Whispers Forum

The Appellant who worked in Coal India Limited (CIL) sought certain information, acting as a whistleblower to corroborate his complaints which he has filed to unearth misappropriation. The CIL stated that the matter had been sent for investigation to CVC on 23.07.2013 and no response has been received thereafter despite reminder on October 2013. The CIL submitted that certain information was denied claiming exemption under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act while minutes of the meeting had not been received from CVC, hence not available with the Respondent to provide. The CIC noted that the complaint filed by the appellant has been pending since year 2013. The fate of the complaint is yet to be decided by the CVC, despite passage of more than reasonable period of time. It is worrisome and unfortunate to note that such inordinate period of time is taken in completion of investigation of a complaint, even by the CVC. Hence, the CIC directed the PIO, CIL to transfer the RTI application to the concerned PIO, CVC who in turn shall submit before the CIC the report submitted to the CVC by CIL and the current stage of the investigation pending before the CVC alongwith the possible timeline for conclusion of the Investigation. The CIC made it clear that non compliance of the directions shall attract appropriate proceedings, as per law.
Comments
The CIC has so far refrained from asking for a possible timeline for conclusion of the Investigation in cases of delay. The case indicates the possible use of RTI Act for expediting the proceedings in certain cases.
Citation: Shri Ainul H Mazumdar v. Coal India Limited in F. No.CIC/CILTD/A/2017/111036, Date of Decision: 10.08.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The RTI Act can be used for such disputes to the advantage of public. However, it has not brought a great change in the working of the different government organisations which was expected at the time of rolling out of the Act. There is a need for a greater push to change the style of working of the officials.
Suresh Chand
Giving due weightage to NOTA
Dr. Singh and Verma has very well explained the Pitfall in the present system regarding NOTA. I suggest that if there are 15% NOTA votes and no candidate is getting more than 35% vote, then there should be re election. This will give due weightage to NOTA.
S Gopal

One of the major differences seen today between Manmohan singh V/s Narendra Modi government is flowing of funds as one government made us spendthrift another saver. The results of upcoming election in the five states will have a deep impact on the centre elections. Well the state voters have to understand if they continue to enjoy the benefits of central government or vote against to see the worse.
The next five years will be very crucial for the country , patience & discipline can lead us to become a superpower.
Vivek Dhawan

NOTA - 'None Of The Above' option in the election process, introduced upon the intervention of the Supreme Court in 2013, has demonstrably proven to be ineffective in achieving the ultimate objective of providing clean candidates to the voters to choose from. Thus, it is contrary to the concept, that the best available men should be chosen as people's representatives, for the proper governance of the country. The present form of NOTA in India, considers the vote cast as NOTA, to be invalid votes, except for the purpose that they be categorised as a separate entity. They are not taken into cognizance for calculating the total valid votes, nor are they considered for determining the forfeiture of deposits of the losing candidates.
The essence and spirit of NOTA also entails the right to reject, according to the learned judges of the Supreme Court. But the existing provision in Indian elections, does not accord weightage to that right of rejection. Presently, in case of NOTA getting the majority vote, the candidate polling the next highest votes is elected. Where then is the rejection ? It is like bestowing the oxymoron 'cruel kindness'. When a choice of “none of the above” has been exercised, it follows from logical deduction, that it is an "against all" vote. That is to say, that all those who participated as candidates, do not enjoy the confidence of the voter. So, if NOTA is in majority, all others should be set aside as not fit to provide clean and efficient governance, and ideally, a second round of elections to be held.
The above lacunae calls for a case being made for NOTA, with enough teeth to achieve the desired objective, by putting a proviso of automatic by-election, if NOTA is in majority. This would be in alignment with the democratic tenet, that the majority has given a vote of no-confidence in the candidates. The preamble to the constitution of India states democracy to be the platform for governance, it is only fair for the citizens to expect a robust election system without an Achilles Heel. The chink in the armour, in the present form of NOTA, perpetuates the negativities of a democratic system, without palliating measures to improve the system. Extending the NOTA logic, ad nauseam, it means that if 99 voters out 100 opt for NOTA, (and NOTA being invalid), then the first past the post principle declares the candidate with only one vote to be the winner and set to rule over the others. (And this single vote, would in all probability, be his own vote)
NOTA then becomes "NO OPTION TO AVAIL". It is like two wolves and a sheep, voting democratically, and deciding by majority, on what to have for dinner. The rightful citizen is led, like a lamb to the slaughter. In this scenario of Hobson's choice, the voters are impelled to desist from casting their vote, setting up an atmosphere of alienation. In the absence of a credible NOTA, it is like being asked if you'd like a slap on the cheek or the bottoms. Since the voters don't like to be slapped, they see no reason to participate in the farcical election.
And then democracy becomes, in the words of Thomas Carlyle, "a palpable incredibility and a delirious absurdity".
Abraham Lincoln, considered to be the father of democracy, called it a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But he also said, "Elections belong the the people. It is their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters".
So, LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. Who would clean the Augean Stables?
Footnote: Latest decision by Supreme Court on 25-09-18 leaves the decision to clean the cesspool of corrupt and charged politicians to the Parliament, where 33% of the representatives are tainted.
Dr. D.P. Singh
Ex.Addl.Director, Higher Education, MP &
Narendra Varma
Ex. AGM, BHEL