In your interest.
Online Personal Finance Magazine
No beating about the bush.
After several years of persistent campaign by RTI activist Commodore Lokesh Batra and several RTI activists abroad, the RBI, early this week, has given a “no objection” to the government for the sale of electronic postal orders through credit/debit cards for paying RTI fees. Now the Department of Posts has to quickly find a technology solution
Each time that Vishal Kudchadkar, an RTI (Right to Information) activist from Los Angeles wanted to file a RTI application or file a second appeal to the state chief information commissioner of Maharashtra, he had to seek the help of his family and friends back home in Pune. For hundreds of others residing in various countries abroad, the right to procure information under the RTI Act was denied due to the Indian government’s lethargy in giving a green signal to online payment for the applications.
The victory is almost in sight as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), on 1st March gave its “no objection” to the government. Now, it is for the Department of Posts to stand by its commitment of implementing the electronic postal orders through Axis Bank—a module which it is already familiar with. However, the DoP would have to would have to work on technology solutions to meet the conditions laid down by the RBI.
Delhi-based activist Commodore (Retd.) Lokesh Batra has filed over 150 RTI applications since 2008 to pursue this issue. For this, Commodore Batra sought information on action taken by different government departments, whether it is the ministry of finance, the Department of Personnel and Training (which implements the RTI Act), the Department of Posts (which can make e- payment possible), the National Advisory Council (NAC) and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).
Finally, his relentless efforts bore fruit when on 1st March, the RBI stated in a reply to another of Commodore Batra’s RTI application filed on 15th February this year, asking for the status of the issue of `approval for purchase of Indian postal orders by Indian citizens abroad for RTI fees that it has sent its “no objection letter” to the government.
In a letter dated 3 February 2012 to the ministry of communications & IT, Department of Posts, Anita Kumari, manager of the RBI has stated, “the payment gateway provider will be Axis Bank’’ and “online payments from abroad should be made only through debit and credit cards issued by the bank having affiliations with one of the card payment networks authorised under the PSS Act 2007”.
Mr Kudchadkar stated enthusiastically that, “we have been working very closely with Lokesh sir on this issue. All kudos to him for doggedly carrying forward a fight, we started, to its conclusion. Without him I don’t think we would have been able to navigate the bureaucratic hoops. This process started almost four years ago and finally we see the light at the end of the tunnel. We are excited to finally be able to exercise our right to seek information!”
Another RTI activist from the US, Somu Kumar stated, “We are ecstatic that finally Indian government has taken action on a long-standing demand of Indians living abroad, which was to establish a proper and easy mechanism for us to seek information from our government. We have so far been stone-walled by the Indian embassies and consulates from actively seeking information by using various excuses but finally we hope this new announcement will end the difficulty and allow free flow of information.”
Not ready to give it up until the ‘actual’ implementation, Commodore Batra predictably has dashed off a letter on 6th March to Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications & Information Technology, seeking his intervention in expediting the issue of electronic Indian postal orders (IPOs) to help Indian citizens abroad to make online payments for RTI application. He says, “It’s not a complete victory unless Department of Posts implements it”.
So, what would this mean for the Indians living abroad? They would be required to log on to the Department of Posts website and then register (if it is his or her first time) and click on the “RTI counter”. He/she would have to upload passport copy after filling the RTI application. Then he/she would require to pay the fees through the electronic postal order. Thereafter, the RTI application would be sent to the relevant public information officer of the department that the applicant is seeking information from. The CPIO can verify the IPO number by logging on to the ePO portal.
Way back on 4 February 2011, Commodore Batra found out under a RTI reply that the Department of Posts had written to the RBI stating, “The Department of Posts has developed a portal called ‘e-portal’ office. We have received a reference from the secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, requesting to include a provision for the purchase of Indian postal orders by Indian citizens living abroad to enable them to seek information under the RTI Act, 2005. The challenge faced by the Indian citizens is in remitting the prescribed fee for seeking information as per the specified mode of the Act. The post office can provide a solution to this challenge, since the Indian postal order is one of the most prescribed modes of payment under the RTI Act. To put a system in place to facilitate this, we would require clearance to accept credit card/debit card for online payment from abroad through e-portal.'”
Further, RTI documents revealed that the Department of Posts had also written to the RBI on 15 March 2011 stating that Axis Bank has been accepted as the “payment gateway provider'” for such online payments.
However, the RBI in its reply on 15 June 2011 to Commodore Batra’s RTI query on the status of letters from the Department of Posts said quite ridiculously, “The RBI has not taken a final decision on the request of the Department of Posts. As such this information cannot be given as per Section 8 of the RTI Act.'”
Commodore Batra steered the campaign for Indians abroad, when he had a personal experience in 2008 when he was in the US. The date for his appeal before the Information Commission in Delhi was fixed while he was abroad, and then chief information commissioner, Dr Wajahat Habibullah, allowed the hearing through audio-conferencing. However, when he began to ask about regular RTI applications filed from the US, he found that Indians there faced many hurdles.
The Indian embassy in Washington put its hands up, saying that it could only accept RTI applications pertaining to queries related to its office, or at the most those related to the ministry of external affairs. Indians tried to impress upon the embassy that under Section 6(3) it is the duty of the PIO to forward applications not relevant to him, to the concerned departments. But the embassy refused to take responsibility. This triggered off his campaign.
He was joined by activists abroad. In 2010, a delegation of US-based Indian activists submitted their petition to prime minister Manmohan Singh, carrying 316 signatures from Indians residing in Australia, Burundi, Canada, Dubai, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Holland, Japan, Kuwait, Maldives, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa, UAE, the UK and the US. However, the PMO was silent on this issue (not surprising).
My earlier article on the same topic: Indians living abroad keen to use RTI, but the government isn’t making it easier
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte. She can be reached at [email protected])
Former bureaucrats, activists, write to PM on his “foreign hand” charge against anti-nuclear and anti-GM crop agitations. They ask him to take cognisance of the issues that are being raised by the agitators
The prime minister’s hard selling of the nuclear plants and genetically modified crops hasn’t gone down well with citizens and activists. But now with Dr Manmohan Singh invoking the “foreign hand” to discredit popular agitations against these issues has raised the ire of many former bureaucrats and administrators, who have written to the prime minister, protesting against his remarks. They have asked him to formulate an inclusive policy with participation from activist groups and citizens.
The letter, dated 5th March, says, “We urge the UPA government to initiate a truly inclusive process of deliberations with all stake-holders in civil society to help formulate a rational public policy with regard to both the nuclear power sector and GM crops.”
The letter has been signed by former Supreme Court judge Krishna Swamy Iyer; Dr A Gopalakrishnan, former chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board; EAS Sarma, former Union power secretary; Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, former chief of Naval Staff, Mumbai and JM Lyngdoh, former chief election commissioner. Many activists, namely Medha Patkar, Prashant Bhushan, Aruna Roy and Aruna Rodrigues; who has filed a PIL in Supreme Court against BT brinjal, have also shown their support.
The writers have protested against the prime minister’s comments on the popular agitations. “You choose to resurrect the old bogeyman of a “foreign hand”, this time pointing to external funding of NGOs to oppose Indian development, as if they are operating to undermine the nation’s interest. This we feel, is a highly inappropriate misrepresentation of facts. In reality, what we are all fighting against is indeed is a foreign hand operating at the behest of and from within your government, supported by Indian and foreign commercial entities to corporatize Indian agriculture and the energy sector. Your remarks, in essence, indict every signatory to this letter.”
The letter raises several concerns about the GM crops and the nuclear power plants that the government seems adamant on pushing, regardless of protests. The letter has said that the BT brinjal, which has been developed and self-validated by Monsanto, the world’s leading agricultural biotech company, needs to be authenticated by an independent authority. The GM crops’ introduction is being helmed by KIA (Indo-US Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture).
“India is singled out for the commercialisation of GM crops by the US and Monsanto— an objective that is actively facilitated by the Indian regulators. This is well attested to in court documents. The official push for GM in Indian agriculture means that we are the only country extensively testing untested GM crops in open field trials in virtually all our food, with great risk of contamination. In the matter of brinjal, Monsanto stands accused by the NBA (National Biodiversity Authority) of pirating an Indian brinjal gene,” the signatories have said.
Incidentally, studies by the UNO, the World Watch Institute of the World Bank and IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) have termed GM-crops as ‘insufficient and unsustainable’.
The signatories have also pointed out the safety and environmental concerns that prevail regarding nuclear plants. While most Western countries had started decommissioning nuclear plants after the Fukushima disaster, many countries have announced all existing projects will be phased out and efforts will be directed towards harnessing non-conventional, non-polluting sources of energy; and Germany has been the most notable example. However, the Indian government has been pushing for facilities in Jaitapur and Kudunkulam, and the crackdown on the local people and agitators has been severe.
The writers of the letter have pointed out that there has been no independent environment impact assessment of the projects, and safety issues have been left unaddressed. They have accused the government of failing to evolve any comprehensive energy policy, and of being hand-in-glove with foreign MNCs who have been pushed out of their own country. They have denounced the EIA reports on Units 1 and 2 of the Kudunkulam plant as ‘sketchy’, and have pointed out that the execution of the project is riddled with procedural and contractual flaws.
“By acceding to importing reactors and fuel on such a large scale from France and other countries, has the government not jeopardised India’s national, and especially energy, security? Evidently, foreign reactor suppliers themselves are not as confident as the PM seems to be of the safety of their own reactors and want the Indian taxpayer to bear what could be an astronomical part of the liability in case of a nuclear accident,” the letter says.
The letter has asked the prime minister to take cognisance of the issues being raised; and has asked him to act urgently on the matter. They said, “Several important communications have been submitted to you in writing over the last two to three years, without even the courtesy of an acknowledgement from the PMO. The evidence, which has been offered on the significant gaps in safety and liability surrounding both these technologies by well-informed and deeply concerned individuals and groups in the nation’s interest, has not been seen by you, or else you would surely have taken cognisance of it.”
A mobile subscriber who has applied for MNP will not be allowed to withdraw his request after 24 hours. This will help subscribers who are often denied porting by mobile operator for sundry reasons
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has asked donor operators (DO) not to entertain subscribers’ pleas for withdrawing their mobile number portability (MNP) requests. The move follows the regulator’s observation of a high cancellation rate in MNP requests by these operators. Experts have welcomed the move emphasising the need to streamline process for MNP and feel that now onwards subscribers would also think twice before applying for portability.
MNP allows customer to ports out from an existing provider, known as DO, to new a service provider, known as recipient operator (RO), while retaining the same mobile number.
According to the recent notification, if a customer wants to withdraw his porting request, he can approach the RO within 24 hours filing the request.
TRAI’s direction says that, “The authority... hereby directs all cellular mobile telephone service providers and unified access service providers, acting as donor operators, not to entertain any request from the subscriber for cancellation or withdrawal of porting request and not to reject a porting request except on the grounds mentioned under Section 12 of the Telecommunications Mobile Number Portability Regulations.”
Experts point out that DO, in order to retain their customers, often delay in implementing the MNP request. Achintya Mukherjee, secretary, Bombay Telephone Users Association (BTUA), says, “This is good a move as DOs always lure the porting out customers by promising to resolve all their issues. But once the subscribers agrees to stay and cancels his MNP request, the DOs, ignores him as has been observed in many cases in the past. ROs, in my view, are always happy to receive more subscribers. In fact subscribers only wants to port out if they are unhappy with the services. It may be beneficial for them but they need to be sure of porting out.”
Speaking with Moneylife, Rajan Matthews, director general, Cellular Operators Association of India, said that, “The regulator explaining the original MNP regulation has now made it clear that the DO cannot entertain the MNP cancellation or withdrawal request. However, the customer has a choice to withdraw his/her MNP request by approaching the receipting operator (RO) within 24 hours. The entire process of MNP needs to be streamlined. We are constantly in touch with the regulator and the service providers. In the end, we want the customer to be benefited.”
TRAI has clarified that DOs cannot reject the MNP request except in some cases such as where there is outstanding payment due from the subscribers, if the MNP application is made within 90 days of activating new mobile connection, mismatch of unique porting number or if the subscriber has not complied with the exit clause in the contractual agreement.