HC notice to officials over denial of RTI information
The petitioner, Shivmohan Dwivedi, said he works with JMC on the post of assistant. He was charged to have furnished wrong information about posts available in JMC and an appointment on compassionate grounds was given on the basis of wrong information received from him.
A charge-sheet was issued to him in April, 2016. The investigation officer was changed three times. When he sought a copy of the inquiry report under RTI, he was refused information.
On November 18, 2024, MP high court asked JMC to furnish him the desired information within 30 days.
Subsequently, the State Information Commission also asked the JMC to furnish him information sought under RTI and warned to impose cost otherwise. When the order was not complied with, a pribe against JMC officials concerned was also ordered. The officers concerned replied that the report is with the JMC commissioner and if he orders, a copy of the report would be provided. Following this, Dubey moved the high court again.
Following initial arguments, the bench of Justice Vishal Mishra issued notices to respondents seeking a response. Advocate Ajay Raijada appeared in the case for the petitioner.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
New clause could leave BCCI out of RTI ambit
New Delhi: A proposed amendment to the newly-introduced National Sports Governance Bill 2025 being circulated among Members of Parliament could put the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) outside the purview of the Right to Information Act since it doesn't receive grants or financial assistance from the central or state governments. BCCI will have to be registered as a National Sports Federation and follow the provisions of the Bill. (Hindustan Times via Getty Images) The bill, which seeks to bring in reforms in governance of Indian sports bodies, was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 23 by Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya and is yet to be taken up for discussion in the House, amid a continuing stand-off over the Opposition's demand over a discussion on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. The clause 15 (2) of the bill states, 'A recognised sports organisation shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers under this Act.' A new clause that is being inserted into the bill clarifies what constitutes a public authority. 'A recognised sports organisation, receiving grants or any other financial assistance from the Central Government under sub-section (1) or from a State Government, shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance.' HT has seen a copy of the bill. Under the RTI Act, a public authority is a body 'established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Central Government or the Union Territory administration, the Central Government; or by the State Government.' According to people aware of the development, 'The amendment was done just to bring the bill in line with the RTI Act, 2005. BCCI might not take financial grants from the government but they do take government assistance such as infrastructure, subsidised land, state facilities, etc.' The cash rich BCCI has long resisted being brought under the RTI Act. The powerful sports body never required government recognition as a National Sports Federation as BCCI manages its own finances. However, with cricket is now an Olympic sport as part of the 2028 Los Angeles Summer Games and the Bill is seen as part of preparatyions for making a bid to host the 2036 Games. In 2018, Chief Information Commission (CIC) held the BCCI as the public authority under RTI Act, and put in place a system of online and offline mechanisms to receive applications for information under RTI Act. The Ministry of Youth And Sports Affairs was directed to take necessary steps to ensure implementation of this order. However, BCCI filed a writ petition in the Madras high court which granted a stay order. BCCI will still have to be registered as a National Sports Federation and follow the provisions of the Bill. If the Bill becomes law, it will be the first time that BCCI will become a designated 'NSF.' BCCI will have to seek recognition from the National Sports Board (NSB) and refer its legal cases to the National Sports Tribunal, both proposed in the sports Bill. According to the Bill, the National Sports Board shall have the power to grant recognition to any sports organisation as 'National Sports Body.' The NSB can suspend or cancel recognition of the sports body or its affiliate units if the provisions of the act are violated or in case it 'failed to hold elections for its Executive Committee or has committed' or there were 'gross irregularities in the election procedures.' It can also act if the federation 'failed to publish annual audited accounts or misused, misapplied or misappropriated public funds.' The NSB shall consult the respective global governing body before taking any such decision, stated the Bill. There is another proposed amendment that states a person shall not be qualified to contest for election in a federation or seek nomination to the posts of the president, secretary general or treasurer unless previously served as a member for 'at least one full term in the executive committee of the national sports body or as the president, or the secretary general or the treasurer in its affiliate unit.' In the original Bill, the duration a person needed to serve for the top three posts was two full terms as member of the executive committee. This restrictive clause, however, doesn't apply for the Sportsperson of Outstanding Merit (SOM), according to the proposed amendment.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Mumbai train blasts, an exoneration, the questions
The Bombay High Court's exoneration of all those convicted in the Mumbai train blast case of July 2006, has come as a rude shock for the families of the 189 people killed and around 800 people who were injured. The High Court has ripped apart the investigation, calling witnesses untrustworthy, deeming confessions gained as under duress, terming identification parades faulty and citing forensic evidence custody as not foolproof. It is a shocker because it was based on the same evidence that the trial court, in 2015, sentenced five of the accused to death and seven to life imprisonment. A long wait, lapses Who will answer for the inordinately long incarceration of the accused since 2006? The police, the prosecution, lawyers or the courts? Or all of them, that is the criminal justice system? It takes years for trials in courts. One of the defence lawyers said that the charge sheet filed by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) had 20,000 pages, while much lesser numbers would suffice. It is like schoolchildren taking their examinations and filling pages with answers, hoping to impress the teacher with volume rather than quality. But the nine years taken by the Special Court and 10 years by the High Court for their decisions make the waiting period so agonising to the point of being meaningless for the accused. Nineteen years is a lifetime and almost like a sentence itself. Admitted there is tremendous pressure on investigating teams and the police chief in a terrorist or any high-profile case. The government gets unsettled with the Opposition's relentless attacks and demand to arrest the accused within minutes. It impacts investigation severely, pushing investigating officers into a corner, taking hasty decisions and bypassing protocol and procedures. But some of the issues referred to by the High Court raise concerns. Despite two confessions taken by two different deputy commissioners of police, they appear to be not similar but actually the same, with even the ellipsis matching. The witnesses became untrustworthy because, on cross-examination, they did not remain true to their original statements. Guess no one can after a lapse of so many years. It was surprising that the drawer of the sketches of the accused was not called as a witness. The test identification parade became suspect because the special executive officer who conducted it was not authorised to do so. Strange, because the magistrate who conducted it should have known whether he was the right person to undertake the TIP. The investigation, however, is truly flawed if the forensic evidence purity and chain of custody cannot be vouched for faithfully. It is troubling to hear that even in such critical cases there could be lapses on this count. The use of RTI filings Perhaps the biggest message from this trial is how the Right to Information (RTI) Act, known as the sunshine legislation, enacted 20 years ago, has stood the test of time, bringing transparency and accountability in government functioning. Hundreds of RTIs were filed by the accused and the defence lawyers to elicit information from the police, hospitals, and the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited to build up their case and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and prove them wrong on various counts. In one instance, it was the name of a non-existent person in a hospital, named by the prosecution witness or the shift in which one person was working was proven wrong. It is the noblest use of RTI, perhaps, if it is used to defend oneself. This is a fundamental aspect of free trial and constitution under Article 20(3). Perhaps most embarrassing for the Mumbai police would have been the discovery of an Indian Mujahideen (IM) module, busted by the crime branch Mumbai in 2008, which accepted its role in the series of blasts in Ahmedabad, Delhi and Jaipur between 2005 to 2008. The gang led by Sadiq Israr Sheikh also claimed responsibility for the series of blasts in suburban trains on that day in Mumbai at around 6.30 p.m. The charge sheet in the July 11, 2006 Mumbai train blast case had already been filed by then, and the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) had announced it as the handiwork of the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). In fact, in 2008, the top man of SIMI, Safdar Nagori, general secretary, was arrested along with his associates in March 2008 in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, and was awarded life term in 2017. But how does this make any sense to the families of the victims of 7/11 or to a common man? How does it matter whether the police, the prosecution or the criminal justice system failed him? What matters is that 19 years later, he has no closure. For the accused who were incarcerated for 19 years, it is already a sentence served without proven guilty. They seek justice too. Reform must begin There are too many questions unanswered. The only way to answer them is to put the criminal justice system on track on a war footing. Formatting a new criminal law by changing a few old laws here and there is not enough. Every element of the criminal justice system should be reformed. Nineteen years for a decision is meaningless because the punishment has already been given. A prosecution overlooking basic issues is meaningless and an investigation overlooking the simplest of things is not worth it. Reform of the police, the judiciary, the prosecution and prisons cannot wait — we are sitting on a time bomb of people's expectations and frustrations, which may explode anytime. Yashovardhan Azad is a former IPS officer who has served as Central Information Commissioner, Secretary, Security, Government of India and Special Director, Intelligence Bureau
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
BCCI To Become To Come Under New Sports Bill, RTI Scope Narrowed
When Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya introduced the bill in the Lok Sabha on July 23, 2025, it had a sweeping clause stating that 'a recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties, and powers under this Act." However, in a revised version now being circulated among MPs, Clause 15(2) has been altered to state: 'A recognised sports organisation, receiving grants or any other financial assistance from the Central Government… or from a State Government, shall be considered a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005, with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance." This subtle yet impactful shift means that sports bodies, including the BCCI, which operate without any financial assistance from the government, will not fall under the RTI Act—thereby maintaining their operational opacity. In spite of these relaxations, the bill mandates a minimum representation of sportspersons in the executive body of every NSF. This includes two athletes of outstanding merit, two members from the athlete committee, and at least four women—an effort to bring athlete voices into the decision-making process. Despite escaping the RTI net, the BCCI will now have to register itself as a National Sports Federation (NSF)—a first for the influential cricket body. With cricket's inclusion in the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, this registration is now mandatory under the Olympic Charter. This paves the way for India's cricket team to participate officially in Olympic events. Key benefits for BCCI Key benefits for BCCI under the New Legislation include Longer Tenures, Greater Stability, as the proposed bill allows sports administrators to enjoy longer terms, relaxing the current Supreme Court-mandated limits of three terms and a maximum age of 70 years. This is seen as a strategic advantage for India, particularly in securing stronger representation in global bodies like the International Cricket Council (ICC), and aligns with India's long-term Olympic ambitions—including the bid for hosting the 2036 Games. It also streamlined dispute redressal as BCCI-related disputes will now fall under the jurisdiction of the National Sports Tribunal, offering a single-window mechanism for resolution. This change will cut down on litigation in multiple courts and provide a faster route to the Supreme Court for appeals. However, matters falling exclusively under the ICC or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will remain outside the Tribunal's ambit. The BCCI will no longer require the Supreme Court's approval for constitutional amendments—providing flexibility in operations and policy decisions. It can also restructure its Apex Council to align with ICC statutes, without the mandatory inclusion of external members. Though financially self-sufficient, BCCI's recognition as an NSF may make it eligible for certain government benefits, including logistical support for Olympic preparation.
