A Cyclists encounter with the Railway Police at Bangalore - The Logical Indian

From the #Facebook page #LogicalIndian:

#MyStory

“I have read of inhumane incidents happening in many parts of the country. But you won’t totally believe unless you encounter one. Now onward I can totally believe them.

I frequently travel to China for my official trips. One thing I always adored by Chinese people is their use of electrical or foldable bicycle which they carry with them in the subway.

This time, after coming to India I desperately started looking for such bicycle if available in India. At last, I found one BTWIN HOPTOWN bicycle at Decathlon. I immediately bought and started using it. Once I was carrying it with me on the train between the route KR PURAM to Bangalore Cantonment. I am proud of the fact that I am not the one contributing to the pollution in Bangalore.

On 9/2/2016, while exiting from Bangalore Cantonment railway station one ticket checking officer lady caught me and started demanding fine for carrying a bicycle with me. I tried to convince her, once folded it is not a bicycle at all, it weights hardly 14 kg and it is very much portable. But she insisted on asking for 6 times the fare of travel. I asked her for the railway rules regarding this and the receipt of the bill. She took my pass and made me wait for another 30 minutes and later came with an excuse that she doesn’t know the luggage rules. I was getting late and told her 6 times my fare of travel is 60 rupees and that she can have 100 rupees and let me go. But she demanded 300 rupees.

I told her even if it is 1000 rupees I will pay but I need the receipt. She presented the same excuse that she doesn’t know the luggage rules. At last, I lost my patience and started to call her corrupt. After which she slapped me, pushed me and called her police constable colleague to take me to the jail for misbehavior. He took me to the jail and started beating me. His other colleagues joined him, they undressed me and started beating me with hand, leg and sticks 5 people at a time. I was sure that I was going to die that day and only my body will be found next day. I begged them in all the possible way I can. At last, after an hour, one guy listened to my plea and asked me to pay 5000 rupees. He asked me to call any of my friends to come with 5000 rupees and then can take me back.

I called my manager Harish Haswani who came with two mutual colleagues of ours. All three had to plea to the railway police for more than an hour on my behalf as Railway police have threatened them that they will file a case against me of misbehaving with a lady officer and that I have tried to press her breast. I was very much shocked to see to what level character of a woman can fall. After too much of plea and the bribe from my colleagues they released me. The lady officer fined me 190Rs stating my bicycle weight is 40kg although it is 14kg only. Also, she fined me for ticket-less traveling though I was having the monthly pass. Also, the receipt she issued is of date 8/02/16 and not 9/02/16 on which date I travelled and the incident took place. We all were too much afraid and didn’t dare to ask her for the mistake in the receipt. All of our focus was just to save my life and get me out of there.

I am undergoing the treatment. My left hand is fractured. My friend Sarfaraz is taking care of me. I am determined never to travel by train in Bangalore again. My fold-able  BTWIN bicycle will never get used again. But at the same time, I have lost all the focus at my work. Fortunately, my mobile has done the voice recording of the entire incident. My mobile recording along CCTV camera recording at railway is enough to prove if I have done remotely any kind of misbehavior with the lady. I am determined to teach a lesson to these corrupt officials even if it cost me my life. I have written letters to all higher police authorities as well as human rights commission seeking action in this regards. They will respond but very unfortunatly as per indian goverment office time.”

And Comments thereon:


@drmsbc has replied to tweets on this issue saying that Railway police is state police and doesn’t come under railways.

https://twitter.com/drmsbc/status/698662569536417793

I will delete this post in some time since my suggestion is perhaps no longer relevant.

In the meanwhile, if you have any suggestions regarding how to approach this issue then let me know.

My original post:
-----------
The Logical Indian, could you please tweet this to @RailMinIndia
They are very prompt and they will take appropriate action.

Edit:
The summary of tweets made for this issue:
My tweet to @RailMinIndia:
https://twitter.com/amithbag/status/698599458020261888

Sidhharth (@siddhu_2011):
https://twitter.com/RailMinIndia/status/698595124578615296
(@RailMinIndia has replied to Siddharth’s tweet)

Avinash Surendran (@ashwin296):
https://twitter.com/ashwin296/status/698605652466405376

cibi s (@cibiindhu):
https://twitter.com/cibiindhu/status/698627271477870592

It looks like @drmsbc has replied to the tweets of Sidhharth, Avinash and cibi s:

“@cibiindhu @RailMinIndia @GMSWR @ashwin296 @siddhu_2011 Rly Police is state police, not under Rly. Clarification by @srdcmsbc.”
https://twitter.com/drmsbc/status/698662569536417793

So essentially it seems that they are saying that they can’t do much since Railway police is state police. Is that ticket checking lady also under Railway police and not Railway? Requesting Sidhharth, Avinash and cibi s to reply to @drmsbc and ask for clarification.
-----------

Comment #2:

Laws that were made to protect women are being used as a tool to extort money, take revenge, cry victim when a woman herself is the wrong doer and to teach a "lesson" to a man for being a man by the "empowered women". This is happening not only in metros but smallest areas around the country. While crime against Innocent and vulnerable women is happening everywhere, false accusations against innocent and vulnerable men and boys like one above is on a rise too. While there are stringent laws to take care of the former, there is little one can do in case of latter. Some time before everyone realizes the need to control this menace.

Comment #3:

#PMOIndia, Narendra Modi, Suresh Prabhu
After such incidents, do you still expect us to co-operate with the Police and have faith in these so called Law Enforcement forces in India?
Who gives them the right to even TOUCH US without any valid reason or proof? Are these people seriously the ones responsible for OUR SAFETY?
WE WILL NOT BE SUPPRESSED AND THIS NEEDS TO STOP. NOW.
#Shame

Comment #4:

Laws-

The Bangalore Metro Rail (Carriage and Ticket) Rules 2011 limit the weight of personal baggage to 15 kg. Rule 3 says: “No person shall, while travelling in metro railway, carry with him any goods other than a small baggage containing personal belongings not exceeding 60cm x 45cm x 25cm in size and 15kg in weight, except with the prior approval of the metro railway administration.” The rules also prohibit carrying explosive, inflammable, and poisonous substances.

The Metro Railway (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002, imposes fines and in some cases jail sentences for offences committed on the metro. Anyone indulging in sabotaging the train or maliciously hurting or attempting to hurt other passengers while travelling in the metro can face imprisonment up to 10 years. Pasting posters or drawing graffiti on the walls of stations or trains is punishable by a fine of ₹1,000 or imprisonment for up to 6 months. Travelling in an inebriated state or creating nuisance in the train is punishable by a ₹500 fine. Passengers are monitored at security checkpoints and those that are causing trouble, heavily drunk, or carrying forbidden items are not permitted to board. Spitting on the metro premises is punishable by a fine of ₹100.

Comment #5:

I hope you are innocent fight back and get back to work and train travel with your bicycle this time with any rule copy. If you are innocent nothing should stop you should fight back even if you dont have enough evidence . Expose them to society and put them to shame .believe your friends and family know your nature have confidence. We are all with you.

Reproduced here for Academic information.

Source : #Facebook #TheLogicalIndian

Right to Repair - The Concept

The Cars these days have to be taken to the specific Brand Service centre, and you are literally at their mery of their Monopolistic Trade Practices.
These are the Scenarios in a Monopolistic Car Market:

• "We owned a Honda CRV which we had to take to the dealer to find out what was wrong. The dealer charged us $100 to look at it and tell us we needed a new $3,400.00 transmission. They said it would be dangerous to drive it away. We took it to a transmission guy who fixed it for $80.00!!!! [...]" 
• "Consumers need to have a good look at this and understand how convenient it could be to have a qualified local repair facility perform work on their vehicles. For instance in most cases when entering a dealership for repairs a service writer will take your information and then PUFF your car is gone into space. [...]"
• "i own a 2000 volvo that ran fine but the service ligt was on and i needed a master key for the trunk , when i took it to the dealer i got a key for 90.00 and they told me the service light was on because of the electronic module for the shifter and [...]" "First let me say I have never been moved to action on a bill until today. As an owner of a (2008 A6 Audi) I scheduled service for 3 basic items and one intermittent issue with AM/FM radio reception that I asked to be looked at. The items, you ask? Oil change, battery in my [...]"
• "I would like to ask you to support the “Right to Repair” legislation….I love my local mechanic, and trust him to do what is right for my car. As Massachusetts “patriots”, we deplore the attempt to remove another RIGHT, another FREEDOM!! Please stand with us!!!"
• "My wifes car (1998 Subaru Forester) had a failed water pump, and ABS light on . I called the Subaru dealer and was told the Timing belt had to be changed as well as H2o pump as the pump is behind the belt: Water pump= $500.00 Timing belt $700 to $800 depending if they had [...]"
• "Took my Subaru in for a check-up. It had a flat tire and the dealership tried to charge me double the tire cost!"
• "Our 2001 VW Eurovan has had a running problem for some time. We got a free diagnoses from a VW dealer in the mail and decided to take advantage. The result was a number of faults indicating major engine internal repair and timing chain replacements as “only the beginning of problems” that would result in [...]"

Here comes the Need to assert our "Right to Repair"

Right to Repair, is a name for several related proposed bills in the United States Congress and several state legislatures which would require automobile manufacturers to provide the same information to independent repair shops as they do for dealer shops. Versions of the bill have generally been supported by independent repair and after-market associations and generally opposed by auto manufacturers and dealerships. Since first introduced at the federal level in 2001, no version of the legislation has become law, until the Massachusetts legislature passed H. 4362, a Right to Repair bill on July 31, 2012.

Subsequent to bill passage the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, Coalition for Auto Repair Equality, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association for Global Automakers signed a Memorandum of Understanding that is based on the Massachusetts law and which would commit the vehicle manufacturers to meet the requirements of the Massachusetts law in all fifty states.

Global Right to Repair

The European Union has passed Right to Repair and an aggressive effort is currently underway in Canada. Right to repair is clearly a global issue whose time has come.

What Right to Repair Does:
 
Reaffirms the owners’ right to repair their automobile and keep their families safe.
Promotes consumer safety by allowing owners or their auto technicians’ access to the computers that control the systems and components that affect the safe operation of their automobiles.
Permits owners to choose the repair shop and the replacement parts to service and maintain their vehicles.
Authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to promulgate regulations to protect consumers and to promote competition in auto maintenance and repair. 

What It Does Not Do
 
It does not take a manufacturer’s intellectual property.
It does not affect the dealer’s warranty agreement with the vehicle manufacturers.
It does not require manufacturers to disclose manufacturing processes or trade secrets. About The Right to Repair Act

The Right to Repair Act is bipartisan legislation that would require automakers to provide the same service information and tools to independent auto and maintenance shops, as well as to consumers, that the automaker dealership service centers receive.
 
Right to Repair legislation does not attempt to restrict motorists from choosing car dealerships, it simply ensures that vehicle owners have a choice when deciding where to take their vehicles for repairs and what parts are best to use in maintaining their vehicles. The Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association and the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality urge Congress to support the Right to Repair Act to give consumers a choice and keep repair costs down. It's the right thing to do for consumers, for business and the economy.

Now that India too is crowded with foreign Brands of specialized Cars, its high time, We, The People, demand our Right to Repair.

Right-to-know laws often ignored - The Associated Press

The Associated Press: AP Impact: Right-to-know laws often ignored:

'via Blog this'

By MARTHA MENDOZA, AP National Writer

Satbir Sharma's wife is dead. His family lives in fear in rural India. His father's left leg is shattered, leaving him on crutches for life.

Sharma's only hope lies in a new law that gives him the right to know what is happening in the investigation of his wife's death. Most of all, he wants to know what will happen to the village mayor, now in jail on murder charges.

He talks quietly, under his breath, because his two young sons still think their mother is sick in the hospital and will come home. He pats a tidy stack of government documents perched on a table, under the gaze of Hindu gods from pictures on the wall.

"At least," he says sadly, "we have the truth."

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — More than 100 countries have legislation that — on paper — gives citizens the right to know what is happening in their governments. The Associated Press has tested these laws worldwide for the first time. Readers are invited to submit suggestions for future freedom of information requests in any country at http://apne.ws/vgMTQ6.

___

The promise is magnificent: More than 5.3 billion people in more than 100 countries now have the right — on paper — to know the truth about what their government is doing behind closed doors. Such laws have spread rapidly over the past decade, and when they work, they present a powerful way to engage citizens and expose corruption.

However, more than half the countries with such laws do not follow them, The Associated Press found in the first worldwide test of this promised freedom of information. And even when some countries do follow the law, the information unearthed can be at best useless and at worst deadly.

Right-to-know laws reflect a basic belief that information is power and belongs to the public. In a single week in January, AP reporters tested this premise by submitting questions about terrorism arrests and convictions, vetted by experts, to the European Union and the 105 countries with right-to-know laws or constitutional provisions.

AP also interviewed more than 100 experts worldwide and reviewed hundreds of studies.

Among its findings:

— Only 14 countries answered in full within their legal deadline. Another 38 countries eventually answered most questions, at least providing data.

— Newer democracies were in general more responsive than some developed ones. Guatemala confirmed the AP request in 72 hours, and sent all documents in 10 days. Turkey sent spreadsheets and data within seven days. Mexico posted responses on the Web. By comparison, Canada asked for a 200-day extension. The FBI in the United States responded six months late with a single sheet with four dates, two words and a large section blanked. Austria never responded at all.

— More than half the countries did not release anything, and three out of 10 did not even acknowledge the request. African governments led the world for ignoring requests, with no response whatsoever from 11 out of 15 countries.

— Dozens of countries adopted their laws at least in part because of financial incentives, and so are more likely to ignore them or limit their impact. China changed its access-to-information rules as a condition to joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, to boost the economy by as much as 10 percent. Beijing has since expanded the rules beyond trade matters. Pakistan adopted its 2002 ordinance in return for $1.4 billion in aid from the International Monetary Fund. Neither country responded to the AP's test.

"Having a law that's not being obeyed is almost worse than not having a law at all," says Daniel Metcalf, the leading U.S. Freedom of Information authority at the Justice Department for the past 25 years, now a law professor at American University. "The entire credibility of a government is at stake."

___

India is the best example in the world of both the promise and the peril of right-to-know laws.

India was one of just 14 countries that replied to the AP's request in full and on time. Authorities responded within their legal deadline of a month, and even gave more than was asked: A state-by-state breakdown.

Indians filed about 24,400 right-to-know requests in 2006, the year after the country's information law passed. Last year, the government fielded more than a million and said it responded to most.

India now boasts of at least a dozen blogs dedicated exclusively to right to information issues. Requests have already revealed scandals such as unethical drug trials, shady business deals and illegal phone taps by government officials.

"Right to Information is a fundamental human right," says Srinivas Madhav at the Centre for Good Governance in Hyderabad. "Right to Information has become a friend in need, making life easier and honorable for common people."

Yet dozens of people in India have been attacked and beaten for using the law, and at least 12 have been killed.

Sharma sits on the bed, quietly sweating in the thick 113-degree heat. His father, Jagdish Chandra Sharma, absentmindedly rubs his aching left leg, which was crushed and now has three rods in it. He wipes a tear away from his eye.

The Sharma family lives in Chandrawal, a quiet farming village of about 2,100 people where the mayor, Dharamvir Malik, is notoriously corrupt, according to villagers.

They say he cut a water pipe flowing across his fields and drained drinking water into his crops. He then sent a water truck to the village and charged residents to fill up from it. And he adulterated fuel at the gas stations he owns with cheap kerosene.

When the Sharmas suspected him of stealing pension money, they filed for documents under India's right-to-know law. They used the information to register a corruption case with the police. The mayor, livid with rage, then filed a case against them, saying they had robbed him of $10,000 at gunpoint.

On the evening of Feb. 10, the mayor and some supporters drove to the family home in a minivan, the family says. They were drunk and began screaming: "Come out. We'll give you your pensions."

Sharma's wife, Sonu, and his father Jagdish came out to ask them to leave, the family says.

The men grabbed Sonu, tried to pull her into the car and hit her on the head with an iron bar, Jagdish recounts. When she collapsed, they ran over her with the minivan, he says. They also ran over his left leg.

Malik is now in jail, and police did not allow an interview.

Over the past eight months, the only information the family has received on the case has come from a flurry of right-to-know requests.

That was how they found out police were pushing for lesser charges, saying Sonu Sharma was killed after Malik tried to drive away from a scuffle between the two families. The court overruled the police and charged Malik with murder.

The documents also showed that Malik had five registered guns. The Sharmas' application for a gun permit of their own was rejected, and they have filed a right-to-know request to find out why.

Now Jagdish lives under 24-hour police guard. But his son is still enthusiastic about India's information law, and says without it the family would have little hope of justice.

"It's good for getting information so we can fight for our rights," says Satbir Sharma. "It has been a curse for us because of what happened to us personally, but it is a good thing for the common man."

___

Right-to-know laws can work particularly well in newer democracies, because their governments can adopt what has worked elsewhere and discard what hasn't. In the AP test, new democracies in general responded faster and better than more established ones.

Mexico, for example, gave the AP all the information requested within two months in response to a query filed through a single website. But in the U.S., the AP had to mail letters to six branches of the Justice and Homeland Security departments, email the FBI and follow up with 18 telephone calls. In return came 40 pieces of mail, with useful information only in two spreadsheets, and even then with names blanked out.

Mexico's freedom of information law is often cited as a model. Requests can be anonymous. All responses are made public. The system acknowledges the request immediately, and full answers typically arrive within a month.

Immediately after the law took effect in 2003, Mexico logged an average of 926 requests and 823 responses a week. Those numbers are now up to a record 3,012 requests and 2,460 responses.

The U.S. passed its freedom of information law in 1966. Each agency in the U.S. has its own in-house freedom of information branch, which creates bureaucracy. Responses rarely meet the 20-day deadline, and can take years.

The AP is still waiting on a 10-year-old request to the U.S. State Department for information about a now-defunct Greek terror organization. At the latest check, a staffer said: "The information was sent to a senior reviewer."

In 2010, U.S. agencies fully released about 55 percent of the information requested, partially released information in another 37 percent and denied 8 percent. In Mexico, agencies fully released information in 85 percent of requests.

The U.S. law is showing its age.

"It was conceived in an era of paper-based records," says the Justice Department's Melanie Ann Pustay, the nation's highest-ranked FOIA official. "Mexico had the advantage of creating their law when we do have the Internet."

She points out that the U.S. gets more requests, with close to 600,000 last year, and has recently reduced backlogs and increased the number of records made public.

In Mexico, the law is giving a voice to ordinary people.

When the tractors first came to La Parota in 2003, the engineers told Marco Antonio Suastegui, a village leader, that they were building a dam. Suastegui did not know what a dam was.

The Mexican government wanted to flood out three dozen villages, including Suastegui's, tucked along lagoons and down winding muddy roads beyond the luxury resorts of Acapulco. The plan was to build a $1 billion dam to generate 1,500 gigawatt hours of electricity a year, enough to power eastern Mexico.

The villagers were furious. "Blood was going to flow," Suastegui says.

But the same year, Mexico's freedom of information law took effect. Along with holding marches and protests, dam opponents gathered evidence from documents obtained under the information law.

Villagers then sued the government for granting water rights without the consent of residents who owned the communal land. In 2007, a judge stopped construction.

About 300 dam opponents gathered in a town square on a recent afternoon to celebrate their success with music, dance, prayers and hot beans and tortillas. Their victory would not have been possible, they say, without the documents.

___

Despite the examples of success, more than half of countries with right-to-know laws ignore them.

Of the 105 countries the AP tested, 54 have yet to provide answers, 35 never acknowledged receiving the request, and six refused to disclose information, citing national security. In Kenya, a government spokesman denied receiving a hand-delivered letter. In Jordan, four requests were rejected outright, and several more are pending.

The law in Uganda, where the government never responded, goes one step further. Critics say it further restricts access to records if they are said to damage state security or infringe on privacy. Ugandans must also pay a fee of about 20,000 shillings, or $8, typically a week's wages, for a request.

About 200 requests have been filed since the law passed in 2005, according to a survey by a Ugandan human rights group. Seven out of 10 petitioners never heard back from the government, and those who did were often denied the records.

Journalist Angelo Izama was the first person to test Uganda's law, paying an attorney $2,500 to file a right-to-know request. He asked for documents showing who is getting multibillion-dollar contracts to explore and exploit the massive oil reserves recently found in his country.

"This oil is a national asset," Izama says. "It belongs to the people of Uganda, most of whom don't have electricity, cook on firewood, live in abject poverty. ... Ugandans have a right, under their freedom of information law, to know what deals are being made with Western and Chinese oil companies."

In response to Izama's push, Parliament demanded and got copies of contracts between oil companies and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, but they were confidential. Adding to the fury, WikiLeaks released cables alleging that Museveni accepted bribes from oil companies.

"Absolute rubbish," Museveni responded at a news conference. "I have never been given any money by anybody."

Since the case started three years ago, Izama has since been arrested three times, on increasingly serious charges.

He went to court after three months to ask a magistrate to order that the documents be turned over to him, but was arrested the next day for defaming an inspector general on the radio.

On the morning he was supposed to be arguing for his request, Izama was in a different courtroom 10 miles away. He had just been charged with sedition and libel for comparing the president to former Filipino strongman Ferdinand Marcos.

"I was going crazy, texting everyone, trying to get out," he says.

Finally, after paying $1,000 bail, he dashed to the other court. But the judge had ruled against him, saying he had failed to show that disclosure of the oil contracts would be "for the benefit of the public interest." The judge cited Iran and Indonesia as oil-rich countries that do not divulge such information.

This month Izama was supposed to have a hearing on his request, but the judge is the same former inspector general who once accused him of defamation, and it's been delayed until March.

Even if he gets his records, it's unclear what condition they will be in. "No temperature, humidity or pest control exist," said a study of government personnel records in Uganda, "so paper is rotting, metal is rusting and there are layers of insects on or in files."

Izama says his phones are tapped, and his email is opened. He constantly looks over his shoulder.

"My aunties and my mother particularly thinks I should let this drop," he says. "It really is dangerous. But I believe freedom of information is the key to unclogging our broken system."

___

Dozens of countries passed their right-to-know laws to meet conditions for agreements or funding from donors. The United States alone spends about $50 million a year in foreign aid to promote freedom of information and government transparency. But in practice, laws adopted for financial gain do not work as well as those adopted in response to public pressure.

China became a full member of the WTO after promising to establish a system where people could make requests for some public records, in an apparent change of course for one of the world's most secretive governments.

In 2008, the Chinese government reported receiving close to 89,000 requests, resulting in the release of more than 10 million documents. There were about 100,000 requests last year, according to Weibing Xiao, who teaches at Shanghai University's School of Economic Law and maintains a blog about freedom of information in China.

"I would say the Chinese government currently, while there are some problems, has become more transparent, more open," Xiao says.

Response rates vary widely by office, from zero to 100 percent disclosure. In a landmark case last year, a Chinese businessman forced the city of Guangzhou to make its budget public. And Chinese authorities responded in August to criticism of secrecy with a pledge to become more open.

However, more than half of China's city and provincial governments fail open-information requirements, one survey found.

China never provided the information requested by the AP. Authorities told the AP to fax a freedom of information request to find out how to use the freedom of information law. The number, dialed dozens of times, was never answered.

Even when information is available in China, it may not change anything, especially if it gets in the way of economic growth and other government priorities.

Professor Zhao Fengping grew up in a warren of warehouses in the rust-belt city of Zhengzhou that had been converted into homes. The houses, while dark, had yards for Zhao, her six brothers and sisters and neighborhood children to play in.

"We had deep feelings about it," says Zhao, who teaches public administration at Zhengzhou University. "Over the long run, my neighbors and I were like partners who had grown up together."

But Zhengzhou, in north central China, has grown at a dizzying pace, throwing up a new district full of empty buildings that the Chinese derisively call the country's biggest "ghost city." Zhengzhou and other local governments are furiously plowing under defunct factories, old neighborhoods and rural fringes to build high-rises, roads and industrial parks.

Zhao's mother, a widow in her 80s, lives in the family home, and sometimes with her children. Only by chance, on a visit back to the home last year, did Zhao and her mother learn that it was slated for demolition, to make way for an apartment complex.

Then began weeks of visits to city offices and phone calls to many more.

In records obtained under China's open-government initiatives, Zhao found lapses and glaring mistakes that should have stopped the project. An office that oversaw the reconstruction of central Zhengzhou was not listed in government directories. The approval for the project was two years old and had effectively expired. And the documents had the wrong address, listing an intersection of two streets that don't meet.

Zhao confronted officials at the Demolition and Relocation Office.

"I brought out the map and said, 'Locate this place for me.' They couldn't. I said, 'What can be done?'" Zhao recounts. "He said it's not their problem."

She hit the same stonewall at other offices. Meanwhile, the government and the company in charge of demolition pressured her family to give up.

The wrecking crews came last November. Zhao's mother lost her home and now lives with each of her children in turn.

The process plunged Zhao into depression for weeks. She says right-to-know laws mean nothing without a more open political system, where people can use the information to change policies and fight for their rights.

"I felt very sad, very hopeless," she says. "I wouldn't do this again, because I now know where it leads. ... I was angry, I was furious, I was exhausted. I ran around in a big circle but didn't accomplish anything."

___

The push toward freedom of information continues. This year, seven countries passed right to information laws, and 18 more have such laws under consideration.

Yet there remains a significant gap between what the laws say and what really happens.

"You pass the law, but you have 150 years of bad government practice to turn around, and you can't expect that to happen in a short period," says David Banisar, senior legal counsel for London-based Article 19, a nonprofit that advocates for freedom of information. "It's about moving the ball more than hitting the home run."

___

What government records — from anywhere in the world — do you think AP reporters should request? Share your ideas with us on Facebook. We'll see if we can file a FOIA request, and your idea might even point us to a future news story. The same AP Facebook post also offers links to part 1 of AP's Freedom of Information project, exploring the number and nature of terrorism arrests and convictions. You can find it all here: http://apne.ws/vgMTQ6.

AP staff writers who contributed to this report include: Ravi Nessman from India, Charles Hutzler from China and Adriana Gomez Licon from Mexico.

Source - The Associated Press

Right to Information - Would it Make a Difference? | India Law, Online Legal Advice, Legal Documents, Legal News, Jobs, Events, Lawyers eVakil.com

Right to Information - Would it Make a Difference? | India Law, Online Legal Advice, Legal Documents, Legal News, Jobs, Events, Lawyers eVakil.com

Most departments of the Government have had proclaimed allegiance to the citizens right through what is popularly called "Citizens Charter". Quite many promised to take serious note of public grievances. Quite many promised to reply to citizen's queries within specified time limit. But, alas, in practically all cases it has proved only to be rhetoric. RTI has teeth to deter the complacent and the casual. Hopefully, it would prove to be the real right to information and its provisions would not be frustrated by flux of time. Will that happen? - Editor

The need for citizens right to information can be no better expressed than what the Supreme Court observed in the famous Raj Narain case:

"In a Government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. Their right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can at any rate have no repercussion on public security."

Undoubtedly, Government departments and Government officials are repositories of lot of information that is not easily accessible to the public. They take numerous decisions on issues that affect the life of citizens and concern their vital interests. Indeed the Government officials are a privileged lot. For decades they are accustomed to work in 'secrecy' and their accountability is dismal. They function in the form of permanent bureaucracy, enjoying social status and perks envied by many. They enjoy immense security of service. Many believe that it makes many of them indifferent, casual and inefficient to quite an extent.

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI, in short) derives its origin from the fundamental right of expression guaranteed to citizens under article 19 of the Constitution. The RTI has come about as a result of active persuasion by certain activist groups, including the campaign spearheaded by the Magsaysay Award winner Aruna Roy. The RTI confers a legal right to the citizens to seek information from any `public authority'. The term `information' is quite wide in scope. It means "any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force". Besides, the expression `right to information' provides meaningful access to the information a citizen may like to seek. "Right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to -

The public authority cannot ask for the locus standi of a citizen to seek information.

(i) inspection of work, documents, records;

(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;

(iii) taking certified samples of material;

(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.

Importantly, the RTI emphasises upon the right of the citizen to seek information. The public authority cannot ask for the locus standi of a citizen to seek information. Section 6(2) states categorically, "An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him".

The RTI is unique in the sense that it permits any citizen to seek any information. Imagine if thousands of persons seek information from the same office. It would mean tremendous amount of work for that office. Perhaps realising this but at the same time not undermining the citizen's right to information, the RTI rightly advises the public authorities to provide as much information as possible suo motu to the public in order to reduce the pressure of work. Section 4(2) says :

"It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information."

Another novel feature of the RTI is to fasten responsibility on the officials to act in time-bound manner. Section 7(1) mandates the Central/State Public Officer to provide the information to the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request. Even of the request has been addressed to an officer not concerned with it, he is required to transfer the application as soon as practicable but not later than five days from the date of receipt of the application, vide proviso to sub-section (2) of section 6.

Section 8 of the RTI specifies the kind of information that need not be provided to a citizen. They mainly concern the security interests of the country. As exception, for instance, the Government is under no obligation to give any citizen cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other offices. However, and importantly, the decisions of the Council of Ministers, and reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over. Another important exception is that an officer is under no obligation to provide information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. But information that cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to a citizen also.

In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer who denied the request.

RTI provides for appeal against the decision of the Central Public Information Officer to a designated senior officer. What is significant is that in any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer who denied the request.

RTI prides for constitution of Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions to receive and inquire into complaints against the action and decisions of the Central/State Public Information Officers or the appellate authorities. The Commissions would also oversee the implementation of the RTI.

An innovative feature of the TRI is that it provides for imposition of penalty upon the erring officers who contravene or violate the provisions of the RTI. This further signifies the citizen's right to have access to the information and to ensure that the Officers take it seriously and not simply as yet another piece of legislation. Sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI is quite categorical.

Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or mala fidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees.

On the whole, the purpose of the RTI is to empower the citizen to obtain information from the public authorities as matter of legal right. Its purpose is also to enhance efficiency and transparency in their working. The RTI intends the officialdom to be accountable to the citizens of the country and puts their functioning to direct scrutiny by the citizens.

It is true though that most departments of the Government have had proclaimed allegiance to the citizens right through what is popularly called "Citizens Charter". Quite many promised to take serious note of public grievances. Quite many promised to reply to citizen's queries within specified time limit. But, alas, in practically all cases it has proved only to be rhetoric. RTI has teeth to deter the complacent and the casual. Hopefully, it would prove to be the real right to information and its provisions would not be frustrated by flux of time.

________________

The author IRS (Retd.), is former Director General (Audit & Investigation), Central Excise & Customs; and Joint Secretary (TRU), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.

JUDGES AND THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT - By Justice Shylendra Kumar

JUDGES AND THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT Who are the judges afraid of; What are the judges afraid of; It is a matter of utmost paradox that the Chief Justice of the most powerful Supreme Court in the world should be expressing, apprehension for the safety and security of the judges of the superior courts in this country by saying that revealing the particulars of assets of the judges and throwing open the information to public domain may result in harassment to judges and in turn prevent the judges from performing their duties without fear or favour. He has also expressed his fear that this may impair the independence of judges and affect their functioning. It is equally ironic that the apprehension should have been expressed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, that too in an interview given to a news daily and as the Chief Justice of the Apex Court of the country and in the context of the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of Right to Information Act [RTI Act], a piece of legislation which was commended for legislation by the very Supreme Court in terms of its judgment in PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES vs UNION OF INDIA [AIR 2002 SC 2112J]. This Judgment upholds the high moral principle that the rule of law should operate uniformly; that the Constitution is above every one; that rights of citizens guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, i.e. right of expression, should outweigh the personal difficulties and hardships that can be pleaded by persons occupying high positions and serving as public servants. It must be remembered that the Supreme Court had emphatically ruled that no immunity can be claimed by any person, including one holding a constitutional position on the ground of any possible exposure to harassment and consequential difficulties if the particulars of the assets held by persons in such high public positions are revealed and made public. As is well known, the Right to Information Act was enacted with the object to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens by, ensuring access to information on any given issue. Continued here :- http://sites.google.com/site/justdvskumar/judges-rti