Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
The Pathetic Plight of Assam Lokayukta, the State Ombudsman
State Lokayukta ‘made’ to gasp for life, for whose interest?
Allegations galore that the Assam Government does not want to take any awareness campaign on the Lokayukta with the apprehension of ministers and top bureaucrats who have been mired corruption being exposed.
GUWAHATI, March 4: Assam too has a Lokayukta under the Assam Lukayukta and Upalukayuktas Act, 1985 (with amendments) and the Assam Lokayukta and Upalokaytuktas Rules, 1988. This is, indeed, an information for many in the State as the awareness campaign among the general public in the State on the Lokayukta is almost nil. The State Lokayukta that has its office at Shaktigarh at Bhangagarh in Guwahati has been gasping for life due to lack of infrastructure. And the reason behind the lack of awareness campaign on the Lokayukta is not far to seek. Allegations galore that the Assam Government does not want to take any awareness campaign on the Lokayukta with the apprehension of ministers and top bureaucrats who have been mired in corruption being exposed.
In 1989, the Assam Government had set up its Lokayukta office with a view to putting an end to corruption. The general public can lodge complaints against ministers, MLAs and bureaucrats in the Lokayukta. Though a section of ministers and top bureaucrats in the State has been mired in corruption, there is only one case against a minister in the Lokayukta since its inception. The case was against the then Teok MLA Renupama Rajkhowa in 1994, and it was related to a rented house. According to sources, the complainant did get justice in that case.
According to sources, since it inception, 972 cases were registered in the Lokayukta in the State, and most of the cases were related to contractors not getting their bills cleared on time despite completion of works, cases related to house rent and the like. Cases from general public, most of whom are ignorant of such a judicial institution to ensure justice to justice seekers, is almost nil, thanks to the State Government’s stepmotherly attitude to the Lokayukta.
What is even more surprising is that since January 21, 1995 the State Government has not been appointing any Lokayukta and has been getting the job “poorly” done with upalokayuktas. There has been no Lokayukta in Assam after the tenures of former Lokayuktas Justice Chandra Das (from February 1, 1989 to January 31, 1994) and Justice RK Manisana Singh (from February 10, 1994 to March 21, 1995). Allegations galore that the State Government is apprehensive of appointing Lokayuktas as a section of ministers and bureaucrats in the State are mired in corruption.
Lodging complaints in the Lokayukta is very simple. A person can lodge a complaint against ministers, MLAs, bureaucrats and others even in a plaint sheet accompanied by an affidavit. In States like Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and others, lokayuktas play an important role in fighting corruption. The Lokayukta in MP has its own police force and air wing. The Lokayukta even can take the help of higher State and Central government investigating agencies like the CID and the CBI.
As the procedure goes, if a complaint is lodged in the Lokayukta against a minister, the judicial institution sends the complaint to the Chief Minister. If the Chief Minister does not act on the complaint in a month, the Lokayukta sends the complaint to the Governor. In the event of the Governor not acting on the complaint, the Lokayukta sends the complaint to the Speaker who raises the complaint on the floor of the Assembly for a debate. If the complaint is against any government servant, the Lokayukta sends the complaint to the Chief Secretary.
According to sources, unlike the case in Assam, in Lokayuktas of other States, even government servants can lodge complaints. “A teacher of a school of Dhemaji has lodged a complaint on mid-day meal irregularities against the headmaster,” sources in the Lokayukta said.
Source: http://www.sentinelassam.com/ghy_city/story.php?sec=1&subsec=0&id=66706&dtP=2011-04-05&ppr=1
Friday, 14 May 2010
Assam Police Extort a Victim of Domestic Violence and Harass Activists
Assam Police Extort a Victim of Domestic Violence and Harass Activists
Waliullah Ahmed Laskar
Assam police in India extorted a victim of domestic violence and harassed her mother and other two social activists for bribes. Instead of investigating the complaints filed by the victim police in the Silchar Sadar Police Station (PS) in the district of Cachar, Assam, threatened and harassed them while shielding the accused.
According to information received from the victims, the Officer-in Charge (OC) of the Silchar Police Station Mr. S K Chauhan and Sub Inspector (SI) of police Mr. Narayan Tamuli forced Sharmista Das, daughter of Late Rishikesh Dutta, resident of Narsing Road, Shibam Apartment Ground, Ambicapatty, Silchar, Cachar, Assam, and her mother Sima Dutta to pay them Indian rupees 30,100.00 (thirty thousand and one hundred) and attempted to get another Rs. 50,000.00 (fifty thousand) by virtual detention and threat of dire consequences between 3 November, 2009 and 2 March, 2010.
Sharmista Das was married to Mr. Rananjay Das alias Rupam Das, S/o Sri Rupendra Mohan Das alias Ratul Das, resident of Sri Sumit Endow, Moulavi Road, Ambicapatty, under Silchar police station in Cachar, on 22 January, 2003 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. According to her, her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with her as she did not brought ‘enough’ dowry to her matrimonial house. They started demanding huge amount of money from her which she was unable to meet. Consequently they started abusing and ill-treating her. They even frequently subjected her to severe physical assault, she alleged. In the meantime she was blessed with two daughters. Ultimately her husband left her alone with the kids on 3 September, 2009. Since then there was no communication from his side. But Sharmista and her mother claimed that they had information that he married another girl and he was staying with her in Shillong, Meghalaya.
She stated that after her husband had disappeared the in-laws started demanding dowry and ill treating her afresh. At last they drove her away from her matrimonial house on 15 November, 2009 forcibly robbing her of all jewellery and other necessary items. She took shelter at her mother’s house with her two daughters.
She eventually on 3 November, 2009 filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws hoping for justice for wrongs done to her. On the basis of the complaint a First Information Report (FIR) was registered in the Silchar police station vide Silchar PS Case No. 2126/2009 dated 3 November, 2009 under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Instead of investigating the case, Mr. S K Chauhan, the OC of the PS, started demanding bribes. At first Mrs. Sima Dutta was forced to pay him Rs. 5000.00 (five thousand) that day otherwise the OC refused to investigate the case. The OC then arrested all the accused except the prime accused Mr. Rananjay Das. Mrs. Dutta had to pay another sum of Rs. 900.00 (nine hundred) to a lady constable. They revealed that the constable demanded the payment as remuneration for guarding the lady accused Mitra Das for the night. Showing the main accused Mr. Rananjay Das as an absconder the police filed charge sheet in the court on 9 November, 2009. Sharmista claimed that the police did not investigated the case properly and did not exercised due diligence and wilfully neglected the arrest of accused No. 1. The OC also took another sum of Rs. 1,200.00 from Mrs Dutta on 12 November, 2009 which she paid for fear of attracting wrath of the OC, she claimed.
Sharmista stated that when she was driven away from her matrimonial house she left there hundreds of items that she received as her wedding gifts. These were the items of jewellery, apparels, utensils, furniture, furnishings etc. She filed a complaint on 10 March, 2010 to recover these things. The case was registered as Silchar PS Case No. 509/10 under sections 379 and 406, IPC. She also filed another application in the court district magistrate for a search warrant under section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) vide Case No. 155 M/2010. SI Narayan Tamuli was made the Investigating Officer (IO) of the police case and he was also entrusted with the execution of the search warrant. Sharmista and Mrs Mithu Sen, a social activist, visited the police station on 17 March, 2010 to enquire about the investigation of the case and the execution of the search warrant. They paid Rs. 3000.00 (three thousand) and Rs. 20,000.00 (twenty thousand) to Mr. S K Chauhan and Nrayan Tamuli respectively under threat.
Sharmista alleged that S. I. Narayan Tamuli visited the house of Shri Rupendra Mohan Das at Moulavi Road, Ambicapatty, Silchar accompanied by her to execute the search warrant. He did not recover the items listed in the search warrant which she had shown there. Instead, he bullied her and took a few insignificant items as the accused were pleased to allow him. He never visited the other address mentioned in the search warrant.
So, she along with Mithu Sen and Aleya Islam Laskar, another social activist, visited the police station at 12 noon on 20 March, 2010 to know about the progress of the investigation relating to her complaints, S. I. Narayan Tamuli demanded Rs. 50,000.00 (fifty thousand) from them. They stated that Mr. S. K. Chauhan abused and threatened them with dire consequences and forcibly kept them in detention for over two hours in order to force them to pay the amount demanded by Mr. Tamuli. They could come out from the police station because the activists had connections.
Corruption of this magnitude and brutality with impunity is easily understandable for a person who knows that Mr. Narayan Tamuli himself is accused No. 1 in a case of murder for bribes. It is Katigorah P S Case No. 484/07 under sections 302 and 34 of the IPC where SI Narayan Tamuli, ASI Promod Nath and Constable Ramzan Hussain Choudhury were charged with causing death by torture of Motahir Ali of village Bhatgram under Katigorah police station in Cachar, Assam on 21 September, 2007. A departmental enquiry was conducted into the incident by R C Tayal, IPS, Inspector General of Police on 22 September, 2007. The accused were placed under suspension on 11 March, 2008 vide D. O. No. 703 dated 21 March, 2008 and then reinstated. A magisterial enquiry was also conducted vide No. MISC. CASE.1/2007/28 dated 9 April, 2008. This enquiry unequivocally concluded that ‘the police of Kalain Out Post was pro-active on the brutalities inflicted on Late Motahir Ali simply for the reason that the deceased family could not afford payment of gratification beyond the reach of the poorest family.’ A case was also registered in the Assam Human Rights Commission regarding this incident vide AHRC Case No.6404/2007. But till date neither the accused were prosecuted nor the family of the deceased was adequate compensation or any other type of reparation. That much paper work was made possible by the support of the people to the efforts of Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC).
In the present case, it is also notable that Mr. Rupendra Mohan Das, the father-in-law of Sharmista is an advocate and a very influential senior member of the District Bar Association, Silchar, Assam. He is also well connected with the big politicians of Barak valley, the southern part of Assam. Sharmista, her mother and the two social activists stated that no advocate of the District Bar is willing to represent Sharmista. Members of BHRPC also talked with some advocates who, requesting anonymity, told that they are under severe pressure not to take brief against Rupendra Mohan das or any member of his family. They did not want to risk their life and career.
Neharul Ahmed Mazumder, the secretary general of BHPRC informed that he wrote to the authorities urging them to:
1. Register a case against Mr. S K Chauhan and Mr. Narayan Tamuli under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting bribes and sections 389, 342 and 506 of the IPC for putting Sharmista and her companions in fear of accusation of offence in order to commit extortion, for their wrongful confinement and for criminal intimidation respectively.
2. Conduct a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation into the allegations resulting prosecution.
3. Entrust other officers in places of Mr. Chauhan and Mr. Tamuli and particularly for investigating the cases filed by Sharmista Das and for executing the search warrant.
4. Provide Sharmista with the services of a lawyer of her choice to represent her in her cases.
5. Guarantee adequate security to Sharmista, her mother, other witnesses and her lawyers.
6. Provide Sharmista and other persons subjected to harassment with adequate compensation.
It is to be seen how the authorities respond to these very minimal and specific demands.
Friday, 26 September 2008
THE STATE OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN ASSAM
THE STATE OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN ASSAM
WALIULLAH AHMED LASKAR
This a humble effort to present briefly the state of the Right to Information in Assam with particular reference to the situation in Barak valley, southern part of Assam comprising of the districts of Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi. Although the law regarding Right to Information is fairly unequivocal in India providing the right to a broad range of information to the citizens and a mechanism for expeditious enforcement of this right it is still a rare phenomenon that a citizen gets information as he seeks within the timeframe stipulated under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is feared that the law is strangulated slowly in its implementation by applying various tactics ranging from feigning ignorance, insensitivity, apathy, misinterpretation of law to temptation, intimidation, hooliganism, implication in false charges etc.
According to a sample survey conducted recently by Barak Human Rights Protection Committee, 93% of those applicants interviewed told that they did not get any response from the Public Information Officer within 30 days of the receipt of the application as laid down in section 7 (1) of the Act. 86 % of such applicants do not pursue the matter any further. Remaining applicants (14%) either file complaints with the Assam State Information Commission or prefer appeal to an officer higher in rank to the PIO in the same public authority. In the former case, the SIC transfers the applications under section 6 (3) in almost all cases to either the PIO or the Appellate Authority of the concerned public authority. In case where an appeal is preferred to the Appellate Authority the appellants get responses, according to the said survey report, in just 45% of the cases. 73 % of those who do not get response from the Appellate Authority do not make the Second Appeal. In most of the cases where the second appeal are made the SIC without hearing the case itself forwards the petition to the Appellate Authority asking to hear the case giving a timeframe of usually 30 days.
In cases where the First Appeal is preferred, the SIC transfers the Applications to either the PIO or the Appellate Authority and whether in the complaint stage or in the second appeal stage, the redtapism starts invariably. The Appellate Authority or the PIO writes letters to other officers requesting them to supply the information within a specific time limit, in most cases it is 30 days, as he is to furnish them to the applicant with intimation to the applicant. The time limit gets passed and another set of such letters is issued providing another time limit. In the process a period of six months to one year is elapsed.
Meanwhile another unofficial process starts vigorously which involves both temptation and intimidation. 96% of those applicants, who went through this stage and interviewed in the said survey, stated that they faced both temptation and intimidation in one or the other form.
In this regard, communication of Dr. K M Baharul Islam, Chairman and CEO of South Asian Regional
Development Gateway in Guwahati and a public spirited person hailing from Karimganj, Assam, deserves to be quoted in some length: “Read your email. I had the chance to represent a case in SIC Assam from my area. Though the SIC was very categorically given the verdict in front of all the parties imposing the highest penalty on the earring officer, it was an utter shock when I saw the decision on the website that inserts a 'penalty confirmation' hearing at a later date on 3/6/08 !!
“And, on 3/6/08 he has become too apologetic and as expected got the penalty waived!! Look what signal it will give to the other officers that you may do anything but later by giving apology you may get away.
“This officer says he was ignorant, whereas time and again for almost 2 years he made the applicant a mental torture, thought shown various provisions of the RTI Act...public protests, news paper reports all these but he was still 'ignorant' of the provision.
“Even regarding compliance he did not give the documents "authenticated' by him but called the applicant at night on a Sunday to his quarter and with force got the 'sign' of receipts of the documents. An FIR was filed against him after this incident. But as he was present alone at the time of rehearing he just showed the receipts to the SIC Assam and gave an impression that like a good guy who has supplied all the information.
“On the side line, I contacted friend of mine who is an MLA and a member of the Public Accounts Committee where all the reports of this particular Hariyali project were submitted. You will not believe how much money has been embezzled off from this project with fictitious names of works, beneficiaries etc. No wonder that the Officer did not want to give details information to the public...
“This is a very sorry state of affairs. Within moments of taking this case in hand to represent the applicant in
SIC hearing I got threatening calls from "SULFA" ...look at the nexus. Police is now investigating the case and my usual security cover (As Head of a Foreign Mission) has now been increased...So much so for a RTI case.
On the introspective side, I found many times the RTI applicants are also very ignorant of the basic provisions, unnecessarily complicate things without 'asserting' their rights...jump to sign on dotted lines...fears any petty officials sitting in a govt. office ...."Sir" them all the time...and make it very difficult to support their cases as they accept / sign many things under pressure and then start
crying 'foul'.” (Emphasis his)
In another case, of which I have first hand knowledge, members of a local community organization named Kishan Bikash Samity is facing grave criminal charges falsely. Sahidul Haque Laskar, secretary of Kishan Bikash Samity, submitted an application to the PIO of the office of the Block Development Officer, Banskandi Development Block on 9 May 2007 seeking information regarding the implementation of the 11th Finance Commission Award, 12th Finance Commission Award, Indira Avash Yojna and Tara Pump and Ring Well schemes undertaken in the different Gaon Panchayats of the block. But he did not receive any information. Again on 22 June 2007 he filed first Appeal petition to the BDO of the Block, as he is designated as the first appellate authority under the RTI Act, 2005 asking him to furnish the information as he had not received the same. But when he did not receive any information he submitted a petition before the Assam SIC on 31 July 2007 and the SIC transferred the same on 27 August 20007 to the Chief Executive Officer, Cachar Zila Parishad for furnishing the information. Mr. Laskar sent another petition to the SIC on 18 September 2007 as a reminder to his letter dated 31 July 2007. Then he sent another petition to the SIC vide his letter dated 18 January 2008 informing the SIC that on receipt of the transferred petition from the SIC the
CEO, Zila Parisahd, Cachar vide her letter dated 10 October 2007 directed the BDO, Banskandi Development Block to attend her office on 15 November 2007. On the other hand, that the PIO of the Block transferred his petition to each of the Gaon Panchayat Secretaries under the Block on 1 August 2007. Then the BDO issued another letter to each of the Secretaries of the Gaon Panchayat asking them to furnish the information to him on or before 30 November 2007. The CEO once again issued another letter dated 29 October 2007 to the BDO asking him to attend her office with all the relevant documents on 15 November 2007. The BDO issued a letter dated 26 November 2007 to each of the GP Secretaries to furnish information within 7 days of the receipt of the letter.
Eventually almost after seven months of tribulation some information were furnished to the applicant. But most of these were incorrect, incomplete and misleading. Hence he appealed to the SIC vide his letter dated 18 January 2008 for directing the BDO to furnish complete and correct information. It was also stated that the applicant did not receive any information regarding the Tara Pumps and the Ring Wells from the BDO. Moreover, in the list of beneficiaries under the IAY scheme, the father’s name of any of the beneficiaries was not mentioned making it difficult for him to ascertain whether the lists furnished to him were correct or not. Further it was prayed that penalties as per the provisions of the Act may be imposed on the erring officers.
Mr. Laskar confided in me that before submission of appeal to the SIC on 31 July 2007 many persons allegedly on behalf of the said Block Development Officer approached him with offer of handsome rewards in the form of cash or kind. After submission of the said appeal the attitude of these persons turned upside down. They started to intimidate the applicant. The threat meted out to him included that of prosecution, arrest, harassment of relatives and physical assault, injury and even death.
The SIC fixed 3 May 2008 for hearing first but did not take hearing on view of the absence of the respondents. The next date was fixed on 17 June 2008. A false FIR was registered under section 143, 447, 341, 353, 383, 379 and 487 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 vide Lakhipur Police Station Case No. 148/08 against 5 members of Kishan Bikash Samity and 30 other unidentified persons of the locality.
With the excuse of arresting those unidentified persons, police raided houses of the members of Kishan Bikash Samity and their sympathisers and harassed the inmates. Mr. Sahidul Haque Laskar applied for pre-arrest bail in the Gauhati High Court apprehending arrest though he was not named in the FIR. High Court granted him pre-arrest bail vide B A No. 2447 of 2008. The High Court accepted that the ground for apprehension of arrest is the date of hearing on 17 July 2008 before the SIC and mentioned in the bail order that bail should be granted so as he can appear before the SIC on that day
Hearing was held in the absence of the respondents. As requested I accompanied the applicant and presented the case before the SIC on his behalf. During my oral submission the State Information Commissioner Mr. B K Gohain asked for the reasons for seeking such voluminous information. When I replied that the organization of the applicant wants to hold a Public Hearing or Social Audit of the works of Panchayati Raj System in his Development Block Area he repeatedly told me that this is “unauthorized”!!
The SIC ignored the provisions of section 6 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding information relating to Tara Pumps and Ring Wells sought for by the applicant. The said section of law provides that “where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,—(i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application”. The SIC directed after more than seven month of filing the application “the CEO, Zila Parishad and the BDO of Banskandi Development Block to furnish information relating to Tara Pumps and Ring wells to the complainant within 30 days of the date of this order if the information was available with them. In case it is not available, they should inform the complainant as to the public authority which implements the schemes”.
The SIC admitted that the information furnished were incomplete and misleading and “direct(ed) the
BDO, Banskandi Development Block to instruct the Secretaries of the Gaon Panchayats under his jurisdiction to allow the complainant to inspect the records containing the names of the beneficiaries under the IAY scheme and to take notes of the fathers’ names of the beneficiaries under the IAY scheme which should be certified by the Secretaries of the Panchayats. This should be completed within 30 days from today”. But SIC also praised the public authorities for furnishing such information stating that “it was seen by the Commission that the Secretaries of the GPs had taken pains to get the lists of the beneficiaries under these schemes copied electronically inspite of their limited resources which is commendable.” The Act in section 4 (1) (a) lays down that ‘every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated”. It is now nearly three years after the Act came into force and still copying names electronically after seven months of filing application is a commendable work!!
There is a perception that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is stronger and more effective than the earlier versions of the law because it has teeth in the form of penalty clause [section 20 (1)] which lays down that “where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.” But contrary to the law, it seems that where the PIO is not present in the hearing of an appeal against him despite service of notice it is the duty of the SIC to take his burden on its own shoulder and let off the delinquent!! So, it is seen that the teeth of this Act also can not bite. It is an undisputed universally recognized fact that without sanction a law is not effective and cannot serve its purpose.
The survey referred to above cites that only 8% of the applicants who seek information under the RTI Act, 2005 eventually get information and other 92% have to give up and incur financial and other types of loss. Is the RTI is slowly strangulated in Assam before it can even cross its infancy?
WALIULLAH AHMED LASKAR
This a humble effort to present briefly the state of the Right to Information in Assam with particular reference to the situation in Barak valley, southern part of Assam comprising of the districts of Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi. Although the law regarding Right to Information is fairly unequivocal in India providing the right to a broad range of information to the citizens and a mechanism for expeditious enforcement of this right it is still a rare phenomenon that a citizen gets information as he seeks within the timeframe stipulated under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is feared that the law is strangulated slowly in its implementation by applying various tactics ranging from feigning ignorance, insensitivity, apathy, misinterpretation of law to temptation, intimidation, hooliganism, implication in false charges etc.
According to a sample survey conducted recently by Barak Human Rights Protection Committee, 93% of those applicants interviewed told that they did not get any response from the Public Information Officer within 30 days of the receipt of the application as laid down in section 7 (1) of the Act. 86 % of such applicants do not pursue the matter any further. Remaining applicants (14%) either file complaints with the Assam State Information Commission or prefer appeal to an officer higher in rank to the PIO in the same public authority. In the former case, the SIC transfers the applications under section 6 (3) in almost all cases to either the PIO or the Appellate Authority of the concerned public authority. In case where an appeal is preferred to the Appellate Authority the appellants get responses, according to the said survey report, in just 45% of the cases. 73 % of those who do not get response from the Appellate Authority do not make the Second Appeal. In most of the cases where the second appeal are made the SIC without hearing the case itself forwards the petition to the Appellate Authority asking to hear the case giving a timeframe of usually 30 days.
In cases where the First Appeal is preferred, the SIC transfers the Applications to either the PIO or the Appellate Authority and whether in the complaint stage or in the second appeal stage, the redtapism starts invariably. The Appellate Authority or the PIO writes letters to other officers requesting them to supply the information within a specific time limit, in most cases it is 30 days, as he is to furnish them to the applicant with intimation to the applicant. The time limit gets passed and another set of such letters is issued providing another time limit. In the process a period of six months to one year is elapsed.
Meanwhile another unofficial process starts vigorously which involves both temptation and intimidation. 96% of those applicants, who went through this stage and interviewed in the said survey, stated that they faced both temptation and intimidation in one or the other form.
In this regard, communication of Dr. K M Baharul Islam, Chairman and CEO of South Asian Regional
Development Gateway in Guwahati and a public spirited person hailing from Karimganj, Assam, deserves to be quoted in some length: “Read your email. I had the chance to represent a case in SIC Assam from my area. Though the SIC was very categorically given the verdict in front of all the parties imposing the highest penalty on the earring officer, it was an utter shock when I saw the decision on the website that inserts a 'penalty confirmation' hearing at a later date on 3/6/08 !!
“And, on 3/6/08 he has become too apologetic and as expected got the penalty waived!! Look what signal it will give to the other officers that you may do anything but later by giving apology you may get away.
“This officer says he was ignorant, whereas time and again for almost 2 years he made the applicant a mental torture, thought shown various provisions of the RTI Act...public protests, news paper reports all these but he was still 'ignorant' of the provision.
“Even regarding compliance he did not give the documents "authenticated' by him but called the applicant at night on a Sunday to his quarter and with force got the 'sign' of receipts of the documents. An FIR was filed against him after this incident. But as he was present alone at the time of rehearing he just showed the receipts to the SIC Assam and gave an impression that like a good guy who has supplied all the information.
“On the side line, I contacted friend of mine who is an MLA and a member of the Public Accounts Committee where all the reports of this particular Hariyali project were submitted. You will not believe how much money has been embezzled off from this project with fictitious names of works, beneficiaries etc. No wonder that the Officer did not want to give details information to the public...
“This is a very sorry state of affairs. Within moments of taking this case in hand to represent the applicant in
SIC hearing I got threatening calls from "SULFA" ...look at the nexus. Police is now investigating the case and my usual security cover (As Head of a Foreign Mission) has now been increased...So much so for a RTI case.
On the introspective side, I found many times the RTI applicants are also very ignorant of the basic provisions, unnecessarily complicate things without 'asserting' their rights...jump to sign on dotted lines...fears any petty officials sitting in a govt. office ...."Sir" them all the time...and make it very difficult to support their cases as they accept / sign many things under pressure and then start
crying 'foul'.” (Emphasis his)
In another case, of which I have first hand knowledge, members of a local community organization named Kishan Bikash Samity is facing grave criminal charges falsely. Sahidul Haque Laskar, secretary of Kishan Bikash Samity, submitted an application to the PIO of the office of the Block Development Officer, Banskandi Development Block on 9 May 2007 seeking information regarding the implementation of the 11th Finance Commission Award, 12th Finance Commission Award, Indira Avash Yojna and Tara Pump and Ring Well schemes undertaken in the different Gaon Panchayats of the block. But he did not receive any information. Again on 22 June 2007 he filed first Appeal petition to the BDO of the Block, as he is designated as the first appellate authority under the RTI Act, 2005 asking him to furnish the information as he had not received the same. But when he did not receive any information he submitted a petition before the Assam SIC on 31 July 2007 and the SIC transferred the same on 27 August 20007 to the Chief Executive Officer, Cachar Zila Parishad for furnishing the information. Mr. Laskar sent another petition to the SIC on 18 September 2007 as a reminder to his letter dated 31 July 2007. Then he sent another petition to the SIC vide his letter dated 18 January 2008 informing the SIC that on receipt of the transferred petition from the SIC the
CEO, Zila Parisahd, Cachar vide her letter dated 10 October 2007 directed the BDO, Banskandi Development Block to attend her office on 15 November 2007. On the other hand, that the PIO of the Block transferred his petition to each of the Gaon Panchayat Secretaries under the Block on 1 August 2007. Then the BDO issued another letter to each of the Secretaries of the Gaon Panchayat asking them to furnish the information to him on or before 30 November 2007. The CEO once again issued another letter dated 29 October 2007 to the BDO asking him to attend her office with all the relevant documents on 15 November 2007. The BDO issued a letter dated 26 November 2007 to each of the GP Secretaries to furnish information within 7 days of the receipt of the letter.
Eventually almost after seven months of tribulation some information were furnished to the applicant. But most of these were incorrect, incomplete and misleading. Hence he appealed to the SIC vide his letter dated 18 January 2008 for directing the BDO to furnish complete and correct information. It was also stated that the applicant did not receive any information regarding the Tara Pumps and the Ring Wells from the BDO. Moreover, in the list of beneficiaries under the IAY scheme, the father’s name of any of the beneficiaries was not mentioned making it difficult for him to ascertain whether the lists furnished to him were correct or not. Further it was prayed that penalties as per the provisions of the Act may be imposed on the erring officers.
Mr. Laskar confided in me that before submission of appeal to the SIC on 31 July 2007 many persons allegedly on behalf of the said Block Development Officer approached him with offer of handsome rewards in the form of cash or kind. After submission of the said appeal the attitude of these persons turned upside down. They started to intimidate the applicant. The threat meted out to him included that of prosecution, arrest, harassment of relatives and physical assault, injury and even death.
The SIC fixed 3 May 2008 for hearing first but did not take hearing on view of the absence of the respondents. The next date was fixed on 17 June 2008. A false FIR was registered under section 143, 447, 341, 353, 383, 379 and 487 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 vide Lakhipur Police Station Case No. 148/08 against 5 members of Kishan Bikash Samity and 30 other unidentified persons of the locality.
With the excuse of arresting those unidentified persons, police raided houses of the members of Kishan Bikash Samity and their sympathisers and harassed the inmates. Mr. Sahidul Haque Laskar applied for pre-arrest bail in the Gauhati High Court apprehending arrest though he was not named in the FIR. High Court granted him pre-arrest bail vide B A No. 2447 of 2008. The High Court accepted that the ground for apprehension of arrest is the date of hearing on 17 July 2008 before the SIC and mentioned in the bail order that bail should be granted so as he can appear before the SIC on that day
Hearing was held in the absence of the respondents. As requested I accompanied the applicant and presented the case before the SIC on his behalf. During my oral submission the State Information Commissioner Mr. B K Gohain asked for the reasons for seeking such voluminous information. When I replied that the organization of the applicant wants to hold a Public Hearing or Social Audit of the works of Panchayati Raj System in his Development Block Area he repeatedly told me that this is “unauthorized”!!
The SIC ignored the provisions of section 6 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding information relating to Tara Pumps and Ring Wells sought for by the applicant. The said section of law provides that “where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,—(i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application”. The SIC directed after more than seven month of filing the application “the CEO, Zila Parishad and the BDO of Banskandi Development Block to furnish information relating to Tara Pumps and Ring wells to the complainant within 30 days of the date of this order if the information was available with them. In case it is not available, they should inform the complainant as to the public authority which implements the schemes”.
The SIC admitted that the information furnished were incomplete and misleading and “direct(ed) the
BDO, Banskandi Development Block to instruct the Secretaries of the Gaon Panchayats under his jurisdiction to allow the complainant to inspect the records containing the names of the beneficiaries under the IAY scheme and to take notes of the fathers’ names of the beneficiaries under the IAY scheme which should be certified by the Secretaries of the Panchayats. This should be completed within 30 days from today”. But SIC also praised the public authorities for furnishing such information stating that “it was seen by the Commission that the Secretaries of the GPs had taken pains to get the lists of the beneficiaries under these schemes copied electronically inspite of their limited resources which is commendable.” The Act in section 4 (1) (a) lays down that ‘every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated”. It is now nearly three years after the Act came into force and still copying names electronically after seven months of filing application is a commendable work!!
There is a perception that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is stronger and more effective than the earlier versions of the law because it has teeth in the form of penalty clause [section 20 (1)] which lays down that “where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.” But contrary to the law, it seems that where the PIO is not present in the hearing of an appeal against him despite service of notice it is the duty of the SIC to take his burden on its own shoulder and let off the delinquent!! So, it is seen that the teeth of this Act also can not bite. It is an undisputed universally recognized fact that without sanction a law is not effective and cannot serve its purpose.
The survey referred to above cites that only 8% of the applicants who seek information under the RTI Act, 2005 eventually get information and other 92% have to give up and incur financial and other types of loss. Is the RTI is slowly strangulated in Assam before it can even cross its infancy?
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
Assam minister Ripun Bora arrested
Assam minister Ripun Bora arrested
by CBI
Assam education minister Ripun Bora has been arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation in New Delhi while he was there in the national capital. According to information, the education minister was arrested in connection with a Rs 10 lakh bribery case. Mr Bora was picked up at his residence from Mothura Road. Sources say he was arrested while he was trying to bribe the CBI officer which was probing a murder case of Danial Toppo. Interrogation is on.
Amar Asom journalist Mukul Pathak as also been arrested with Mr Bora. Mukul tried to bribe the CBI men on behalf of the minister.
Source: Assam Times
Sunday, 23 December 2007
When the Price of an FIR is 5000 INR
When the Price of an FIR is 5000 INR
On 4 August, 2007 reports published in various newspapers that Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das, the in-charge of Ghungoor Out post under the jurisdiction of Silchar Sdar Police Station in Cachar, Assam, India demanded Rs. 5,000 ( five thousand) only from Kiran Sharma as the price for registering her complaint regarding the abnormal death of her daughter Pia Das alias Piu Das.
After getting the information a team of Barak Human Rights Protection Committee started collecting facts regarding the case. According to the facts gathered by the organization Pia Das alias Pai Das was married to Shankar Das in 2002 and they have a son now aged about 4 years. Pia used to suffer mental and physical torture administered by her husband for her inability to satisfy his demands of dowry. He used to abuse, humiliate and beat her now and then. Kiran Sharma, mother of Pia Das is one of the poorest of the poor and she could not and did not meet the demands of her son-in-law. So, the suffering of her daughter Pia Das intensified day by day.
Shankar Das informed Kiran Sharma on the day of 19th April, 2007 that Pia Das was admitted to Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar for treatment of the injury sustained by her while she fell down in her room due to dizziness and weakness. At about 2.30 pm that day Pia Das breathed her last. As it is an abnormal death doctors at the SMCH conducted Post Mortem and somehow Kiran Sharma came to know about the fact that her daughter's death is not a normal death. Subsequently Rahul Das, aged about 4 years, son of Shankar Das and Pia Das told his grandmother Kiran Sharma that he had seen his father beating on the head of her mother with a seating stool till she felled and got unconscious.
After funeral and overcoming the intial grief Kiran Sharma went to the Police Outpost of Ghungoor under Silchar Sadar Police Station and met Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das, the in-charge of the Outpost to lodge her complaint on 22 April, 2007. The said officer demanded her Rs. 5000.00 (Five thousand only) as the required amount of registering an FIR and attempted to get this gratification forcibly by bullying and threatening her with consequences to be put behind bar and charged with grave offences in case of her denial.
Being rebuffed, bullied and threatened kiran Sharma lost every hope of getting justice for her daughter and got frustrated. Subsequently she was able to make up her mind to seek and fight for justice. This regained hope in her mind led her to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar and she submitted an application on the day of 3 rd August, 2007 to him stating the circumstances in which her daughter died and how her complaint was not registered and she was demanded to pay the gratification. Kiran Sharma also filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar regarding the matter which bears the case No. 1053/2007 on the day of 4 th August, 2007. The complaint was forwarded by the hounarable court to the Silchar Sadar Police Station for registering an FIR but till the date no such FIR was registered.
Barak Human Rights Protection Committee issued a press statement regarding the case which was published in various newspapers and other media on the days of 22 nd, 28th and 29th August, 2007. In the statement the committee demanded that:
(1) Rahul Das, the minor son of Pia Das, the deceased be paid Rs. 50000.00 (Fifty thousand) only from the Chief Minister Jivan Jyoti Achoni.
(2) An FIR be registered under section 302, 304B and 34 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 against Shankar Das.
(3)An FIR be registered against Sub- Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das under Section 166 of the IPC for his offence of knowingly disobeying law stated in sections 174 and 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(4) Another FIR be registered against Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(5) An investigation, if needed, into all the accusations be conducted by Criminal Investigation Department of Assam Police.
And Others.
But till the date n0othing has been done regarding the demands.
The facts stated above reveal the strong possibilities that:
(I) The death of Pia Das alias Piu Das occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by her husband in connection with his demand for dowry which offence comes well under section 304B of the Indian Panel Code, 1860.
(II) The case of the death of Pia Das alias Piu Das falls squirely under clause (ii) of sub-section 3 of section174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which mandates the officer in charge of a Police Station or such other officer to perform certain duties if he/she receives information that a person died such circumstances as stated above. In this case the Sub-Inspector did not perform these duties.
(III) Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das disobeyed law stated in sub section (1) of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which mandates him to enter the substance of such information, as made by Kiran Sharma which reveal commission of a cognizable offence in a book to be kept by him, by refusing to do so in the instant case.
(IV) The acts of Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das sated in foregoing two sub-paras constitute the offence of disobeying law being a public servant knowing well that it is likely to cause injury to Kiran Sharma and her grandson Rahul Das by denying them an effective remedy of, and justice for the death of their daughter and mother respectively.
(V) The statement of Kiran Sharma reveals that Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das attempted to obtain a gratification from her for himself as a reward for doing his official act of registering her complaint which attempt constitute an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(VI) These offences on the part of Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das were committed with the intent to deprive Kiran Sharma and Rahul Das ehir right to justice and did deprive them. The right to justice is a universally regocnised human right which flows from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Articles 2 and 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
Barak Human Rights Protection Committee has filed a case with the Assam Human Rights Commission for Justice for Pia Das and it is now under process.
After getting the information a team of Barak Human Rights Protection Committee started collecting facts regarding the case. According to the facts gathered by the organization Pia Das alias Pai Das was married to Shankar Das in 2002 and they have a son now aged about 4 years. Pia used to suffer mental and physical torture administered by her husband for her inability to satisfy his demands of dowry. He used to abuse, humiliate and beat her now and then. Kiran Sharma, mother of Pia Das is one of the poorest of the poor and she could not and did not meet the demands of her son-in-law. So, the suffering of her daughter Pia Das intensified day by day.
Shankar Das informed Kiran Sharma on the day of 19th April, 2007 that Pia Das was admitted to Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar for treatment of the injury sustained by her while she fell down in her room due to dizziness and weakness. At about 2.30 pm that day Pia Das breathed her last. As it is an abnormal death doctors at the SMCH conducted Post Mortem and somehow Kiran Sharma came to know about the fact that her daughter's death is not a normal death. Subsequently Rahul Das, aged about 4 years, son of Shankar Das and Pia Das told his grandmother Kiran Sharma that he had seen his father beating on the head of her mother with a seating stool till she felled and got unconscious.
After funeral and overcoming the intial grief Kiran Sharma went to the Police Outpost of Ghungoor under Silchar Sadar Police Station and met Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das, the in-charge of the Outpost to lodge her complaint on 22 April, 2007. The said officer demanded her Rs. 5000.00 (Five thousand only) as the required amount of registering an FIR and attempted to get this gratification forcibly by bullying and threatening her with consequences to be put behind bar and charged with grave offences in case of her denial.
Being rebuffed, bullied and threatened kiran Sharma lost every hope of getting justice for her daughter and got frustrated. Subsequently she was able to make up her mind to seek and fight for justice. This regained hope in her mind led her to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar and she submitted an application on the day of 3 rd August, 2007 to him stating the circumstances in which her daughter died and how her complaint was not registered and she was demanded to pay the gratification. Kiran Sharma also filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar regarding the matter which bears the case No. 1053/2007 on the day of 4 th August, 2007. The complaint was forwarded by the hounarable court to the Silchar Sadar Police Station for registering an FIR but till the date no such FIR was registered.
Barak Human Rights Protection Committee issued a press statement regarding the case which was published in various newspapers and other media on the days of 22 nd, 28th and 29th August, 2007. In the statement the committee demanded that:
(1) Rahul Das, the minor son of Pia Das, the deceased be paid Rs. 50000.00 (Fifty thousand) only from the Chief Minister Jivan Jyoti Achoni.
(2) An FIR be registered under section 302, 304B and 34 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 against Shankar Das.
(3)An FIR be registered against Sub- Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das under Section 166 of the IPC for his offence of knowingly disobeying law stated in sections 174 and 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(4) Another FIR be registered against Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(5) An investigation, if needed, into all the accusations be conducted by Criminal Investigation Department of Assam Police.
And Others.
But till the date n0othing has been done regarding the demands.
The facts stated above reveal the strong possibilities that:
(I) The death of Pia Das alias Piu Das occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by her husband in connection with his demand for dowry which offence comes well under section 304B of the Indian Panel Code, 1860.
(II) The case of the death of Pia Das alias Piu Das falls squirely under clause (ii) of sub-section 3 of section174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which mandates the officer in charge of a Police Station or such other officer to perform certain duties if he/she receives information that a person died such circumstances as stated above. In this case the Sub-Inspector did not perform these duties.
(III) Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das disobeyed law stated in sub section (1) of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which mandates him to enter the substance of such information, as made by Kiran Sharma which reveal commission of a cognizable offence in a book to be kept by him, by refusing to do so in the instant case.
(IV) The acts of Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das sated in foregoing two sub-paras constitute the offence of disobeying law being a public servant knowing well that it is likely to cause injury to Kiran Sharma and her grandson Rahul Das by denying them an effective remedy of, and justice for the death of their daughter and mother respectively.
(V) The statement of Kiran Sharma reveals that Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das attempted to obtain a gratification from her for himself as a reward for doing his official act of registering her complaint which attempt constitute an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(VI) These offences on the part of Sub-Inspector Nihar Ranjan Das were committed with the intent to deprive Kiran Sharma and Rahul Das ehir right to justice and did deprive them. The right to justice is a universally regocnised human right which flows from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Articles 2 and 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
Barak Human Rights Protection Committee has filed a case with the Assam Human Rights Commission for Justice for Pia Das and it is now under process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)