In your interest.
Online Personal Finance Magazine
No beating about the bush.
To fight injustice in not being given the ‘right’ of forest land, villagers seek justice through ‘Satyagraha’ —fight for truth as they call it, and what better way than using RTI?
That the Right To Information (RTI) Act is a powerful non-violent weapon to fight injustice and knows no discrimination has reflected in the over 700 tribals of Jawhar taluka of Thane district, who have all individually filed RTI applications at the Additional Collector’s office last week.
“Don’t call it protest”, they urge, “filing RTI applications to find out the truth is our Satyagraha.” The information they are demanding revolves around their claims for land ownership which has been approved by their gramsabhas and several committees of the government but is being denied or being given only partially to them by the district collectorate on vague grounds.
What is the Forests Rights Act? As per the official website, http://www.fra.org.in, the definition is, “The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, is a result of the protracted struggle by the marginal and tribal communities of India to assert their rights over the forest land over which they were traditionally dependent. This Act is crucial to the rights of millions of tribals and other forest dwellers in different parts of our country as it provides for the restitution of deprived forest rights across India, including both individual rights to cultivated land in forest land and community rights over common property resources. The notification of rules for the implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, on 1 January 2008, has finally paved the way to undo the ‘historic injustice’ done to the tribals and other forest dwellers.”
Leading social activist of Jawhar, Milind Thatte, who has been crusading for the forest land rights of tribals, inspired and guided them to file RTI applications. States Thatte, “The Forest Rights Act implementation began in January 2008 all across Maharashtra. Village forest rights committees (FRCs) were formed and tribal villagers filed their claims with these committees set up at different levels by the government. The committees verified the claims by spot visits and measurements. The gramsabhas finally approved (or rejected) these claims. The claims were then forwarded to Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) and then to District Level Committee (DLC) presided by the district collectors. The SDLC and DLC were expected to clear the claims within 60 days each. However, the tribal claimants have received their Patta (land title) only after five long years and they have been given only a part of their claim. This has shocked the villagers as no reason has been assigned as to why less land has been given to them despite clearance by committees.”
Thatte is angry that, “many claimants in Jawhar and other tribal areas of the state have received a Patta that shows much lesser area of land than what the farmer is actually tilling and has claimed the right. There are cases where the claimant had attached evidence and a verification report by FRC (Forest Rights Committee) showing five to six acres of land holding, however the government Patta has shown only half or a single acre. The government has not explained to the claimant why this unjust allocation was done.”
According to Section 12(A)10 of the Forest Rights Act, “All decisions of the SDLC and DLC that involve modification or rejection of a gramsaha resolution or recommendation of the SDLC shall give detailed reasons for such modification or rejection, as the case may be:
Provided that no recommendation or rejection of claims shall be merely on any technical or procedural grounds: Provided further that no committee (except the gramsabha or the Forest Rights Committee) at the block or panchayat or forest beat or range level, or any individual officer of any rank shall be empowered to receive claims or reject, modify, or decide any claim on forest rights.” Thatte says the district collector has not followed the right procedure and has taken a haphazard decision in rejecting claims of these tribal villagers, which is in gross violation of the Act.
Thatte and his team trained the villagers to file RTI application giving reference of the Forest Rights Act–Amended Rules of September 2012 and to the ‘proactive disclosure’ Section 4 of the RTI Act which requires that government proactively disclose to the claimant why an adverse decision was taken. Thus, over 700 citizens from 11 villages from Jawhar (viz. Kogda, Hateri, Malghar, Anantnagar, Akre, Kahandolpada, Dhadhri, Dabhosa, Ozar, Vinwal and Dapti) and three villages of Vikramgad (viz. Wehelpada, Dohyachapada, Sawarkhind) have filed RTI applications in a single day at the district collector’s office at Jawhar, last fortnight.
The information they have sought under RTI from the district collector of Jawhar is:
1) Copy of letter, if any, sent to the gramsabha for verification of my claim for my land as per Section 12 A (2);
2) Copy of recommendation made by the Forest Rights Committee or Sub-Divisional level committee to reduce the area of my claim for my land as per Section 12 A (3);
3) Copy of the letter as per Section 12 A (7) letter of rejection or of only partial allotment of land sent to the Gram Sabha; and
4) Copy of the letter sent to me stating the reason for rejection or only partial allotment of my claims to my land.
Last fortnight, villagers made a beeline to the Additional Collector’s office.
Section 12 of the Forest Rights Act:
12 A (6) The SDLC or DLC shall remand the claim to the gramsabha for re-consideration instead of modifying or rejecting the same, in case the resolution or the recommendation of the gramsabha is found to be incomplete or prima-facie requires additional examination.
12(A)7: In cases where the resolution passed by the gramsabha, recommending a claim, with supporting documents and evidence, is upheld by the SDLC with or without modifications, but the same is not approved by the DLC, the DLC shall record detailed reasons for not accepting the recommendations of the gramsabha or the SDLC as the case may be, in writing, and copy of the order of DLC along with the reasons shall be made available to the claimant or the gramsabha or the community as the case may be.
12(A)10 All decisions of the SDLC and DLC that involve modification or rejection of a gramsaha resolution or recommendation of the SDLC shall give detailed reasons for such modification or rejection, as the case may be: Provided that no recommendation or rejection of claims shall be merely on any technical or procedural grounds: Provided further that no committee (except the gramsabha or the Forest Rights Committee) at the block or panchayat or forest beat or range level, or any individual officer of any rank shall be empowered to receive claims or reject, modify, or decide any claim on forest rights.
(Vinita Deshmukh is the consulting editor of Moneylife, 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 and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)
According to an RTI reply, during 2008-09 to 2012-13, the Press Council closed majority of complaints it received against paid news and misleading ads due to non-pursuance and settlement
The Press Council of India has been closing complaints of “paid news” citing non-pursuance by complainants most of the time while some cases of misleading advertisement were closed after settlement, reveals a reply received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal had filed the application. He said, “Both these situations of case-closure because of “non-pursuance” or ‘settlement’ can be the result of still dangerous practice of unethical blackmail—compromise between the complainant and the affected media—body. The Press Council must not close cases once filed with it because of non-pursuance or settlement. Blackmailers unnecessarily harassing media should be booked under some criminal offence in case their complaints are found baseless and frivolous.”
According to the RTI reply, during the last general elections, the Press Council received 17 complaints of paid news from various people and organisations. Out of this, the Council closed nine complaints citing non-pursuance. For the rest, the Council issued warnings to the publications for publishing misleading news, stories and advertisement during 2009-10.
The next year, the Council received just two complaints about paid news. While one complaint was closed citing “outside charter”, the other was closed due to non-pursuance during 2010-11.
Again during 2011-12 the number of complaints increased to 11, out of which just one was closed citing non-pursuance. While one complaint was closed by the Council citing matter sub-judice, in the other nine complaints, it issued mere warnings to the erring publications.
For 2012-13, the Council received nine complaints, out of which five were closed due to non-pursuance, while one was closed citing time bar. Two complaints are still under consideration of the Council.
Similar is the case with misleading advertisements. Between 2008-09 and 2012-13, the Press Council received 38 complaints against alleged misleading ads. In majority of the cases, the Council closed the complaint on non-pursuance, settlement and insufficient ground for an inquiry.
According to Mr Agrawal, the Press Council has not taken cognizance of a media report regarding a stay sought by Om Prakash Chautala, the then chief minister of Haryana, on a TV exposé of the teachers recruitment scam.
“While the Press Council chairperson is dragging himself into jobs not assigned to him like launching pardon-campaigns for selected individuals, the RTI response reveals that the Council has failed in its duty to take cognizance of dragging the media in unnecessarily legal-tangle depriving TV viewers from telecast of eye-opener true episode of “Teachers Recruitment Scam” in Haryana during the regime of Om Prakash Chautala as chief minister,” Mr Agrawal said.
Thousands of under trials, who have completed 50% of their maximum prison term, would get a major relief thanks to the activism of Shailesh Gandhi, former central information commissioner
In a significant order, the Maharashtra state chief information commission (SCIC) has directed prison authorities to display details of under trials who have completed over 50% of the maximum prison term they are liable for. Shailesh Gandhi, former central information commissioner (CIC) had filed the appeal before the SCIC under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
“This will facilitate the prisoners and other activists to get release of such under trials and should go a long way in giving relief to people who were denied their freedom illegally. This order will be applicable in Maharashtra and I hope RTI activists will get such orders issued in all the states,” said Mr Gandhi.
The SCIC passed the order in fulfilment of the Prison department's obligation under Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act. The Commissioner used his powers under Section 19 (8) of the RTI Act and has ordered that this information will have to be displayed on the website and on the notice boards of the prisons before 12 May 2013.
Following refusal by the Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA) to provide information about under trials in prisons in Maharashtra without any valid reasons, Mr Gandhi had filed his second appeal before the State Chief Information Commissioner.
In his second appeal, Mr Gandhi had also requested the State CIC, to direct the PIO to provide the information, penalise the PIO as per provisions of the RTI Act and reprimand the FAA for a casual approach in rejecting a citizen’s fundamental right.
A similar query by Mr Gandhi, around six years ago had led to the release of release of some under trials by the Bombay High Court. In his additional plea before the SCIC, Mr Gandhi said, “Whereas six years back the prison authorities had provided the information without any excuses, the PIO this time directed me to approach 43 different prisons. The First Appellate Authority did a faux pas by claiming exemptions under Section 8 (1) (b), (g) (h) and (j) without even attempting to justify how these would apply. I am sorry, but it appears that in the prison department in Maharashtra there is an unfortunate carelessness and regression in adherence and respect for RTI.”
Earlier in February, the union home ministry told states and Union Territories that under Section 436A of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), an under trial prisoner completing half of the maximum period of imprisonment should be released by the court on his personal bond with or without sureties, with the exception of those involved in heinous crimes.
According to statistics provided by National Crime Records Bureau, as of December 2011, there were 2.41 lakh or 64.7% under trial prisoners out of total 3.32 lakh jail inmates across India. The occupancy rate across all prisons in the country was 112.1% or 3.72 lakh inmates against a capacity of 3.32 jail inmates, the data said.