Launching a scathing attack on Modi and BJP, former Congress president Sonia Gandhi on Friday said that Aadhaar is being turned into an intrusive instrument of control while the judiciary is in turmoil.&nbsp;

Speaking at an event in Mumbai, Sonia said RTI was brought to bring transparency, but today that law is in &#39;&#39;cold storage&#39;&#39;. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Sonia noted that Congress was out-marketed and added that the party has to develop a new style of connecting with people.

&#39;&#39;We were out-marketed. We have to really develop a new style of connecting with people. We have to look how we project our programs and policies,&#39;&#39; said the Congress leader.&nbsp;

&quot;Was India really a giant black hole before May 16, 2014?&quot; a combative Sonia Gandhi asked, adding, &quot;Is this claim not an insult to the intelligence of our people?&quot;

That claim refers to Modi&#39;s - and the BJP&#39;s - frequent attacks on the Congress, blaming the party for doing nothing in the past 60-70 years that it has been in power.

She also alleged that BJP has managed to persuade people that Congress is a Muslim party.&nbsp;

&#39;&#39;We have always been to temples. When I travelled with Rajiv Gandhi, wherever we used to go, there was always a major temple that we used to visit. But we never made a show of it,&#39;&#39; she noted.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Sonia noted that Congress was out-marketed and added that the party has to develop a new style of connecting with people.

Launching a scathing attack on Modi and BJP, former Congress president Sonia Gandhi on Friday said that Aadhaar is being turned into an intrusive instrument of control while the judiciary is in turmoil. Speaking at an event in Mumbai, Sonia said RTI was brought to bring transparency, but today that law is in ''cold storage''. Sonia noted that Congress was out-marketed and added that the party has to develop a new style of connecting with people. ''We were out-marketed. We have to really develop a new style of connecting with people. We have to look how we project our programs and policies,'' said the Congress leader. "Was India really a giant black hole before May 16, 2014?" a combative Sonia Gandhi asked, adding, "Is this claim not an insult to the intelligence of our people?" That claim refers to Modi's - and the BJP's - frequent attacks on the Congress, blaming the party for doing nothing in the past 60-70 years that it has been in power. She also alleged that BJP has managed to persuade people that Congress is a Muslim party. ''We have always been to temples. When I travelled with Rajiv Gandhi, wherever we used to go, there was always a major temple that we used to visit. But we never made a show of it,'' she noted.

Sonia tears into Modi, says Aadhaar being 'turned into intrusive instrument of control'

Prime Minister Narendra Modi today said it was imperative that people are made aware of the importance of their duties as asserting one&#39;s own rights without rendering duties is against the fundamental value of the democracy.

Speaking at the inauguration of the new building premises of the Central Information Commission (CIC) here, he also said that it has been noticed that some people misuse rights of people for vested interests.

He said that the system has to bear the burden of such attempts.

Modi said people need to be made aware of their duties along with their rights.

&quot;Only talking about rights and forgetting duties, forgetting aspirations of the Constitution, is against the fundamental spirit of the democracy,&quot; he said.

He said just like the RTI (Right to Information), the concept of &#39;Act Rightly&#39; should be discussed and the citizens should be informed about their duties along with their rights.

He urged the CIC, which has a large public interaction, to take up the task of making aware the citizens about &#39;Act Rightly&#39;.

&quot;When there is transparency in the arrangements, increasing responsibility towards the people, a sense of responsibility, both the work of the governments and the impact of the schemes change,&quot; he said.

At the event, Modi also launched a mobile application of the CIC for tracking and filing appeals and complaints at the transparency panel.

&quot;I agree&quot;, he said, &quot;that an empowered citizen is the strongest pillar of our democracy&quot;.

&quot;In the last four years you have seen how the central government has attempted to inform and empower the people of the country through different means,&quot; he said.

According to Modi, there have been many examples in history when information is treated like a one-way channel and hence there were many serious consequences thereof.

&quot;So our government, instead of one dimensional approach, works on the principle of modern information highway,&quot; he said.

An empowered citizen is the most important pillar of our democracy, he said.

He said his government has been working on five pillars of modern information highway -- ask, listen, interact, act and inform.

&quot;India is fast becoming a digitally-empowered society; information technology is being used to ease processes and ensure transparency and quality of service,&quot; he said.

He said since the enactment of the RTI Act about 12 years ago, the CIC has been operating in rented accommodation and his government, in 2014, accorded a sanction of Rs 60 crore for constructing an independent building for the transparency body.

The prime minister said democratic and participative governance requires transparency and accountability.

He said CIC plays a key role in this regard and work as catalysts for trust-based governance.

The prime minister said that over the last four years, the central government has been informing and empowering people through various means.

Underlining achievements of his government in ensuring transparency in work culture, Modi said information commonly asked for is being uploaded on web portals of the departments and ministries concerned, digital technology is being used to improve transparency and quality of citizen services.

&quot;In a meeting of PRAGATI last week, the progress of reconstruction works at Kedarnath was monitored through a drone camera... PRAGATI meetings have helped speed up projects worth over 9 lakh crore rupees,&quot; he said.

The prime minister said recently Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, which employed 1,100 personnel, has been closed down to ensure transparent procurement process which will allow anyone in the country to become the supplier for the government.

He said these employees are now being transferred to other departments.

He said that public procurement is now being done through the Government e Market, or GeM platform which is helping to end corruption and bring transparency in government procurement.

He also spoke of minimising human interface in government-people interactions.&nbsp;

At the event, Modi also launched a mobile application of the CIC for tracking and filing appeals and complaints at the transparency panel

Prime Minister Narendra Modi today said it was imperative that people are made aware of the importance of their duties as asserting one's own rights without rendering duties is against the fundamental value of the democracy. Speaking at the inauguration of the new building premises of the Central Information Commission (CIC) here, he also said that it has been noticed that some people misuse rights of people for vested interests. He said that the system has to bear the burden of such attempts. Modi said people need to be made aware of their duties along with their rights. "Only talking about rights and forgetting duties, forgetting aspirations of the Constitution, is against the fundamental spirit of the democracy," he said. He said just like the RTI (Right to Information), the concept of 'Act Rightly' should be discussed and the citizens should be informed about their duties along with their rights. He urged the CIC, which has a large public interaction, to take up the task of making aware the citizens about 'Act Rightly'. "When there is transparency in the arrangements, increasing responsibility towards the people, a sense of responsibility, both the work of the governments and the impact of the schemes change," he said. At the event, Modi also launched a mobile application of the CIC for tracking and filing appeals and complaints at the transparency panel. "I agree", he said, "that an empowered citizen is the strongest pillar of our democracy". "In the last four years you have seen how the central government has attempted to inform and empower the people of the country through different means," he said. According to Modi, there have been many examples in history when information is treated like a one-way channel and hence there were many serious consequences thereof. "So our government, instead of one dimensional approach, works on the principle of modern information highway," he said. An empowered citizen is the most important pillar of our democracy, he said. He said his government has been working on five pillars of modern information highway -- ask, listen, interact, act and inform. "India is fast becoming a digitally-empowered society; information technology is being used to ease processes and ensure transparency and quality of service," he said. He said since the enactment of the RTI Act about 12 years ago, the CIC has been operating in rented accommodation and his government, in 2014, accorded a sanction of Rs 60 crore for constructing an independent building for the transparency body. The prime minister said democratic and participative governance requires transparency and accountability. He said CIC plays a key role in this regard and work as catalysts for trust-based governance. The prime minister said that over the last four years, the central government has been informing and empowering people through various means. Underlining achievements of his government in ensuring transparency in work culture, Modi said information commonly asked for is being uploaded on web portals of the departments and ministries concerned, digital technology is being used to improve transparency and quality of citizen services. "In a meeting of PRAGATI last week, the progress of reconstruction works at Kedarnath was monitored through a drone camera... PRAGATI meetings have helped speed up projects worth over 9 lakh crore rupees," he said. The prime minister said recently Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, which employed 1,100 personnel, has been closed down to ensure transparent procurement process which will allow anyone in the country to become the supplier for the government. He said these employees are now being transferred to other departments. He said that public procurement is now being done through the Government e Market, or GeM platform which is helping to end corruption and bring transparency in government procurement. He also spoke of minimising human interface in government-people interactions.

Claiming rights without duties is against democratic values: PM

After years of debate whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) be made a public body, the law commission has made several recommendations to bring the board under the Right to Information (RTI) purview if not under government&#39;s domain.&nbsp;

The world&#39;s richest cricket body currently operates as a private entity under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.

In the recommendations soon to be submitted to Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, the panel is requesting the government to make BCCI a public body or the least to bring them under RTI.

&ldquo;We have found that BCCI is eminently qualified to be classified as &lsquo;state&rsquo; under Article 12 of the Constitution,&rdquo; said Chairman Justice B S Chauhan to a leading daily.

The fallout of a body getting classified as &#39;state&#39; would be subject to constitutional checks by the Supreme Court and high courts.

It would also face PILs questioning the fairness of its decisions.

Earlier, the Supreme Court in July 2016, had asked the law commission to examine the legal framework to bring BCCI under the RTI act.

If the government accepts the recommendations, anyone can file PILs in the SC or HCs questioning the selection of players representing India, states and zones.&nbsp;

The PILs could also question the agreements signed by BCCI with other cricket playing nations and the International Cricket Council.

The recommendations will soon be submitted to Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad

After years of debate whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) be made a public body, the law commission has made several recommendations to bring the board under the Right to Information (RTI) purview if not under government's domain. The world's richest cricket body currently operates as a private entity under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. In the recommendations soon to be submitted to Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, the panel is requesting the government to make BCCI a public body or the least to bring them under RTI. “We have found that BCCI is eminently qualified to be classified as ‘state’ under Article 12 of the Constitution,” said Chairman Justice B S Chauhan to a leading daily. The fallout of a body getting classified as 'state' would be subject to constitutional checks by the Supreme Court and high courts. It would also face PILs questioning the fairness of its decisions. Earlier, the Supreme Court in July 2016, had asked the law commission to examine the legal framework to bring BCCI under the RTI act. If the government accepts the recommendations, anyone can file PILs in the SC or HCs questioning the selection of players representing India, states and zones. The PILs could also question the agreements signed by BCCI with other cricket playing nations and the International Cricket Council.

BCCI under RTI: Law Commission prepares framework

A Bihar student, who got just 2 marks in Hindi subject as per the results declared by the&nbsp;Bihar School Examination Board(BSEB) in June 2017, has actually secured 79 marks.The student, disappointed with the results applied for the rechecking but was told that he only got 2 marks. However, an RTI application revealed that he actually scored 79.

The Bihar School Examination Board(BSEB) failed Dhananjay Kumar in class X finals this year. His mark sheet showed 02 marks out of 100 in Hindi.

Dhananjay said that he wanted to become an IITian but contemplated suicide after seeing the results. However, he said, his&nbsp;parents supported him.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I wanted to become an IITian. My dreams are shattered now. I wanted to commit suicide but my family helped me: BSEB Class 10th student Dhananjay Kumar <a href="https://t.co/USzvlTnL6Z">pic.twitter.com/USzvlTnL6Z</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/931765784526778368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&quot;We have been running to authorities since past six months. He is not able to study properly&quot; said Dhananjay&#39;s brother.

The Rohtas Boy applied for rechecking but his marks didn&#39;t improve.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
As per RTI, my brother scored 84.2%, 421 marks out of 500. Earlier, they gave him 2 numbers in Hindi instead of 79, reducing total marks to 344. He is declared failed. We have been running to authorities since past six months. He is not able to study properly: Dhananjay&rsquo;s brother <a href="https://t.co/evd1hgTrvW">pic.twitter.com/evd1hgTrvW</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/931766011006664704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

Disconcerted, he filed an RTI application through which he got a photocopy of his Hindi answer-sheet on November 1, that showed his marks as 79.

Class 10th student Dhananjay Kumar declared failed by Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB) with 2 marks in Hindi; on the contrary, RTI revealed he scored 79

A Bihar student, who got just 2 marks in Hindi subject as per the results declared by the Bihar School Examination Board(BSEB) in June 2017, has actually secured 79 marks.The student, disappointed with the results applied for the rechecking but was told that he only got 2 marks. However, an RTI application revealed that he actually scored 79. The Bihar School Examination Board(BSEB) failed Dhananjay Kumar in class X finals this year. His mark sheet showed 02 marks out of 100 in Hindi. Dhananjay said that he wanted to become an IITian but contemplated suicide after seeing the results. However, he said, his parents supported him. I wanted to become an IITian. My dreams are shattered now. I wanted to commit suicide but my family helped me: BSEB Class 10th student Dhananjay Kumar pic.twitter.com/USzvlTnL6Z — ANI (@ANI) November 18, 2017 × "We have been running to authorities since past six months. He is not able to study properly" said Dhananjay's brother. The Rohtas Boy applied for rechecking but his marks didn't improve. As per RTI, my brother scored 84.2%, 421 marks out of 500. Earlier, they gave him 2 numbers in Hindi instead of 79, reducing total marks to 344. He is declared failed. We have been running to authorities since past six months. He is not able to study properly: Dhananjay’s brother pic.twitter.com/evd1hgTrvW — ANI (@ANI) November 18, 2017 × Disconcerted, he filed an RTI application through which he got a photocopy of his Hindi answer-sheet on November 1, that showed his marks as 79.

Bihar student scored 2 marks as per results; RTI reveals he got 79

Yashovardhan Azad, Information Commissioner, feels there is no need to introduce a provision for the withdrawal of Right to Information (RTI) applications. He said this to WION-DNA in an exclusive conversation today.&nbsp; 
Certain provisions in the new draft RTI Rules need to be debated further as they require greater consultation, he said. &nbsp;

 
&ldquo;The right to withdraw an RTI (Right to Information) petition is not required. There is no need for this provision. We at the Commission are already looking into such issues where public interest is concerned,&rdquo; he said.&nbsp; 
RTI is a legislation in India that allows applicants to seek information related to government departments except for those protected by laws for protecting official secrets or concerning the security of high-ranking officials. &nbsp; 
The new draft rules in circulation has provisions like withdrawal of the application, and, in case of the applicant&#39;s death, that of the RTI ceasing to exist.

&nbsp; 
Azad told WION-DNA the Information Commission believes that in case the RTI applicant is assaulted or murdered, the Commission will abide by its resolution of 2011, and publish the sought information on the website. &nbsp; 
RTI activists have criticised the suggestions in the draft rules saying that they already face a lot of violence and a suggestion like deletion of an application in case of a murder is counter-productive. Activists also say that provisions for withdrawal of RTI applications will give those with vested interests an opportunity to exert undue pressure on them.&nbsp;

 
Section 17 of the draft rules proposes to give the Chief Information Commissioner powers to shift individual appeals from one information commissioner to another. An appeal pending before an information commissioner can also be withdrawn and transferred to another under the proposed rules.&nbsp;

 
On this Azad said, &quot;So far the procedure was that whenever a conflict of interest arose, the Commissioners would recuse themselves, or the matter would be shifted to a wider bench. This is new (new proposals) and requires wider consultation and needs to be properly debated.&rdquo;&nbsp;

 
The Indian government has claimed that the new draft rules were originally proposed by the Congress party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the current government has circulated it for gauging public opinion. &nbsp; 
Congress, on the other hand, has attacked the PM Narendra Modi-led central government for trying to dilute the RTI Act which was enacted during the UPA&rsquo;s first avatar. The preamble of the RTI Act states that the act is built to promote accountability and transparency. As an Act, it overrides all other legislations in the context of public interest.&nbsp;

 
Azad told WION-DNA that a strong demand exists for bringing private companies with public interface under the RTI Act. &ldquo;For example, an RTI activist can seek information on bad service from Air India, but he cannot do so when it comes to private airlines,&rdquo; said Azad. The draft rules in circulation before the notification will have to be ratified by Parliament where all changes undergo intense scrutiny.&nbsp;

(WION)&nbsp;

Yashovardhan Azad said certain provisions in the new draft RTI rules need to be debated further as they require greater consultation

Yashovardhan Azad, Information Commissioner, feels there is no need to introduce a provision for the withdrawal of Right to Information (RTI) applications. He said this to WION-DNA in an exclusive conversation today. Certain provisions in the new draft RTI Rules need to be debated further as they require greater consultation, he said. “The right to withdraw an RTI (Right to Information) petition is not required. There is no need for this provision. We at the Commission are already looking into such issues where public interest is concerned,” he said. RTI is a legislation in India that allows applicants to seek information related to government departments except for those protected by laws for protecting official secrets or concerning the security of high-ranking officials. The new draft rules in circulation has provisions like withdrawal of the application, and, in case of the applicant's death, that of the RTI ceasing to exist. Azad told WION-DNA the Information Commission believes that in case the RTI applicant is assaulted or murdered, the Commission will abide by its resolution of 2011, and publish the sought information on the website. RTI activists have criticised the suggestions in the draft rules saying that they already face a lot of violence and a suggestion like deletion of an application in case of a murder is counter-productive. Activists also say that provisions for withdrawal of RTI applications will give those with vested interests an opportunity to exert undue pressure on them. Section 17 of the draft rules proposes to give the Chief Information Commissioner powers to shift individual appeals from one information commissioner to another. An appeal pending before an information commissioner can also be withdrawn and transferred to another under the proposed rules. On this Azad said, "So far the procedure was that whenever a conflict of interest arose, the Commissioners would recuse themselves, or the matter would be shifted to a wider bench. This is new (new proposals) and requires wider consultation and needs to be properly debated.” The Indian government has claimed that the new draft rules were originally proposed by the Congress party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the current government has circulated it for gauging public opinion. Congress, on the other hand, has attacked the PM Narendra Modi-led central government for trying to dilute the RTI Act which was enacted during the UPA’s first avatar. The preamble of the RTI Act states that the act is built to promote accountability and transparency. As an Act, it overrides all other legislations in the context of public interest. Azad told WION-DNA that a strong demand exists for bringing private companies with public interface under the RTI Act. “For example, an RTI activist can seek information on bad service from Air India, but he cannot do so when it comes to private airlines,” said Azad. The draft rules in circulation before the notification will have to be ratified by Parliament where all changes undergo intense scrutiny. (WION)

No need for provision to withdraw RTI applications, says India's Central Information Commission official

Pakistan gave its nod to a bill that will empower citizens to access government information.

A Pakistani parliamentary body Tuesday unanimously passed the Right to Information (RTI) Bill.&nbsp;

Under the new legislation, citizens can get information about government activities and more importantly, government agencies will have to provide all information about a missing person within three days of a request being filed.

A three-member commission with the power to order public bodies to disclose information and provide records will be formed to hear RTI requests. The commission will entertain requests for records from the past 20 years, as records older than 20 years will automatically pass in the public domain.

Senator Farhatullah Babar, who chaired the committee, said that in case a person is abducted and killed by security agencies, the agencies will no longer be able to use &lsquo;national security&rsquo; as an excuse not to provide information on the matter. He said that no information that pertains to matters of fundamental human rights will be allowed to be withheld.

The Bill will now be presented to Parliament for further deliberations and passing into an Act.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

A Pakistani parliamentary committee unanimously passed the Right to Information Bill on Tuesday

Pakistan gave its nod to a bill that will empower citizens to access government information. A Pakistani parliamentary body Tuesday unanimously passed the Right to Information (RTI) Bill. Under the new legislation, citizens can get information about government activities and more importantly, government agencies will have to provide all information about a missing person within three days of a request being filed. A three-member commission with the power to order public bodies to disclose information and provide records will be formed to hear RTI requests. The commission will entertain requests for records from the past 20 years, as records older than 20 years will automatically pass in the public domain. Senator Farhatullah Babar, who chaired the committee, said that in case a person is abducted and killed by security agencies, the agencies will no longer be able to use ‘national security’ as an excuse not to provide information on the matter. He said that no information that pertains to matters of fundamental human rights will be allowed to be withheld. The Bill will now be presented to Parliament for further deliberations and passing into an Act. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Pakistanis can now track government activities after new bill is passed

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.

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.

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;.

&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.

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;

&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.

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;.

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.

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.

&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.

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.

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: &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;

He said the refusal to disclose the minutes of the board meeting where the decision was taken is &quot;perplexing&quot;. 
 
(PTI)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

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

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;

But we know that corruption is a two-way street. If there is no give, there cannot be any take.

&nbsp;

<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">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

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;

In effect, this establishes a simple principle &ndash; 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. &nbsp;

Does this, therefore, imply that almost everyone in the country is corrupt?&nbsp;

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;

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;

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.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<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">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

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.&nbsp;

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.&nbsp;

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.

&nbsp;

<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">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

How is demonetisation different then? After all, it is also a policy decision strengthened by supporting legislation.&nbsp;

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.&nbsp;

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;

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.&nbsp;

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 &ldquo;the queue to end all queues&rdquo;.&nbsp;

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

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; 
 
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; 
 
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.&nbsp; 
 
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; 
 
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. 
 
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) 
 
 
 
&nbsp;

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