In a complaint before the District Administration of Ahmednagar, CJP stated that the event’s agenda remains unclear, but based on the track record of the organizers and possible that it could escalate into inflammatory speeches and provocative statements that may jeopardize the peace and harmony of the region. In its complaint, CJP urges the authorities to take pre-emptive measures, in line with the directions from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, to avoid any escalation of communal tensions.

A dangerous precedent: the risk of provocative rhetoric and hate speech

The primary concern of CJP lies in the potential for hate-filled speeches and provocative rhetoric at the event, which could easily stoke communal discord. The Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, known for its history of making incendiary statements against religious minorities, has previously been involved in organizing events that led to communal disharmony. CJP anticipates that the upcoming event could follow a similar pattern, as there is no transparency regarding the speakers or their content. Given the organization’s controversial stance, it is highly likely that speeches at the event will include inflammatory statements that could provoke violence.

CJP draws parallels to recent incidents in other parts of India, where events centered around religious issues, particularly places of worship, have spiraled into violence and unrest. For instance, in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, clashes erupted over a mosque survey, resulting in loss of lives and severe communal tensions. Such incidents have shown how sensitive issues involving religious spaces can be exploited by extremist groups, with catastrophic consequences. The CJP complaint warns that the event in Shirdi could follow this trajectory, affecting the communal harmony not just the region but the entire state of Maharashtra.

CJP’s urgent appeal to the authorities

In its complaint, CJP stresses that the authorities must act promptly to prevent any incitement of violence or hate speech. The complaints highlight the importance of not just monitoring the event but ensuring the accountability of the organizers for the content of the event. The local law enforcement agencies must take the necessary steps to prevent any inflammatory statements, ensuring that no one uses religious spaces or gatherings as platforms to sow division and hostility between communities.

Supreme Court appeals to authorities to uphold peace and harmony

The petition also references recent Supreme Court directives that emphasize maintaining peace and harmony, particularly in situations involving religious sensitivities. CJP invokes the Court’s appeal in the case of the Sambhal Jama Masjid incident, where the Supreme Court stressed the need for authorities to take preventive action to avoid violence stemming from disputes over religious matters.

“In light of the Supreme Court’s recent appeal for peace and harmony in the case concerning the Sambhal Jama Masjid, CJP submit this preventive complaint regarding the “Third Maharashtra Mandir Nyas Parishad” scheduled for December 24-25, 2024, in Shirdi. The Supreme Court, during its hearing on November 29, 2024, urged that “peace and harmony must be maintained” and expressed the desire for no further escalation, following the violence that erupted in Sambhal over a mosque survey. The survey, which was ordered based on claims that the mosque was built on a demolished temple, triggered violent clashes, resulting in the loss of four lives. This tragic event highlights the serious risks of escalating tensions when sensitive issues related to religious sites are addressed in provocative ways. The upcoming event in Shirdi, organized by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, raises similar concerns. Given the known history of inflammatory rhetoric associated with the organization, there is a real danger that the event could inflame communal tensions and lead to violence, particularly around religious spaces” according to CJP’s complaint.

Shirdi: a city of coexistence, at risk of unraveling due to extremist agendas

Shirdi, known for being the home of the revered saint Sai Baba, is a symbol of religious unity, where both Hindus and Muslims coexist in harmony. The city has long been a beacon of peace, where Sai Baba’s teachings of tolerance and respect for all religions have been embraced by millions of devotees. However, with the “Third Maharashtra Mandir Nyas Parishad” event scheduled to take place in the heart of Shirdi, there is an alarming risk of disturbing this delicate balance.

CJP further mentioned in its complaint that, the potential for divisive rhetoric to erupt at the event and provoke tensions between communities cannot be underestimated. If left unchecked, the event could cause irreparable damage to the social fabric of Shirdi, turning a city once known for religious unity into a flashpoint for communal conflict. CJP urges the authorities to prevent this by ensuring that the event remains peaceful and free from hate speech, in line with the constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom.

Inflammatory speech threatens religious Harmony & Safety

The CJP complaint outlines the risks posed by inflammatory statements that target religious minorities, calling attention to the broader implications such rhetoric can have on society. The recent spate of violence related to religious issues underscores the dangers of allowing hate speech to flourish unchecked. It is not only a threat to public safety but a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. CJP cites several previous Supreme Court rulings, which have emphasized the importance of preventing the spread of hate speech and ensuring the peaceful conduct of public events.

By urging immediate preventive measures, CJP asks the authorities to take their responsibility seriously and act swiftly to avoid any potential escalation. As the complaint notes, the events organized by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti have a history of causing communal polarization, and it is imperative that the authorities intervene to prevent any harm to the social and religious harmony of Maharashtra.

CJP’s complaint dated December 23, 2024 can be read here

Related:

CJP seeks preventive action against Hindu Janjagruti Samiti’s Hyderabad event

Mahim Police refuse permission to HJS August rally, reassure CJP delegation

CJP files 5 hate speech complaints before CEO Maharashtra as violated MCC

The post CJP files preventive complaint to safeguard Shirdi’s religious harmony appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The reported hate speeches repeatedly denigrate Muslim community by spreading conspiracy theories about ‘love jihad’, ‘land jihad’, and ‘population jihad’, apart from threatening physical violence and social ostracisation. The now demolished Babri Masjid and Madrasas remain other sites of constant barrage by the speakers.

This week, on April 8, 2024, we dispatched all the three complaints to the Superintendents of Police (SPs) and District Magistrates (DMs), urging prompt action, beginning with registration of complaints and investigation in these cases. Additionally, all the complaints sent through email have been marked to the Director General of Police (DGP) of the state, Rashmi Shukla. Evidence of the videos of these controversial speeches have also been provided. In these complaints, CJP has urged registration of offences under IPC Sections 153A (promoting enmity) and 505 (statements conducing public mischief). We have invoked the binding judicial order of the Supreme Court in the Shaheen Abdullah vs Union of Indian (Writ Petition (Civil) 940/2022), which mandate the police to suo moto register cases in incidents of hate speeches, as per the relevant provisions of the law. 

Details of the hate speeches

Ghatkopar 

On March 10, Nitesh Rane delivered a fiery hate speech at the event organized by Sakal Hindi Samaj in Ghatkopar, urging members of Hindu society to boycott Muslim hawkers, whom he indirectly referred as Jihadis and illegal Bangladeshi Rohingyas. He assurance the crowd that the government is on their side and not to worry about anything else, suggesting violence against them. Importantly, Rane was previously booked by Mumbai Police for giving anti-Muslim hate speech during this Solapur rally in January 2024. 

The extract from his Ghatkopar speech reads, “Take an oath, if you see any hawker anywhere…we will not allow him to stand here. And if we still see him standing here, we will not apply saffron on ourselves again. Keep in mind, everything was caught on camera! The more you show this, the more these Jihadis, these Bangladeshi Rohingyas will think of destroying Mumbai, so please keep in mind. If any hawker here sees us from tomorrow, I will tell all my Hindu brothers, my brothers, sisters, friends, the government is with you, don’t worry about anything.”

In this case, we sent our complaint to Balwant Deshmukh (Senior Police Inspector, Ghatkopar Police Station) and Rajendra Shankar Kshirsagar (Collector and District Magistrate, Mumbai Suburban District) asking them to invoke IPC Sections 153A, and 505 (1) and (2).

The complaint may be read here:

Akola 

Another speech by Nitesh Rane was reported from the event organised by Sakal Hindu Samaj on 18 February in Nimba village, Balapur, Akola. In this speech Rane charged at Muslims, and alluding to Babri Masjid and Tipu Sultan, accused them of Islamising historical monuments and places. Furthermore, he engaged in fearmongering by falsely claiming that Muslims are on a mission to reduce Hindu population, thus promoting fake conspiracy theory, often named ‘population jihad’. 

The extract from his Akola speech reads, “…Now there is no benefit in further insulting the person whose name is Jalil. His parents have named him Jalil. What else should I do to him? But remember, brothers, the purpose for which he came here. The miscreants here are doing the work of reducing the population of the Hindu community, driving away the Hindu community from here and creating an Islamic nation in the name of this party…These people are praising Tipu. What did that bastard do…if anyone has converted more Hindus, it is Tipu…And the name of that Tipu has been given to our auditorium here…You should change that name in time otherwise Nitesh Rane will blacken that board and you will not be able to do anything.”

In this case, we sent our complaint to Bachchan Singh (Superintendent of Police, Akola) and Ajit Kumbhar (Collector and District Magistrate, Akola) asking them to invoke IPC Sections 153A, and 505 (1) and (2).

The complaint may be read here:

Mahabaleshwar 

A senior lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay made a divisive speech at the event in Mahabaleshwar on January 26, attacking Madrasas and asking for the removal of minority status of Muslims. His speech, employing a now familiar theory of population jihad, argued that Muslims have abundant majority, and are unduly influencing electoral process. He went on to allege that even our election to select MLAs and MPs is ostensibly overpowered by the Muslim population. Notably, Upadhyay was previously booked by Delhi Police for organising an event at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi in 2021 during which provocative slogans were raised against Muslim community.

The extract from his Mahabaleshwar speech reads, “There is a disturbance across the world due to Madrasas. Is there unrest or not? …In those Madrasas in which they do not teach Indian culture, tradition, or way of life, why should we run such schools? Those who are numbered in crores, they decide who will be your MP or MLA, that community which determines the winning margin (of a candidate), and decides who will your councillor, Pradhan, MLA, or MP, does that community deserve the status of minority? There is no need of minority in India.”

In this case, we sent our complaint to Sameer Shaikh (Superintendent of Police, Satara) and Jitendra Dudi (Collector and District Magistrate, Satara) asking them to invoke IPC Sections 153A, and 505 (1) and (2). 

The complaint may be read here:

Related:

CJP continues to fight against hate, submits police complaints in 7 instances of hate speech delivered by leaders in Maharashtra since January 2024

Several instances of hate speech in March and April mar the election cycle, demonise religious minorities before the polls 

Study reveals 668 hate speech cases in 2023, BJP major player

The post CJP files three more police complaints against hate speeches delivered by Nitesh Rane and Ashwini Upadhyay appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the order, the bench of Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala stated that “It is worth to mention here that this order of discharge is being passed on account of realizing that the reported incidents were not properly and completely investigated and that the charge sheets were filed in predetermined, mechanical and erroneous manner, with subsequent actions to only cover up the initial wrong actions.” (Para 34)

As a result, the court discharged Akil Ahmad, Rahis Khan and Irshad, who were chargesheeted for offences under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly with a common object), 188 (disobedience to public order), 436 (mischief by fire), 120B (criminal conspiracy), among others of the Indian Penal Code.

It is essential to note that the matter was sent back to the police department for assessment of the investigation carried out in this case and subsequent action as per law. Delhi Police has been required to bring the complaints to a legal and logical end.

Observations of the Court on the alleged role of three accused in rioting and vandalism:

As per the allegations made by the prosecution, a mob had vandalised and set vehicles on fire around Victoria Public School in North-East Delhi. The police stated that the mob, which the accused were allegedly part of, was carrying stones, rods, sticks and blocked roads in the area. As per the order, the court found the existence of inconsistencies in the charge sheets and subsequent statements, suggesting an attempt to cover up flaws in the prosecution’s case.

In accordance to the above-mentioned, the court found contradictory statements given by the complainants in the case and pointed out that the investigating officers (IO) had ignored the fact that there were mobs sloganeering both in favour of and against the Citizenship Amendment Act/National Register of Citizens. 

“This fact is very important to realise that they were two different and rival mobs. IOs remained silent over the question as to which particular incident was caused by a particular mob. If several incidents took place in and around Victoria Public School at the hands of riotous mob, the job of IO was to ascertain the composition of such mob during each of such incidents.” the order stated. (Para 32)

Continuing with this, Judge Pramachala further stated,

” If a person ceases to be member of an unlawful assembly, then he cannot be made responsible for any act done by that mob in absence of such person.” (Para 32)

Instead of suspecting the accused persons for their involvement in the alleged incidents, the court came down to the suspicion that the IO manipulated the evidence in the case, without actually investigating the reported incidents properly.

Observations of the court on cover-up by investigation officer

On February 28, 2020, a first information report (FIR 71/2020) had been registered at the Dayalpur police station on the basis of a rukka (complaint copy from which the contents are taken for filing FIRs) prepared by an Assistant Sub-Inspector. As reported by Livelaw, the Investigating Officer of the said case late clubbed several complaints made by Farooq Ahmad, Shahbaz Malik, Nadeem Farooq and Jai Shankar Sharma.

On July 14, 2020, a charge sheet was filed against the three persons, and cognisance of the same was taken on December 9, 2020. Thereafter, two supplementary charge sheets had also been filed on February 15, 2022, and February 16, 2023, along with certain documents and fresh statements.

Referring to the same, in its order, the judge noted that in the first supplementary charge sheet, the investigating officer (IO) included three individuals as accused who were not mentioned in a constable’s statement.

The court further highlighted that until the court began questioning the timeline of events mentioned in the case, the IO consistently maintained in both the main and the first supplementary charge sheets that, except for one incident, all other reported incidents by various complainants occurred during the night between February 24 and 25, 2020.

The court further noticed that when the complaints were clubbed together, there was no record of the police being informed that the same group had been involved in acts of vandalism and arson from the night before until the information was recorded on the morning of February 25, 2020.

Additionally, the court also stated that the subsequent statements from the complainants were documented primarily to hide the gaps in the prosecution’s case and to provide a basis for charging the accused individuals. The court also pointed out that the investigating officer failed to present any evidence demonstrating the accuracy of these subsequent statements.

“The subsequent statements of the complainants were thus, recorded, only to cover up above mentioned lacuna in the case of prosecution and to justify charge sheeting the accused persons in this case.” (Para 31)

The complete order can be read here:

Related:

Brinda Karat on the Third Anniversary of Delhi Riots- “Cannot Abandon Struggle for Justice”

Charges framed against Tahir Hussain and others, discharge from graver offence in the North-East Delhi riots

Did Nand Kishore Gurjar admit to role in North East Delhi riots?

Hate speeches amplified by television, incited targeted violence against Muslims: CCR Report, Feb ‘20 Delhi riots

Umar Khalid bail: Prosecution claims Delhi riots were successful due to synchronisation and mobilisation

Umar Khalid Bail: Prosecution equates NE Delhi riots ‘conspirators’ to 9/11 culprits

The post “Predetermined, mechanical and erroneous charge sheets”: Delhi Court discharges 3 in North East Delhi riot case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is essential to note that the host Rakesh Pandey had picked up a matter that was sub-judice, and presented only one-sided facts of the case. Even before the debate had started, the host had started spreading his diatribe and distinctly partisan views. The said debate show had themes that furthered a divisive discourse that heightened a communal divide throughout its narrative and did not try to mask this motive. Such journalism or electronic media coverage mitigates against the basic principles of fair and neutral journalism. 

The complaint stated: “it became evident in the choice and content spouted by not just the participants in the ‘debate’ but also unfortunately displayed by the host of the show that the statements being made were not unbiased or neutral. The host was even observed posing questions to the participants from the Muslim community on the debating panel in the accusatory manner, while an urbane and inclusive attitude was displayed towards participants from the majority Hindu community.”

The complaint also provided the questions that the debate was going to be based upon, which were inciting and leading to say the least. The questions were as follows:

• “What was found in those four hours of survey that led to the chaos amongst the Muslim parties?

• Why are the Muslim parties so afraid of uncovering the truth beneath the Gyanvapi mosque? 

• Did the Survey team actually find the evidence of a Temple?

• The ASI Survey has been stopped on an interim basis, what will happen afterwards? 

• Will there be a ‘Gyanvapi movement’ after the survey?”

In the complaint, it was purported that the debate show appeared more like a one-sided show promoting the host’s version of the Hindu cause or a religious/sectarian debate rather than a news room debate. Referring to the same, CJP highlighted the violations of the guidelines of issued by the NBDSA and stated: “As per the guidelines of the NBDSA, the host is supposed to and expected to take a neutral stand, introduce a neutral theme and not side with a particular community to put any other community on the spot, but that clearly did not happen. As is apparent from the videos and the statements highlighted by us, the host Rakesh Pandey was keen on leading the debate with the question of whether the Muslim community is delaying the proceeding and hiding the truth. As the anchor of show on a news channel, that is supposed to have a neutral and unbiased theme, the host did not even attempt to have any non-communal theme on the show.”

Through the complaint, CJP has urged the esteemed Authority to take cognizance of this show aired by Times Now Navbharat and take necessary action against them for spreading misinformation and partisan ideology, and also in the process, hurting the religious sentiments of the minority community.

The complaint may be read here:

Related:

NBDSA: Complaint filed against Times Now’s inciteful ‘Ram mandir’ show

Times Now Navbharat conducts media trial over Gyanvapi Mosque survey, CJP sends complaint

Times Now Navbharat: Where hate sells like hot cakes daily

Complaint to Times Now on polarised debate over madrassa survey in UP

UP: After Gyanvapi, Mathura Court Orders Shahi Idgah Survey; ‘Violation’ of Places of Worship Act, Say Activists

The post CJP escalates complaint against Times Now Navbharat show on Gyanvapi Mosque to NBDSA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has written to two YouTube based news channels to immediately take down their “news report” videos where they have claimed that CJP secretary, journalist and Human Rights defender Teesta Setalvad is involved in the making of an upcoming movie titled The Gujarat Files.

The channels Desh Live and The Live TV aired stories claiming that Teesta Setalvad had held a secret meeting in her home with actor Naseeruddin Shah, director Rahul Dholakia, activist Harsh Mander and many others to start work on The Gujarat Files. They further claimed that the script was ready and that Shah would play the role of Narendra Modi!

It is noteworthy that conversations about a movie titled “The Gujarat Files” began on social media after the release of Vivek Agnihotri’s The Kashmir Files. But Teesta Setalvad had neither proposed, nor endorsed the idea. Yet, she was dragged into this fresh controversy based on rumour, speculation and vivid imagination.

First Sahal Qureshi of Desh Live “broke” the story on his channel and then this was picked up by The Live TV, whose anchor Jayanti Jha named Desh Live as her source and dramatically claimed that this movie would give the prime minister sleepless nights!

But neither channel provided any evidence except images from Memories of Struggle that an evening of conversations and music organized by CJP in February 2022 to commemorate 20 years of the Gujarat carnage of 2002. They used pictures of Naseeruddin Shah and Rahul Dholakia with families of victims and survivors of the Gujarat carnage – such as Tanveer Jafri whose father Ahesan Jafri was killed in the Gulberg society massacre and RupabehnMody whose son Azhar went missing at the same time – who were present at this event. The channels claimed that this was a secret meeting held at Setalvad’s home, despite the fact that the entire event wasbroadcast live on YouTube for anyone to watch!

CJP has now written to both channels as well as YouTube urging them to take down the fake, defamatory and potentially inflammatory content uploaded on their platform.

The complaints say, “We wish to point out that this video carries fake news, attempts to attribute baseless motives to Teesta Setalvad and also unnecessarily pits a peace-loving senior artiste Naseeruddin Shah against the Prime Minister of India, apart from dragging director Rahul Dholakia, activist Harsh Mander and even the family of slain Congress Member of Parliament Ahesan Jafri into the controversy.”

The complaint also points out, “The timing of this video is especially noteworthy given how Ahesan Jafri’s widow Zakia Jafri had moved a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court asking for an inquiry into the wider conspiracy behind the Gujarat violence of 2002. CJP, through Teesta Setalvad, was the second petitioner in the case.”

CJP concludes the complains saying, “We would therefore urge you to please take down the video as it spreads malicious rumours about Teesta Setalvad and the aforementioned people. These rumours have the potential to spark hatred and suspicion against peace-loving citizens and cause harm to their reputations, and therefore the videos are not only inflammatory but also defamatory.”

The three complaints may be read here:

Related:

Times Now’s show on Teesta Setalvad devoid of objectivity: NBDSA
CJP in Action: Bringing hate-mongering news media to justice
Hate Hatao: CJP doubled its efforts to check hate crimes in 2021

The post Teesta Setalvad is NOT making any movie titled “The Gujarat Files”: CJP to YouTube news channels appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Facebook Inc has responded to two complaints sent by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) against hateful and inciteful speech made by Ragini Tiwari, stating that they are not in a position to take any action against Tiwari. Instead Facebook suggested that CJP contact the party directly to get a resolution on the issue.

CJP has sent complaints on two occasions to Facebook concerning the inflammatory acts of Tiwari.

The December 24, 2020 complaint was about her video whereby she appealed to the masses to prepare themselves for December 17 to recreate Jafrabad (read a reference to the February 2020, Delhi Violence) if the farmers don’t stop protesting and leave Delhi. She openly issued a fresh warning to the Central and Delhi Government that if the protests are not put to an end by December 16, she will take to the streets and get all roads cleared and history will repeat itself. By history, she meant the targeted Delhi Pogrom where she brazenly called for the slaughter of the Muslim community and the violence that followed led to deaths of more than 50 people. 

Another complaint was sent on March 3, 2020 for the comments she made in a Facebook live broadcast on February 23, 2020, amidst the Delhi violence. In the video she is seen using derogatory language including cuss-words against the Delhi police for their alleged inaction against stone-pelters. In the 23-minute-long video she said, “Yes, for my country and religion, I cleaned out Jafrabad, and I don’t regret it. If I stay alive, then I vow that every time Shaheen Bagh and Jaffrabad [situations] are created, I will clean them out again, in my style.”

Facebook defines hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics – race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity and serious disease or disability. It further defines attack as violent or dehumanising speech, harmful stereotypes, statements of inferiority or calls for exclusion or segregation.

It further segregates hate speech into three tiers with a comprehensive list of offensive behaviour that amounts to hate speech. Yet, it refuses to take action against posts that clearly violate all their policies on Objectionable content (hate speech) and Violence and Criminal Behaviour (Violence and Criminal incitement).

Even though Facebook has set standards against public safety, hate speech, violence, discrimination, Facebook India fails to take cognisance of the communally charged politics that plagues the country. Comprehending the difference between hate speech and free speech requires a greater understanding of India’s diversity and India’s track record of communal clash. Not paying attention to identifying and singling out hate speech on Facebook also legitimises hate speech that, as the courts have recognised, can have detrimental societal impacts.

In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs Union of India and Ors AIR 2014 SC 1591, the Supreme court had said, “Hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group. Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimise group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society.”

Facebook’s unwillingness to take action shows its differentiated approach in different political environments. While it recently took down President Donald Trump’s account as he was nearing the end of his tenure as President of the United States, it continues to let fundamentalist views be easily propagated in India as it remains conducive to India’s political environment.

Related:

CJP in action: Files a complaint with Facebook against Ragini Tiwari
Hate Speech spreads like wildfire in Karnataka
#CJPWednesdays: CJP’s Hate Hatao Campaign Against Hatred and Hate Speech

The post Facebook refuses to take action against Ragini Tiwari’s hate speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Readers may remember the controversy created by the Central Government’s proposal to set up two committees to inquire into complaints against serving and former members of the Central Information Commission (CIC). Several RTI advocators have commented on this latest move of the Government to curb the CIC’s autonomy. I had also critically examined its implications in light of media reports of this proposal. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has refused to divulge details of this proposal under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) claiming that it is not final yet.

The RTI Intervention

Soon after after this proposal was reported widely in the media, I decided to seek the following information, from the DoPT, which is under the Prime Minister’s portfolio, through an Online RTI application:

“1) A clear photocopy of the communication sent to the Central Information Commission (CIC) regarding the proposal to set up committees to inquire into complaints received against Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners, whether serving or retired, along with annexures, if any;

2) A clear photocopy of all replies received from the CIC, till date, in relation to the communication described at para number 1 above; and
3) A clear photocopy of all file notings and correspondence available on record in paper or electronic form regarding the proposal described at para number 1 above.” (Click here for the RTI application)

After 28 days, the DoPT’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) has posted a reply online stating as follows:

“This proposal is at initial stage, comments of CIC have been sought on the proposal, which is yet to be received. Nothing concrete, which can be submitted in reply to the application under RTI Act, 2005. Further, as per section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, if you are not satisfied with the reply of CPIO or not getting reply within time limit, you may file first appeal in concerned First Appellate Authority. Even if not satisfied with reply or not getting reply of first appeal from First Appellate Authority, you may file second appeal in the concerned State/Central Information Commission as per section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Copy of the RTI Act, 2005 is attached.” (Click here for the CPIO’s reply.)

I am yet to get a hard copy of this reply. Meanwhile, several other RTI users and activists might have sought similar information from the DoPT. 
What is wrong with the CPIO’s reply?

The DoPT’s CPIO has neither rejected the RTI application nor supplied the requested information — these are the only two courses of action valid and available to him under the RTI Act. Knowing fully well that the proposal had not yet been finalised, I had asked only for a copy of the communication sent to the CIC about this proposal and related file notings. Under Section 4(1)(c) and (d) of the RTI Act, the DoPT has a statutory obligation to make all relevant facts about such an important proposal public as citizens are an affected party.

However, the Government has allowed some “information” to be leaked through the media instead of publicising a copy of the proposal and the details of the decision making process as to who mooted the idea first and who all were involved in the discussion around it. This is indeed a Quest for Transparency– a highlight of the website of the PMO.

Even more amusing is the CPIO’s general reply that I could move a State Information Commission in addition to the CIC, if I am not satisfied with the outcome of the first appeal process. State Information Commissions do not have jurisdiction over the DoPT. The supply of an e-copy of the RTI Act, free of cost is the icing on the cake. However, the reply reveals that the CIC which is said to have discussed the proposal, has not yet sent any response to the DoPT.

Of course I will do the usual appeals in this case. It is annoying to learn that the Government does not want to take into account the very stakeholders whose complaints will provide work for the two inquiry committees. This is also against the spirit of the pre-Legislative Consultation Policy adopted in February 2014 which requires all Departments, including the DoPT, to seek people’s views on such important proposals.

The CIC has also elected not to go public with this communication despite civil society and the citizenry standing by it every time the Government sought to amend the Act in a retrograde manner. Last year, civil society and the media had vigorously opposed the Government’s proposal to amend the RTI Act to downgrade the salaries of Information Commissioners and fix their tenure at will.

What is the current controversy all about?

The RTI Act provides for the financial and operational autonomy of the CIC to ensure that it is not unduly influenced by the Central Government and the 2400+ public authorities under its jurisdiction, that often oppose citizens’ demand for transparency about their actions and omissions. Section 12(4) of the RTI Act states that the CIC will function autonomously without being subject to the directions of any authority. Under Section 23, even courts are barred from entertaining any suit, application or proceeding against an order made under the RTI Act. The only recourse available is a judicial review of the CIC’s decision by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and/or the Supreme Court under the Constitution.

Section 14(1) of the RTI Act provides for the removal of the Chief Information Commissioner and other Information Commissioners in the CIC by the President of India on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity only after the matter has been inquired into by the Supreme Court.

Section 14(3) of the Act empowers the President of India to remove them unilaterally on grounds of insolvency or if they engage in other kinds of employment outside office or if they are physically or mentally unfit. They may also be removed unilaterally, if they are convicted of offences of moral turpitude such as murder, rape, kidnapping, extortion, robbery or trafficking minors for prostitution.

It is common knowledge, over the last 15 years several citizens have sent complaints about the manner of functioning of the CIC to various authorities in the Central Government including the President of India. Invariably, these complaints land up at the CIC itself for examination and action. The Central Government wants to assume the power to act on such complaints.

According to media reports, the Government wants to set up two committees- both headed by the Cabinet Secretariat to inquire into complaints against the CIC. The first will be chaired by the Cabinet Secretary himself with a retired Chief Information Commissioner as a member which will inquire into complaints against serving and retired Chief ICs. The second committee will be chaired by a Secretary grade officer of the Cabinet Secretariat and have a retired IC as a member to inquire into complaints against serving and retired ICs. The Secretary, DoPT, will be a common member of both committees.

These proposals, if implemented, will seriously compromise the autonomy of the CIC. Even more worrisome is the proposal to inquire into complaints against retired members of the CIC. What action can be taken against them, under the RTI Act is open to guesswork. I could not find any such provision in the RTI Act. These inquiry committees will not only have a chilling effect on the CIC but will also become a trailblazer for State Governments to curb the autonomy of State Information Commissions (SICs).

Principles of natural justice require that nobody should be a judge in his or her own cause. So letting the CIC examine complaints against itself is not the best option. Putting that power in the hands of the Government, which is in 9.9 out of 10 cases the Respondent party before the CIC, will extinguish the statutorily protected autonomy of the CIC.

What is the way forward?

Other options must be explored. Perhaps such a mechanism can be created within Parliament which placed the transparency law on the statute book. All complaints received against the CIC may be screened first by a committee comprising of MPs who are elected as Independents, to weed out frivolous or baseless allegations. Next, a committee comprising of one member of every party represented in either House may be empowered to examine complaints of a serious nature. This inquiry mechanism must be time-bound and also designed to prevent domination by any political party or group. All this can be done by inserting a new set of RTI Rules, without tinkering with the RTI Act.

However, there may be other views that people may hold about making the CIC and the SICs accountable. These can be ascertained only through a process of widespread consultation. Making the Government’s current proposal along with related file notings public, is an essential pre-condition for this consultative process. Does the Government have the will to walk the talk of “Transparency and Good Governance”?

Courtesy: Counter View

The post Complaints against CIC: DoPT decides to set up committees, but refuses to part with proposal appeared first on SabrangIndia.