that a vast majority of ordinary people are forced to participate in corrupt practices simply to receive what is ordinarily their due, for example, a government certificate. There is participation in a corrupt practice, but of the unwilling kind. Second, establishing full knowledge of and willingness to participate in a corrupt practice is notoriously difficult in a legal context. This is a major reason why despite the widespread practices of corruption, legal convictions handing out appropriate sanctions have been few and far between. But, most importantly, when framed by the legal system, any anti-corruption effort can only be carried out as an individual action in individual cases. While it is true that several popular social and political movements against corruption have seen the light of day, these too have, primarily, sought new legislation or new institutions as the outcome, which brings us back to the problem outlined above. It could be said that the Right to Information Act at least attempted to establish a more participatory process to fight corruption, but embedded as it is in the same legal system, its limitations are also beginning to show. When framed by the legal system, any anti-corruption effort can only be carried out as an individual action in individual cases × How is demonetisation different then? After all, it is also a policy decision strengthened by supporting legislation. The main difference is that it affects everyone and it obliges everyone to act. There is no individual action, and there is no individual court case. It is as widespread in its scale as corruption. To revisit the original point, we know that when corruption is the norm, then virtually everyone participates in corrupt practices, whether knowingly and willfully or not. However, all our efforts to curb corruption so far have been structurally constrained to allow only individual investigations into individual cases of corruption. Clearly, focusing on individual actions to battle a widespread problem has not made much of an impact, or else corruption would no longer have been the norm. Demonetisation has approached the problem very differently by including everyone in the process of battling corruption, knowingly and willfully or not. If everyone is implicated in the problem, then the solution must implicate everyone as well. There is far greater conceptual simplicity in such an approach. No doubt there remain several difficult questions related to the efficacy of demonetisation in curbing corruption and its implementation. However, understanding the conceptual coherence of this action may allow us to think beyond the immediate and the individual. After all, we have always wanted to clean up the system. But the simple truth is that we are the system. And demonetisation gives us the opportunity to clean corruption by cleansing ourselves. Just by standing in “the queue to end all queues”.

From one to all: Looking at demonetisation on the Anti-corruption Day

<p>Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been asked&nbsp;to disclose information on what his administration has done to bring back black money&nbsp;to the country.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
The Central Information Commission (CIC), a government regulatory body, has directed the Prime Minister&#39;s Office to respond to a Right to Information query within the next 15 days.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
The Right to Information (RTI) Act is a legal instrument that empowers citizens to access information from a public authority.<br />
<br />
Modi had made the issue of black money the centrepiece of his 2014 general election campaign. He had vowed to bring back illegal money stashed in foreign banks.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
During the campaign trail, the prime minister had promised to distribute the retrieved black money among the poor. He had said&nbsp;he would deposit Rs 15 lakh in bank accounts&nbsp;of every poor person.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Kanhaiya Lal, a resident of the north-west state of Rajasthan, had filed an RTI application to get a status update on Modi&#39;s black money promise.<br />
<br />
On February 8, he wanted to know when the government would put the promised Rs 15 lakh in his bank account.<br />
<br />
The government is, however, yet to officially reply to the query, and claims not to have received the RTI application.<br />
<br />
(WION)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>


PM Modi, during his 2014 election campaign, had vowed to distribute the retrieved black money among the poor

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been asked to disclose information on what his administration has done to bring back black money to the country. The Central Information Commission (CIC), a government regulatory body, has directed the Prime Minister's Office to respond to a Right to Information query within the next 15 days. The Right to Information (RTI) Act is a legal instrument that empowers citizens to access information from a public authority. Modi had made the issue of black money the centrepiece of his 2014 general election campaign. He had vowed to bring back illegal money stashed in foreign banks. During the campaign trail, the prime minister had promised to distribute the retrieved black money among the poor. He had said he would deposit Rs 15 lakh in bank accounts of every poor person. Kanhaiya Lal, a resident of the north-west state of Rajasthan, had filed an RTI application to get a status update on Modi's black money promise. On February 8, he wanted to know when the government would put the promised Rs 15 lakh in his bank account. The government is, however, yet to officially reply to the query, and claims not to have received the RTI application. (WION)

Information body tells Indian PM's office to disclose status on black money promise

Rti, News on Rti, stories on Rti, articles on Rti, Rti stories at Wion, Rti news, Rti latest news