eerie-maverick

AN ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT OF PCRF (AUTHORS OF RTI AWARDS) - FLAWED LOGIC AND SPECIOUS CONCLUSIONS

2009-11-25T20:06:00.000-08:00

Prof Ansari’s reaction and our response thereto

November 23rd, 2009 Posted in Announcements

AN ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT OF PCRF

(AUTHORS OF RTI AWARDS) - FLAWED LOGIC AND SPECIOUS CONCLUSIONS

Lately, the Media was flooded with stories about the functioning of Information Commissioners all over the country based upon analysis done by a group going by the name and style “Public Cause Research Foundation”. The chief protagonists of this group are Shri Arvind Kejriwal, Shri Manish Sisodia and Shri Abhinandan Sekhri. Media has lapped up these stories without pausing to critically assess whether these were worth reporting, or rather, whether these were at-all true. The following analysis would show that the Report presented by the above group as authentic and scientific analysis of the performance of the Commissioners was nothing more than ‘eye-wash’ for purposefully and deliberately promoting some at the cost of others. The Report is so flawed that it is not worth even the paper on which it was written and the following analysis would show how it was so:-

I. Wrong projection about success rate of RTI-petitions:

Our response: The scope of our study was limited to assessing what happens to an appeal or complaint that reaches Information Commission. In any case, is it not too simplistic to assume that anyone who did not file an appeal is satisfied? Many people do not file appeals because they do not have the capacity to do so. Most people from lower income groups and disadvantaged sections do not have the capacity to file appeals. Besides, the appeal rules at CIC have been made so complicated that many appeals filed at CIC are rejected on technical grounds (in 2007-08, 63% appeals filed at CIC were rejected on technical grounds, by registry only i.e. without being heard at all, which is not reflected anywhere). During our analysis of some PIOs this year, we came across many cases (in some cases almost 50% cases handled by a PIO) who were dissatisfied but did not file appeal.

Out of the balance 11,261 cases, which ended up being second-appeals or complaints, a very large number were decided in favour of the appellants / complainants and those in which appeals / complaints were rejected, grounds for rejection were clearly spelt-out. Several of these were challenged before High Courts and the decisions of the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions were upheld in most cases. This shows that all the rejections by the Central Information Commission were within the four-corners-of-law. In fact, giving out information when the law clearly prohibited it, would have been illegal and would have invited strictures from superior courts.

Our response: We have tried to quantify how many were decided in favor and how many against appellants. At CIC, 65% cases were decided in favor of appellants. We have not questioned the judgments of Hon’ble Information Commissioners wherever they have rejected appeals.

The statistics projected by the Public Cause Research Foundation (organizers of RTI Awards) makes it appear as if disclosure of information was a ‘necessary good’, whereas non-disclosure was a ‘necessary evil’. This presumption is not only flawed, it is misleading and designed deliberately to present a wrong picture about the work of the Commissioners.

Our response: Nowhere in the report have we implied that disclosure is good or that non-disclosure is bad. Our overarching goal is to be objective and unbiased. We have nothing to gain whatsoever by presenting a wrong picture! In fact, we are trying to recognize the best among the commissioners. We have merely presented the top percentages and bottom percentages based on well-defined parameters. If one commissioner passes orders in favor of appellants in 100% cases and another commissioner passes orders in favor of appellants in just 14% cases, would you treat them equally? Don’t you think that it is worth enquiring into the reasons for the large number of rejections? Besides, we have found many instances, where one commissioner orders disclosure but another one rejects that information. If no harm is caused because of disclosure of information in one case, why aren’t all commissioners disclosing the same? For instance, many state commissions have allowed disclosure of answer sheets but CIC refuses to do that in certain cases? If no harm happened when answer sheets were disclosed by Pune University, then why should it not be disclosed in Delhi University and other Universities, which comes under CIC?

One would have understood, if on an examination of the orders of the Commissioners, the organization which conducted this Study would have faulted, or critiqued, it on grounds of the legal position expounded in those orders. They should have also examined whether those orders were in conformity with the decisions made by High Courts all over the country.

Our response: We have never questioned the judgments of the commissioners. However, we have identified certain issues as mentioned earlier and we wish to initiate a debate on such issues, where some commissioners are ordering disclosure but others are ordering against it. Within CIC, whereas some commissioners have rejected large number of cases saying it does not fall within the definition of “information”, some commissioners did not reject a single case on this ground. Should we not discuss what constitutes “information”?

Far from it, they have chosen to malign and indict the Commissioners on the basis of false statistics, erroneous facts and fallacious conclusions. There appears to be a deep-seated design to make the institution appear to be a failed one.

Our response: We are organization that has been closely involved with the RTI efforts even before it came into law. Our commitment to successful implementation of the law is whole hearted and unconditional. Doesn’t it seem far-fetched that we would put in all this effort just to discredit an institution that was meant to implement a law that so many have worked so hard for? We can only assure you that we have no hidden design but to strengthen RTI movement.

II. Credentials of the organizers conducting the Study:

According to what has been put out on their website, it is seen that the authors of this widely-publicized Report are Shri Arvind Kejriwal, Shri Manish Sisodia and Shri Abhinandan Sekhri. It is unclear as to who these authors are, what their research background is, what methodology they have followed and what were the limitations of the Study they have conducted.

Our response: We appreciate the Commissioner’s response to our study. But to start questioning the credentials of the team and organization is clearly a case of trying to shoot the messenger when you don’t like the message. We request you to stick to the facts rather than get into a personal battle of words. We have never claimed that this study is perfect or flawless. In fact, we view it as the start of a long and evolving process. Hence, we have actively sought feedback and in the true spirit of transparency made the results of our study fully open to review and critique by anyone who might be interested. We are grateful to many who came forward with their inputs and helped iron out errors and inaccuracies. The processes and procedures are constantly being improved as we learn each and every day from our experiences. I have personally been involved in overseeing the entire effort. The methodology and background about the study have been clearly outlined on the website. Besides, we are no strangers. You and I have met several times and you are fully aware of our efforts, so it is not like this report materialized all of a sudden out of thin air with malicious intent. I wonder had the results of the study been more to your liking perhaps your reaction might have been more favorable? In any case, our brief details about our backgrounds are available on our sitewww.pcrf.in.

While their website leaves no one any wiser about the background and the credentials of the authors of the Report, most surprisingly and perhaps quite cunningly, these authors have not informed the public as to what were the limitations of their Study. For example, the ‘sample sizes’ which have been taken, either to commend or to denigrate the work of Commissioners, vary widely. In fairness, the authors ought to have acknowledged that if a larger sample size was taken for all Commissioners or more or less identical sample sizes were taken for each Commissioner, the conclusions would have been radically different.

It is important to note that this Report was driven by an urge to commend few and denigrate many.

III. Flawed methodology:

We have been informed that the Commissioners have been evaluated by the authors of the Report against four parameters, which were:-

A. Overall Public Satisfaction:

The authors of the Report claim that the Overall Public Satisfaction has been measured by examining and evaluating over 6000 responses from those who approached various Commissions including the Central Information Commission.

B. Effectiveness:

The above yardstick has also been used for measuring Effectiveness.

C. Deterrent Impact:

This has been measured on the basis of a study of the number of penalties imposed on officers of the public authority by various Commissioners.

D. Pro-disclosure Factor:

This has been measured on the basis of affirmative orders by the Commissioners in favour of appellants. In other words, pro-disclosure factor is high when a Commissioner allows a large number of appeals.

Now let us look at how they have gone about their task.

Take for instance the methodology for evaluating parameters A and B, viz. Overall Public Satisfaction and Effectiveness. According to the authors, these two traits have been measured on the basis of the public response received by them from 6000 persons whose cases came up before the various Commissions. It has been stated that 39% of these 6,000 addressees expressed satisfaction in favour of the Commissioners.

Now consider this: How these 6,000 cases were distributed Commissioner-wise for the 94 Commissioners across the country has neither been presented nor explained by the authors.
An aggregate figure of 6,000 cases cannot become the basis for deciding the performance against these two parameters of individual Commissioners. This is a grave methodological error which the authors have committed.

Second, in presenting the Commissioner-wise statistics of Overall Public Satisfaction and Effectiveness, these 6,000 cases have been conveniently forgotten. It doesn’t take much intelligence to see that the total number of cases which have been used for grading Effectiveness and Overall Public Satisfaction for each Commissioner is at variance with the 6,000 which the authors have used to elicit public response.

Third, authors have quite simplistically and, equally erroneously, gone by affirmative orders in favour of appellants as an index of a Commissioner’s effectiveness and public satisfaction in regard to his work.

It is quite obvious that the valuation of Commissioners against these two parameters has been done by adopting what can best be described as voodoo statistics and methods which will not stand scientific scrutiny even for a moment.

What emerges from it is as follows:-

A. By taking only 6,000 cases out of over 54,000 decided by CIC and the State Information Commissions, the sponsors and the authors of the Study have only taken about 10% of cases as their basis for commenting on public satisfaction and effectiveness of Commissioners. This number, i.e. 6000 is far too small a sample for the entire country ¾ one Central Information Commission and 27 State Information Commissions ¾ and for 94 Commissioners. Do the authors want us to believe that on the basis of 6,000 case studies, or rather telephonic responses received by them, they can draw any fair conclusion about the effectiveness of Commissioners?

Our response to all the above paras: The methodology is already there on our website. However, let me reiterate the process:

We collected all the orders passed by various Information Commissions across the country. Some orders were on their websites. For many commissions, we had to file RTI applications and sometimes make multiple trips to them to collect orders. For instance, despite two trips to Lucknow, we did not get any orders from them. We could collect roughly 52,000 orders. Each of these orders was read and analyzed by a team of 12 persons for over six months. 34,000 orders were pro-disclosures. So, we wrote letters to all these 34,000 people asking them whether they received complete and satisfactory information after the order. These letters were prepared and handled by a team of almost 25 people working for over three months. Many letters came back undelivered due to wrong or incomplete address. But we received written response from roughly 6000 people. For a population size of 34,000 we believe that this a reasonable and acceptable sample size for data, though by no means perfect. However, this was not uniformly distributed over all commissioners. Response in some cases was inadequate. We therefore, contacted these commissioners and requested them if we could get phone numbers of appellants from their appeal files. Barring a few, most commissioners agreed to provide that. So, our teams visited several states and collected phone numbers of appellants. In the case of Arunachal Pradesh, the phone numbers did not work due to bad connectivity. So, our team personally met as many appellants as possible in Arunachal Pradesh to get their feedback. We have tried to ensure that we have feedback from at least 20% of the people in whose case pro-disclosure orders were passed for each commissioner. However, despite all efforts, in the case of a few commissioners we could not reach 20% (though we received more than 40% feedback in some cases). Our statistical expert is now helping us identify what could be the error margin in the case of each commissioner with the available sample size and population size.

I also need to specify that two of the parameters i.e. Pro-disclosure factor and deterrent impact are straight from analysis and do not depend upon feedback. The other two parameters i.e. Overall Public Satisfaction and Effectiveness depend upon public feedback.

We put all our raw data on our website more than a month before the final data was to be presented to jury. This was to request people to cross check our analysis and point to our mistakes so that we can correct them. We also wanted more feedback on Information Commissioners’ performance. We have received very enthusiastic response from people.

We would also like to discuss figures related to Prof Ansari’s performance. He passed 1726 orders. Out of that he passed orders in favor of disclosure in 1238 cases (72% cases, 66^th position on Pro-Disclosure Factor). He imposed penalties in 3 cases (57^th position on “Deterrent Impact”). 22% of his orders were complied with (58^th position on “Effectiveness” Parameter) and overall public satisfaction is 15% (53^rd position on OPS parameter). Prof Ansari, do you agree with these figures about your performance? The detailed worksheets are on our website. If you find any mistakes, kindly let us know. We will rectify them. If you wish, we can scan and put all the feedback that we have received from various people about your performance on our website.

The authors state that all these 6,000 cases were those who were authorized to receive information by the Commissions, but many of them did not receive it.

Two observations need to be made:-

(a) Once a Commissioner passes an order for disclosing an information and if that information remains undisclosed, the appellants usually approach the Commission in complaint for denial of information (or against non-compliance of Commission’s order) by public authority. The Commission makes a decision, thereafter, about whether the information was denied or it was disclosed based upon submissions from both sides. Quite frequently, and in fact in a majority of cases, it is the appellant who turned out to be the one who was presenting facts wrongly and not the CPIO or the public authority. If such petitioners tell the authors of the RTI Award that they were unhappy with the information disclosed, it was required of the authors to make a critical scrutiny about what these appellant had asked for and what they had received, rather than draw a facile conclusion that if somebody said that he has not received information, he was bound to be right.

Our response: Just as you disregard this as a facile conclusion one could easily argue the opposite view. At many forums, you have said that the people are wrong and officers are right. We do agree that this might be the case sometimes, but we disagree with this observation of yours as this being true in majority of the cases. In fact, most people in this country would not share your assumption either.

(b) In our experience, the cases where information was not disclosed after an order of the Commissioner were far and few between and not as enormous as the authors of this Report (RTI Awards) have attempted to demonstrate.

Our response: It would be best if we stick to specific data rather than make broad generic claims which are not backed by data of any sort. We have presented specific figures. Please tell us how are our figures are wrong?

B. It is too simplistic to say that effectiveness of the Commissioner is the function of how many appeals he allows in favour of appellants. In fact, true effectiveness of a Commissioner is to be evaluated on the basis of whether he has contributed to the opening-up of the public authority’s systems and ushering in transparency where there was none earlier.

Our response: We have never said that “effectiveness” of a commissioner is based on how many appeals he allows in favor of appellants. We have defined “Effectiveness” as percentage of cases in which he is able to get his orders implemented. Again, we are not questioning your judgment. But if in a case you order that information be provided, then we are assessing, in how many such cases information was actually received by appellants.

C. In some cases, not giving information is more in harmony with the avowed objective of the RTI Act than giving out information. As per the Preamble of the RTI Act, it is the purpose of this legislation to combat corruption and to improve efficiency in governance. A large number of cases which come before the Central Information Commission as well as the State Commissions are brought by public employees facing disciplinary cases, vigilance enquiries, anti-corruption actions and criminal prosecutions. These use the RTI Act as a tool to delay or defeat the extant process which seeks to make them answerable for their acts of omission and commission. Central Information Commission and the State Commissions in most such cases favour denial of information than disclosure, principally under Section 8(1) of RTI Act.

Our response: We do not sympathize with the officers facing corruption charges. However we strongly believe that transparency in the whole process is necessary to prevent victimization and harassment of honest officers and genuine whistleblowers. In any case, RTI Act does not debar any officer from using RTI. You are perhaps the only commissioner in the country who passed an order debarring government employees from using RTI. We feel this is completely illegal.

It is for the informed public to ask itself whether by judging a Commissioner on the basis of bland statistic of how many cases he decides in favour of appellant and how many cases he decides against him, can be a fair evaluation of the functioning of the Commissioner.

The authors of this Report have been not only unfair, they have been downright cussed and negligent in performing the task they had set out for.

Our response: Pro-Disclosure factor i.e. number of cases in which commissioner ordered in favor of disclosure is just one of the four parameters. All these parameters have to be viewed in their entirety rather than individually. Being at the top on one parameter will not make the commissioner effective.

Further, the following also need some reflection and show how lopsided this Study has been.

According to the authors of the study, out of the total number of cases they evaluated, in as many as 70%, the decisions were in favour of complete disclosure of information. It follows from it that only in 30% of the cases the Commissions directed
non-disclosure. These latter cases also include decisions authorizing part-disclosure. It defies understanding as to how part-disclosure and non-disclosure can be one and the same. This is one glaring instance of the authors’ lopsided technique.

Our response: We have the break up. If you want, we can provide it to you. In any case, we will put the break up figures in our final report. We just didn’t think it was important to include this in the draft report.

Again, according to the authors, all non-disclosures are such a bad thing that it must cast a stigma on the Commissioners. These authors should be asked the question if every single appeal were to be allowed by the Commissioners, then why have Commissions at-all. Further, they also need to be asked as to what is the meaning and implication of Section 8(1) and Section 9 of the RTI Act, which clearly spell-out the conditions under which an information can be denied to an applicant. Is it the case of the authors that even when a Commission decided that a certain information came within the scope of the exemption-Sections, the information should have been disclosed if for nothing else for elevating the merit of the Commissioner in the eyes of the flawed authors of this flawed report.

Our response: We have already replied to this issue in great detail above.

Another glaring instance of the authors’ inscrutable ways is the manner in which they have evaluated Commissioners to be ranked as best five or the worst five. One example would suffice.

Mr.V.V. Bhorge has disposed of 4593 second-appeals, out of which in 989 cases, he had issued affirmative orders in favour of the appellants. He had imposed 126 penalties on errant public officials. Mr.Bhorge has been ranked as one of the five worst Commissioners.

Our response: How do you say that he is at the bottom? We have clearly defined four different parameters and ranked people according to these criteria. On Deterrent Impact, Mr. Bhorge is at the 7^th position for imposing penalties in 10% cases. But he is quite low on Pro-Disclosure, because he passed only 989 cases in favor of disclosure out of 4593. He denied information/rejected 78% of the cases and passed pro-disclosure orders in just 21% cases in comparison there are some commissioners who passed pro-disclosure orders in 100% cases.

Now contrast this with the indulgence with which the authors have treated Mr.D.N. Padhi of Orissa. Mr.Padhi has decided 423 cases, out of which in 361 cases, he has decided the appeal in favour of the appellant. He has imposed 40 penalties. Mr.Padhi has been ranked as one of the best five Commissioners.

Our response: Who says Mr Padhi is at the top? Once again, please review Mr. Padhi’s record (or for that matter of any Commissioner) against the key parameters. For imposing penalties in 11% cases, he is at 5^th position on Deterrent Impact. He is at 48^th position in Pro-Disclosure and 13^th/14^thpositions in Effectiveness and Overall Public Satisfaction. (Please be aware that these two parameters are going to change as much more valuable feedback has come in after the release of the draft report).

Now contrast Mr.Padhi’s performance with the performance of Mr.Bhorge and you will find how lopsided and erratic have been the self-appointed evaluators of the performance of the Commissioners. Mr.Bhorge has decided a much larger number of cases than Mr.Padhi. He has imposed a far larger number of penalties than Mr.Padhi and the number of cases in which he has decided in favour of the appellants are about as many as Mr.Padhi’s own. And yet in the estimation of the authors, Mr.Padhi is one of the five best Commissioners and Mr.Bhorge is one of the five worst under Pro-disclosure category and Overall Public Satisfaction category.

Our response: Mr Borge rejected 78% cases. Do you celebrate this? Once again, we wish to reiterate the fact that we have defined key parameters so that all Commissioners can be evaluated on these specific criteria. In the case of Mr. Bhorge and Mr. Padhi, please review their standings based on these parameters as outlined in our earlier responses above.

Mr.P.Faziluddin, Information Commissioner of Kerala has been rated as best among all Commissioners, and he has decided only 148 cases in the whole year ¾ which works out to roughly one case every two days. Did not the absurdity of this determination made by the authors strike them? There are Commissioners who have decided more than 1500 cases in a year and the total number of ‘yes’ factor of those cases far exceeds the total number of cases decided by Mr.Faziluddin, but the latter category figures nowhere in the appreciation of the authors.

Our response: Once again, please review any Commissioners record on the basis of the key parameters. The mere disposal of a large number of cases is of no consequence if the people remain dissatisfied. On the basis of feedback received from a number of people, we are introducing another factor which would reflect pendency and disposals. This will be outlined in the final report.

Certain other relevant points about the absurd nature of the Report are as follows:-

1. Award has been given to RTI-applicants for creating avenues for significant disclosures and transparency. But no credit has been given to the Commissioner or Commissioners who authorized such disclosure. Example ¾ Subhash Agarwal is given a prize for active RTI-applicant citing examples of cases brought by him before the Commission but denying to the Commissioner or Commissioners the credit for having given those orders which made Shri Subhash Agarwal’s efforts prize-worthy.

Our response: So you believe the Commissioner should get credit for Subhash Aggarwal’s work? That way, all credit for all RTI work should go to commissioners and not to citizens!

2. No credit has been given to the Commissioners for awarding compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. The deterrent effect of compensation is no less than that of penalties. Disproportionate onus has been put on penalties to evaluate effectiveness and deterrent effect of the Commissioners’ orders.

Our response: In our opinion, compensation is to be given rarely whereas penalty is mandatory. However, some commissioners opt for compensation because they wish to favor the officer as penalty goes from his pocket. At a recent seminar, one retired judge said that compensation should be awarded very rarely because it creates a perverse incentive for non-disclosure of information. The PIO and citizen can actually collude. PIO may not provide information and ask citizen to file appeal. Then they could share the compensation amount!

3. It is seen that under the category Pro-disclosure, the least pro-disclosure-oriented Commissioners figure at Sl.Nos.87 to 91. For the category Effectiveness, the least effective five Commissioners are listed at Sl.Nos.59 to 62. Considering the fact that the total number of Commissioners is 94, it is entirely unexplained as to how the least effective in one category shall be at Sl.Nos.87 to 91, while in another category they shall not go below Sl.No.62.

Our response: This is because Effectiveness depends upon public feedback. In those cases of commissioners where we did not received adequate feedback, their data was not reflected in effectiveness table. However, in final report, you will find all of them.

This shows that the authors have not adopted any uniform criterion but have picked and chosen those whom they wish to hurt the most. Their mala-fide is more than manifest.

4. The Goa Information Commissioner, Shri A. Venkatratnam, who disposed of only 40 cases in the entire year and imposed 2 penalties, was rated one of the Top 5 Commissioners under the ‘Deterrent’ category. There are a large number of Commissioners who imposed more than 2 penalties in the year under reference. Yet, they were nowhere in the ranking from any account.

Our response: You imposed penalties in 3 cases out of 1238 orders passed by you in favor of disclosure. Mr A Venkatratnam imposed penalties in 2 cases out of 23 pro-disclosure orders. Would you still claim that on an objective scale your performance exceeds that of Mr. Venkatratnam?

5. Out of 6 Top Commissioners under the category Overall Public Satisfaction, at least 4 disposed of less than 500 cases. In contrast, there are at least 3 Commissioners out of 6 who are rated as Worst Performing Commissioners who disposed of more than 1000 cases in the year under reference.

The examples cited at Sl.Nos.4 and 5 above show how the authors have totally disregarded a key variant, i.e. the number of cases decided by Commissioners. For them, if a Commissioner decides 20 cases in a year and imposes 20 penalties, and gives 20 affirmative orders in favour of appellants, he shall be rated better than another Commissioner who decides 500 cases, imposes 100 penalties and gives 100 affirmative orders.

Our response: We strongly feel that people do not file RTI applications just to get an order. They file RTI applications to get information. You may be happy passing thousands of orders. But that is completely futile if it does not translate into flow of information to the citizens. In short, its quality that matters and not just quantity, though quantity combined with quality would be ideal.

Sample-size, in authors’ convoluted logic, does not matter. Can anything be more absurd than this?

IV. About Remanding of cases:

The authors have, with characteristic carelessness, described remanding of cases by the Commissioners to the First Appellate Authorities as a negative point against the Commissioners. They could not have been more wrong and ill-informed about the procedures under the RTI Act and the quasi-judicial bodies which the Commissioners are.

Most of the remand orders were in cases where the petitioners either did not approach the First Appellate Authority, or approached the First Appellate Authority in first-appeal and simultaneously came before the Commission in complaint proceeding. To save multiple proceedings in the same matter at the same time and, to avoid contradictory orders being passed, cases were remanded to the First Appellate Authority with a direction that after the AA decided the matter, the appellant would be free to approach the Commission in second-appeal as well as complaint, if any. In fact, not remanding such cases would be blatantly illegal and would amount to virtually abolishing the very vital tier of RTI, viz. the First Appellate Authority.

Cases were also remanded with specific direction to the First Appellate Authority that he, being the officer closest to where the information is held, should study the records and make a determination about whether the information could be disclosed. Commissions had no other alternative, but to remit such cases to the First Appellate Authority to save time and effort, which otherwise would be involved in carrying voluminous records to the Commission’s office for it examine whether the information requested was extant / held.

Several remands were given on the appellants’ own requests. Since they would have filed similar first-appeals before the same First Appellate Authority, remanding of the instant case before the Commission to the First Appellate Authority would enable the latter to examine and take the matter (which may be germane to the multiple RTI-applications and first-appeals of the appellants) to its logical conclusion.

Now, for the authors, these reasons for remand did not matter. According to them, all remands were bad because that was what they thought and knew about remand. As in all their inferences, they are wrong here too and, one can dare say, that they are poorly informed about the nuances of the Act.

Our response: We received an interesting response from Mr Tolia on the issue of remand back. We provided him a detailed reply. The same is in “news” section of our website. It is quite detailed. Therefore, we are not including it here. Please refer to http://www.rtiawards.org/news/2009/10/25/our-response-to-uttarkhand-commission/

It can be said, on the basis of above, that the authors of RTI Awards were seeking nothing more than sensationalism. Their purpose was to extol few and that too wrongly and denigrate many. With full help from the Media, they appear to have succeeded. Now is the time that people should be made to know how they have been taken for a ride by this nefarious group in the name of RTI-activism.

Our response: We can only assure you that our objective is to promote the cause of transparency. We are grateful to you for your detailed response. Thank you so much and we hope you will continue to provide us with your inputs no matter how critical they maybe.

This entry was posted on Monday, November 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 am and is filed under Announcements. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

9 Responses to “Prof Ansari’s reaction and our response thereto”

P M Ravindran Says:

November 23rd, 2009 at 4:25 am
Mr Ansari’s analysis did not warrant any response from PCRF. Going through Mr Ansari’s analysis one was reminded of two adages: prostitutes talking of chastity and devils quoting scriptures! PCRF’s methodology may not be perfect. In fact even thinking of a Best Information Commissioner Award is objectionable at the stage when most, if not all, of them are blatantly subverting the Act they have been tasked to enforce. But their motives cannot be doubted by anybody. I, for one, believe that if this had been a country where rule of law prevailed, information commissioners like Ansari would have been punished for treason! Unfortunately for us, apart from the information commissioners it is the judges who are subverting the RTI Act.
tarun parmar Says:

November 23rd, 2009 at 7:26 am
mr ansari and his team did following illegality in deciding in one complaints filed by me
i filed 4 complaints on 4 diff PA of same ministry on 21-08-2008.
only one complaint was registered
i was not given opporunity to argue my case through vedio
compliant heard on 23-10-2008 and complaint registered was different
order, of 4 lines, was not put up on web site for 15 days, which only put as i constantly asking mr sharma, asstt registrar
he, mr ansari, exeeded his jurisdiction and advised me to take legal remedy. he did not exercise his jurisdiction
so i fully support mr ravindran that mr ansari should be put behind bar for rest of his life for treason
Bimal Kumar Khemani Says:

November 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 am
I had 4/5 hearings before Mr. Ansari.
Every time I found him taking the side of PIO.
Never heard our arguments and in one case againgst Indian Oil Corporation, Noida, he was arrogant taking the side of the public authority, when the PIO was also not present.
Alok Kumar Says:

November 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
Dear Prof. Ansari,
First of all I would like to thank you for writing what you felt about the whole RTI Award process. However, I am deeply disappointed because it doesn’t behove for a person of your stature to be so prejudiced and denigrating. In fact, it was very difficult to grasp your logic and arguments (few of which could be worth noticing) because of your repeated personal attack and absurd anger.
Prof. Ansari, I don’t agree with your argument that since only 4.27% of RTI applicants went for the appeal hence, it would be safe to assume, that in more than 95% of the applications filed, all requested information was disclosed to the applicants. In a country like India, still many people don’t know about RTI. Even after not receiving the information, many people don’t go for appeal either because they don’t know the process of appeal or due to the cumbersome process they again fall back to their previous state of helplessness. In fact, in some cases I lost my interest and couldn’t file the appeal.
In contrast to PCRF, I would like to go by the notion that disclosure of information is a ‘necessary good’ because RTI Act and the associated movement are still in infancy stage. The first few years went by in setting up the information commission by the states. The majority of PIOs and public servant are yet to come out of their conventional British raj system of secrecy. Following the heavy inertia, many PIOs simply don’t respond or take note of the RTI applications. In fact, seeking information regarding the actions and responsibilities of public servants by the common citizen is still seen against the very notion of ‘power’ attached with any government services. Hence it will still take many years to change the mind set of PIOs and Information commissioners.
Prof. Ansari, I don’t understand how you see a deep seated design by PCRF to make the institution appear to be a failed one. In fact, these were the people who fought so tirelessly for this Act to become a reality. On the contrary, the whole exercise of RTI award is directed at strengthening the institution. This statement coming from you is unbelievable. I am tempted to believe that even learned person like you could be so prejudiced, illogical, unscientific and dogmatic.
“Most surprisingly and perhaps quite cunningly, these authors have not informed the public as to what were the limitations of their Study.” In stead of jumping in to a conclusion, it would have been far fitting of your position had you asked for ‘sample size’ and other limitations. It is very hard to believe your contention that “Quite frequently, and in fact in a majority of cases, it is the appellant who turned out to be the one who was presenting facts wrongly and not the CPIO or the public authority.”
Prof. Ansari, I do agree with you on one point- that the number of cases decided by the Information Commissioner should also have been included in the evaluation parameters. The number of cases pending at the Information Commission is piling up day be day. Pendency would defeat the very purpose of the RTI i.e. quick and time bound redressal. There are few Information Commissioners who are working tirelessly without compromising on the quality to bring down the pendency. I believe that their efforts should also be recognized somehow.
Once I again I would like to thank you Prof. Ansari because your letter has served the very purpose of the whole RTI Award process which it was actually intended for. Your letter gives a good glimpse of the mind set of the people who have been entrusted to uphold the very spirit of RTI Act. I would have really loved had you made your conclusion based on your own methodologies utilizing the raw data in stead of jumping in to baseless personal attack.
Rajendra Chopra Says:

November 24th, 2009 at 8:03 am
I have to say on the above article reg “ICs should fix responsibilty for “loss” of public records”:
Firstly, presently the cunning departmental PIOs are now adopting “such oral discussion tactics”( by writing Please Discuss, on noting sheet) so that they can manage to maintain minimum records to avoid their later production/ disclosure in case any RTI petition arise in future.
In my view , some provision may also be there in RTI act so that any ICs can ask the PIOs as to why they have not maintained such an essential public interest or financial expenditure related information?
The present RTI form have only ‘eyes’, but not the ‘hands , ears’ or mind .
It is a very common excuse to say that the concerned file is missing . On this, some ICs say that the “PIO furnished the information by saying this “. But it is ridiculous and causing open fun of RTI Act.
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL Says:

November 24th, 2009 at 10:02 am
I recall Professor MM Ansari having rejected my petition to know arrangement of public-sector oil-companies with multi-national banks allowing hefty discounts of upto 5-percent for certain combinations of oil-companies with banks, at a time when ordinary people were badly affacted by ‘inevitable’ price-rise of petroleum products. Instead of allowing the petition being of ‘public-interest’ under section 8(2) of RTI Act, he disallowed it as being exempted under section 8(1)(d) of commercial confidence! I am sure that even government will have to reply for allowing discounts on petrol etc for credit-card holders; and an information allowed to be placed in Parliament (and state-legislatures) cannot be denied to be disclosed under RTI Act.
Intetestingly, Dr OP Kejriwal allowed such a petition relating to Publications Division where also the public-authority claimed exemption under same clause of 8(1)(d).
Refer Decision No.2200/IC(A)/2008 in F. Nos.CIC/MA/A/2008/00068, CIC/MA/A/2008/00116
CIC/MA/A/2008/00523, CIC/MA/C/2008/00068
manoj kamra Says:

November 24th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
WELL DONE PROF ANSARI BY JUDICALLY MURDERING RTI appeals/complaints (Get the Blessings by the most corrupt officials,keep on batting in this manner in the remaining tenure lest hitwicket by court order).
Prof.Ansari deserve to write best selling book/manuals on “how to judicially murder RTI appeals/complaints”.
Prof. Ansari is in the race of getting award from corrupt PIOs’ of having defended them in highly effective manner WITHOUT NEEDING ANY ADVOCATE WITHOUT CONDUCTING HEARING (and mostly remanding back most severe complaints with adequate evidences).Since beginning of cic,he has retained oil companies with him till date to judically murder appeals and complaints (as taught in LLB,when judge himself play the role of advocate).
Rest of the work of rejecting appeals in initial stage has been delegated to his asst. registrar Mr.Sharma (a retired baboo on contract). He used to return back complaints of section 18 with direction to file first appeal.
Prof.Ansari Takia Kalam can be found in more than 800 decisions—”as there is no denial of information”.When advocate ansari is there to represent them,then how can be denial of information.
Your fellow IC in SIC rajasthan have also raised doubts over the integrity of jury of PCRF and refuses to believe authenticity of jury members —-as reported in Hindustan times,Jaipur edition.
Lastly,Prof.Ansari has suppressed date of birth till last month and still not legible in the beginning OF CIC SITE which creates doubt over his forged date of birth.TEST NEED TO BE CONDUCTED TO ASSESS HIS ACTUAL DATE OF BIRTH.
Rest will be shared in Yahoo group—-REMOVEANSARI.
With regards
Manoj K.Kamra
M K TYAGI Says:

November 24th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Mr Ansari gave large number of decisions and imposed only 2 panelties but STILL he objects to his placement in last 5 commissioners. For his understanding of the whole matter I give below my experience with him:
He did not hear my appeals because he was availing of hospitality of Indian oil. I therefore had to again and again make different appeals to UNEARTH corruption in Indian Oil. Because of more appeals reaching him he had more opportunities to get hospitality, costly memento gifts etc.In this process, no doubt he disposed of more number of appeals but aim of RTI Act to provide information was not fulfilled. Rather he ridiculed me in his decisions and finally defamed me from public platform by telling that I was implicated in corruption case because he had to save his skin.
14 ministries are attached to Mr Ansari. Once modus operandy of Mr Ansari became known to CPIO’S of these ministries, naturally a large number of appeals reached him to dispose of.
Mr Ansari is therefore not right to raise finger at the survey conducted by PCRF.
M K TYAGI Says:

November 25th, 2009 at 6:46 am
I hope Mr Ansari is by now convinced that Mr Arwind Kejriwal and his team have done marvelous survey.
If not, I recommend that he searches NON FUNCTIONING OF CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION as well as ANSARI+CORRUPTION on http://www.youtube.com.
MAHENDRA GAUR Says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
MAHENDRA GAUR
B.E., P.G.D.M, LL.B.
ADVOCATE
B-90, SARASWATI MARG,
BAJAJ NAGAR, JAIPUR-302015
T/FAX 0141-2705901, PHONE: 09829059018
mahendragaur@gmail.com
November 19 (26), 2009
Dear Mr. Ansari,
Statistics are like a bikini; What is revealed is interesting; What is concealed is crucial.
If this logic applies to PCRF, it applies more to your letter (published above). All 2,63, 261 would like to file second appeal, but don’t (a) because it is expensive (b) they know ‘अंधे के आगे रोये, अपने भी नैन खोये’| (c) the delays in disposal of 2nd Appeal. The so called protagonists also need funds/awards for their study/efforts. You as well as them (protagonists) are chips of the same plank. This washing dirty linen is nothing but ‘नूरा कुश्ती’|
[I wish instead of ONGC ‘Anil Ambani’ was chosen as sponsor, who volunteered suo motu disclosure of inside information through Media in RIL-RNRL NATURAL GAS DEAL. ONGC is your ‘Protégé’, how come they supported Arvind? Are u losing your grip on OIL INDUSTRY? “Et tu, Brute (ONGC)?”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_tu,_Brute%3F
Mr. Ansari before firing this letter you should have searched your own heart and credentials. What is your background? For statistical analysis sample size of 6,000.00 is too large and unmanageable. The flawed results might be because of too large sample size. Thank God many people like me avoided responding to PCRF letters after having realized that organizations like ONGC (with poor RTI record) were doing campaign funding. Otherwise distortions would have been still larger.
I grudgingly agree with you that survey is flawed, motivated, self serving and promoting some at the cost of other.
I bear a BIGGER grudge that a person like you continues to be Information Commissioner to write the above letter.
You and Oil Industry jointly introduced corruption in the Central Information Commission.
Analysis of just three cases pertaining to Mr. Babubhai Vaghela, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Tyagi and myself are sufficient to rate you as the worst and most corrupt IC. You have through your friends in Indian Oil have engaged me in a defamation suit in Mumbai for damages worth 50 lakhs.
On a TV show hosted by Mr. Arvind Kejriwal (your bête noire, as claimed by you) you lied that Mr. Mahendra Kumar Tyagi was implicated in a corruption case therefore he hurled wild allegations at you.
NO Mr. Ansari.
He did not face any corruption charges but you face corruption charges as IC.
Mr. Tyagi was right.
You did not enjoy the hospitality of Indian Oil innocently.
You were morally and financially corrupt in accepting and enjoying that hospitality. You abused your authority in dismissing our second appeals in favour of Indian Oil and the appeals of hundreds of RTI Activists.
Indian Oil has till date not supplied the information that you had ordered to disclose. If I bring a complaint against IOC you will hear it again. What is the use of second appeal against IOC as long as you are IC. Mr. Wajahat Habibullah could not remove you, and you are shamelessly holding the portfolio as you have taken SUPARI from OIL INDUSTRY to kill implementation of RTI.
Thank God you are not in the reckoning as CCIC (as per the latest information). I would appeal the UPA Government to shun the policies of appeasement in such appointments.
Mr. Ansari as an officer of Indian Oil (a public servant for 23 years) I too enjoyed hospitality of many an Industrial Customers, but I never allowed my judgment to be affected by it. Given a chance I would not accept hospitality it again.
It was your patronage that Oil Industry was successful in killing RTI Act and charge sheeting Mr. Babubhai Vaghela.
The corruption of Indian Oil is reflected in accidents like Jaipur Fire (your hands are also soaked in blood of those 11 innocent people who lost their lives).
Supreme Court Judges (I am no admirer of Judiciary) recuse from the cases even when they are holding shares in the company, and here you are sticking to oil industry portfolio when you have been accused of hobnobbing with them.
I still recall that during the first RTI convention organized by CIC in VIGYAN BHAWAN speaker after speaker castigated you, alleged that you threatened appellants with dire consequences. I have personally seen your cozy relationship with CPIO of BPC, IOC.
In my humble submissions, you should refrain from joining Public Debate but maintain silence. Your efficacy would be ultimately judged by the decisions you give rather than such surveys. Even worse critics of Mr. Wajahat Habibullah are now appreciating his contribution.
I am ready to join Public Debate with you on the allegations made against you. You may seek compliance report from IOC, BPC, HPC and IBP (now IOC) on my applications/your orders.It will be an eye opener (if you are innocent) that they have not complied with your orders. If they did not disclose in connivance with you the matter is over.
Any self respecting person would have either mended his ways or resigned, you have done neither as reflected from your letter. You want hospitality, awards and rewards, at the cost of livelihood and lives of innocent people (If Arvind had chosen you as best IC, the same survey would be termed excellent by you. That is your Character.)
Indian Oil is corrupting investigation in Jaipur Fire tragedy also. I hope you will take this letter in right spirit and mend your ways as you are now left with 11 months only to repair the damage caused in 49 months. The object of the letter is to give you an honest feedback and not to hurt your feelings. The surgery is meant to cure you.
I saw your letter on RTI Times. They do not accept my posts. I am therefore sending the reply directly to you and the persons through whom I got your letter. Like your letter, the reply is being put in public domain to generate a healthy debate.
“बड़े बड़ाई न करें, बड़े न बोले बोल, रहिमन हीरा कब कहे, लख टका मेरो मोल.
“ऐसी वाणी बोलिए,मन का आपा खोय। औरों को शीतल करे,आपहु शीतल होय.” (with sincere apologies to the poet)
with regards,
Mahendra Gaur
Dismissed by Indian Oil in 2000
IOC Concealing information about the attendance and salary record.I have not got details of salary, perks, medical claims etc. Indian Oil had to cultivate Mr. Ansari to block this information.

"बड़े बड़ाई न करें, बड़े न बोले बोल, रहिमन हीरा कब कहे, लख टका मेरो मोल|

2009-11-19T20:14:00.000-08:00

"बड़े बड़ाई न करें, बड़े न बोले बोल, रहिमन हीरा कब कहे, लख टका मेरो मोल. AN ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT OF PCRF (AUTHORS OF RTI AWARDS) FLAWED LOGIC AND SPECIOUS CONCLUSIONS
5 messages

Mahendra Gaur

19 November 2009 22:53

To: Milap Choraria , SHRI M M ANSARI

Cc: B D VAGHELA , B D VAGHELA , Mahendra Tyagi , Mahendra Tyagi , "Ms. SAROJ TYAGI"

Bcc: adhikaar@yahoogroups.com, humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com, marxistindia-owner@cpim.org, Right-to-Information-Act-2005-owner@googlegroups.com, Right-to-Information-Act-2005@googlegroups.com, Humjanege , IHRO GROUP , iooanavsrajan , karmayog group , MAHENDRA GAUR , Ravindran Major , "Dr. Leo Rebello" , MANIRAMSHARMA , MANIRAM SHARMA , parrvartan parivartan , Bimal Khemani , Bimal Khemani , REJIMON C K , Krishnaraj Rao , URVASHI SHARMA , urvashi sharma , A N TIWARI , "Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner" , "Mrs. PADMA BALASUBRAMANIAM" , "Shri D.C. Singh" , "Shri G. Subramanian" , SHRI L C SINGHI , "Shri M.L. Sharma Information Commissioner" , Shri Mohammad Haleem Khan , SHRI O P KEJARIWAL , SHRI PANKAJ K P SHREYASKAR , Shri Satyananda Mishra , "Shri Shailesh Gandhi, Information Commissioner" , Shri Tarun Kumar , Shri Vijay Bhalla , SHRI WAJAHAT HABIBULLAH

MAHENDRA GAUR
B.E., P.G.D.M, LL.B.
ADVOCATE
B-90, SARASWATI MARG,
BAJAJ NAGAR, JAIPUR-302015
T/FAX 0141-2705901, PHONE: 09829059018
mahendragaur@gmail.com

November 19, 2009

Dear Mr. Ansari,

Statistics are like a bikini; What is revealed is interesting; What is concealed is crucial. If this logic applies to PCRF, it applies more to your letter (Annexure 'A'). All 2,63, 261 would like to file second appeal, but don't (a) because it is expensive (b) they know 'अंधे के आगे रोये, अपने भी नैन खोये'| (c) the delays in disposal of 2nd Appeal. The so called protagonists also need funds/awards for their study/efforts. You as well as them (protagonists) are chips of the same plank. This washing dirty linen is nothing but 'नूरा कुश्ती'|

Mr. Ansari before firing this letter you should have searched your own heart and credentials. What is your background? For statistical analysis sample size of 6,000.00 is too large and unmanageable. The flawed results are because of too large sample size. Thank God many people like me avoided responding to PCRF letters after having realized that organizations like ONGC (with poor RTI record) were doing campaign funding. Otherwise distortions would have been still larger.

I grudgingly agree with you that survey is flawed, motivated, self serving and promoting some at the cost of other. I also have a grudge that a person like you continues to be Information Commissioner to write the letter (Annexure 'A').

You and Oil Industry jointly introduced corruption in the Central Information Commission. Analysis of just three cases pertaining to Mr. Babubhai Vaghela, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Tyagi and myself are sufficient to rate you as the worst and most corrupt IC. You have through your friends in Indian Oil have engaged me in a defamation suit in Mumbai for damages worth 50 lakhs.

On a TV show hosted by Mr. Arvind Kejriwal (your bête noire) you lied that Mr. Mahendra Kumar Tyagi was implicated in a corruption case therefore he hurled wild allegations at you. NO Mr. Ansari. He did not face any corruption charges but you face corruption charges as IC. Tyagi was right. You did not enjoy the hospitality of Indian Oil innocently. You were morally and financially corrupt in accepting and enjoying that hospitality. You abused your authority in dismissing our second appeals in favour of Indian Oil. Indian Oil has till date not supplied the information that you had ordered to disclose. If I bring a complaint again it will heard by you. What is the use of second appeal against IOC as long as you are IC. Thank God you are not in the reckoning as CCIC.

Mr. Ansari as an officer of Indian Oil (a public servant for 23 years) I too enjoyed hospitality of many an Industrial Customers, but I never allowed my judgment to be affected by it. Given a chance I would not accept it again. It is your patronage that Oil Industry is successful in killing RTI Act and charge sheeting Mr. Babubhai Vaghela. The corruption of Indian Oil is reflected in accidents like Jaipur Fire (your hands are also soaked in blood of those 11 innocent people who lost their lives).

Supreme Court Judges (I am no admirer of Judiciary) recuse from the cases even when they are holding shares in the company, and here you are sticking to oil industry portfolio when you have been accused of hobnobbing with them. I still recall that during the first RTI convention organized by CIC in VIGYAN BHAWAN speaker after speaker castigated you, alleged that you threatened appellants with dire consequences. I have personally seen your cozy relationship with CPIO of BPC, IOC.

In my humble submissions, you should refrain from joining Public Debate and maintain silence. Your efficacy would be ultimately judged by the decisions you give rather than such surveys. Even worse critics of Mr. Wajahat Habibullah are now appreciating his contribution.

I am ready to join Public Debate with you on the allegations made against you. You may seek compliance report from IOC, BPC, HPC and IBP (now IOC). It will be an eye opener (if you are innocent) that they have not complied with your orders. If they did not disclose in connivance with you the matter is over. Any self respecting person would have either mended his ways or resigned, you have done neither as reflected from your letter. You want hospitality and awards and rewards, at the cost of livelihood and lives of innocent people. Indian Oil is corrupting investigation in Jaipur Fire tragedy also. I hope you will take this letter in right spirit and mend your ways as you are now left with 11 months only to repair the damage caused in 49 months. The object of the letter is to give you an honest feedback and not to hurt your feelings. The surgery is meant to cure you.

I saw your letter on RTI Times. They do not accept my posts. I am therefore sending the reply directly to you and the persons through whom I got your letter. Like your letter, the reply is being put in public domain to generate a healthy debate.

"बड़े बड़ाई न करें, बड़े न बोले बोल, रहिमन हीरा कब कहे, लख टका मेरो मोल.

"ऐसी वाणी बोलिए,मन का आपा खोय। औरों को शीतल करे,आपहु शीतल होय." (with sincere apologies to the poet)

with regards,

Mahendra Gaur
Dismissed by Indian Oil in 2000
Concealing information about the attendance and salary record.
I have not got details of salary, perks, medical claims etc. Indian Oil
had to cultivate Mr. Ansari to block this information.

Annexure 'A'

AN ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT OF PCRF

(AUTHORS OF RTI AWARDS) ¾ FLAWED LOGIC AND SPECIOUS CONCLUSIONS

I. Wrong projection about success rate of RTI-petitions:

This Study gives an impression ¾ quite erroneously and perhaps, deliberately ¾ as if the appeals decided by the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions are all that is there to RTI disclosure. It notes ¾ rather hides ¾ that the Central Information Commission receives only 4-5% of all cases filed before the central public authorities. According to the statistics compiled by the Central Information Commission for 2007-2008, 2,63,261 RTI-petitions were filed before all CPIOs in the 1597 central public authorities. Out of these, only 11,261 were taken to second-appeal / complaint before the Central Information Commission. This constitutes only a minuscule 4.27% percent of all RTI-applications filed. In other words, it would be safe to assume, that in more than 95% of the applications filed, all requested information was disclosed to the applicants. Out of the balance 11,261 cases, which ended up being second-appeals or complaints, a very large number were decided in favour of the appellants / complainants and those in which appeals / complaints were rejected, grounds for rejection were clearly spelt-out. Several of these were challenged before High Courts and the decisions of the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions were upheld in most cases. This shows that all the rejections by the Central Information Commission were within the four-corners-of-law. In fact, giving out information when the law clearly prohibited it, would have been illegal and would have invited strictures from superior courts.

II. Credentials of the organizers conducting the Study:

It is important to note that this Report was driven by an urge to commend few and denigrate many.

III. Flawed methodology:

We have been informed that the Commissioners have been evaluated by the authors of the Report against four parameters, which were:-

A. Overall Public Satisfaction:

B. Effectiveness:

The above yardstick has also been used for measuring Effectiveness.

C. Deterrent Impact:

This has been measured on the basis of a study of the number of penalties imposed on officers of the public authority by various Commissioners.

D. Pro-disclosure Factor:

Now let us look at how they have gone about their task.

What emerges from it is as follows:-

A. By taking only 6,000 cases out of over 54,000 decided by CIC and the State Information Commissions, the sponsors and the authors of the Study have only taken about 10% of cases as their basis for commenting on public satisfaction and effectiveness of Commissioners. This number, i.e. 6000 is far too small a sample for the entire country¾ one Central Information Commission and 27 State Information Commissions ¾ and for 94 Commissioners. Do the authors want us to believe that on the basis of 6,000 case studies, or rather telephonic responses received by them, they can draw any fair conclusion about the effectiveness of Commissioners?

The authors state that all these 6,000 cases were those who were authorized to receive information by the Commissions, but many of them did not receive it.

Two observations need to be made:-

The authors of this Report have been not only unfair, they have been downright cussed and negligent in performing the task they had set out for.

Further, the following also need some reflection and show how lopsided this Study has been.

Another glaring instance of the authors’ inscrutable ways is the manner in which they have evaluated Commissioners to be ranked as best five or the worst five. One example would suffice.

Certain other relevant points about the absurd nature of the Report are as follows:-

This shows that the authors have not adopted any uniform criterion but have picked and chosen those whom they wish to hurt the most. Their mala-fide is more than manifest.

IV. About Remanding of cases:

It can be said, on the basis of above, that the authors of RTI Awards were seeking nothing more than sensationalism. Their purpose was to extol few ¾ and that too wrongly ¾ and denigrate many. With full help from the Media, they appear to have succeeded. Now is the time that people should be made to know how they have been taken for a ride by this nefarious group in the name of RTI-activism.

Prof. M.M. Ansari, Ph.D.

Central Information Commissioner

Website: www.cic.gov.inEmail: mm.ansari@nic.in

--
जिनको दरिया डुबो नहीं पाया,
एक चुल्लू में डूब जाते हैं

eerie-maverick

AN ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT OF PCRF (AUTHORS OF RTI AWARDS) - FLAWED LOGIC AND SPECIOUS CONCLUSIONS

Prof Ansari’s reaction and our response thereto

9 Responses to “Prof Ansari’s reaction and our response thereto”

Leave a Reply

"बड़े बड़ाई न करें, बड़े न बोले बोल, रहिमन हीरा कब कहे, लख टका मेरो मोल|

MAHENDRA GAUR

B.E., P.G.D.M, LL.B.

ADVOCATE