RTI appeal hearing may take 30 years in Assam, 11 years in West Bengal

November 5, 2016

New Delhi, Nov 5: If you file a query under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in Assam today, you might have to wait 30 years for your appeal to be heard by the information commissioner (IC). The "waiting period" in West Bengal is over 11 years and seven in Kerala.rti

A new study of the working of information commissions in 16 states shows that the RTI Act's purpose of ensuring greater transparency is being throttled by the sheer pendency of cases — 1.87 lakh as on December 2015.

Though the Act empowers the ICs to impose penalties of up to Rs 25,000 on erring public information officers for violations, penalties have been imposed in only 1.3% of the cases in the 16 states, causing a potential loss of Rs 290 crore in fines defaulting public authorities would have paid.

Despite an increase in the number of ICs in the Central Information Commission, pendency has increased from 13 months to 22 months.

A study of the performance of information commissioners is being carried out by the Research Assessment and Analysis Group and Satark Nagrik Sangathan. The key findings don't bode well when it comes to implementing the RTI Act as matters have worsened since the last RTI study in 2014.

The waiting time in the Assam IC, which was two years eight months in 2014, has now shot up to 30 years. West Bengal has improved its pendency, cutting the waiting time down from 17 years 3 months to 11 years and 3 months. But Kerala fares badly, with the waiting time increasing to seven years four months from two years three months in 2014.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 9,2020

New Delhi, Jun 9: Petrol price on Tuesday was hiked by 54 paise per litre and diesel by 58 paise a litre - the third straight daily increase in rates after oil PSUs ended an 82-day hiatus in rate revision.

Petrol price in Delhi was hiked to Rs 73.00 per litre from 72.46, while diesel rates were increased to Rs 71.17 a litre from Rs 70.59, according to a price notification of state oil marketing companies.

This is the third daily increase in rates in a row. Oil companies had on Sunday restarted revising prices in line with costs, after ending an 82-day hiatus.

Prices were raised by 60 paise per litre each on both petrol and diesel on Sunday as well as on Monday. In all, petrol price has gone up by Rs 1.74 per litre and diesel by Rs 1.78 a litre in three days.

Oil PSUs - Indian Oil Corp (IOC), Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd (HPCL) - had put daily price revisions on hold soon after the government on March 14, hiked excise duty on petrol and diesel by Rs 3 per litre each.

Oil companies did not pass on that excise duty hike, as well as the May 6 increase in tax on petrol by Rs 10 per litre and Rs 13 a litre hike on diesel by setting them off against the decline in retail prices that should have effected to reflect international oil rates falling to two-decade low.

International rates have since rebounded and oil companies having exhausted all the margin are now passing on the increase to customers, an industry official said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 16,2020

New Delhi, Jun 16: Delhi Health Minister Satyendar Jain on Tuesday said that he has been hospitalised after suffering from high-grade fever and a sudden drop in his oxygen level.

He tweeted to inform that he was admitted to the Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital (RGSSH) here, a dedicated COVID-19 facility under the Delhi government.

"Due to high-grade fever and a sudden drop of my oxygen levels last night I have been admitted to RGSSH. Will keep everyone updated," Jain tweeted.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 3,2020

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.