Latest news with #RighttoInformationAct
Hans India
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Hans India
CIC tells officers to promptly respond to RTI queries
Hyderabad: State Chief Information Commissioner Chandrasekhar Reddy instructed the Public Information Officers to stop rejecting the applications from people without giving any valid reasons. RTI Commissioners Desham Bhupal, B Ayodhya Reddy, PV Srinivas Rao, Mohsin Parveen, Merla Vaishnavi visited Medak district and held a meeting with officials on Tuesday. State Chief Information Commissioner Chandrasekhar Reddy said that the RTI Act was implemented with the aim of ensuring that the public information officers should have complete understanding of the act, implementation of government schemes, utilization of funds and eradication of corruption. He said that the public information officers should develop a comprehensive understanding by reading the sections and subsections thoroughly. It is commendable that there are no cases in 15 of the 29 government departments in the state. 18,000 cases were pending with the Right to Information Act Commission in the state due to the fact that the information was not made available to the public in the last ten years. He said that people should provide information within 30 days of applying for information and that citizen charter boards should be set up at every government office. RTI Act applications should not be rejected without giving reasonable reasons. Since the Right to Information Act is available, everyone should take responsibility and provide information to the public as soon as possible, Reddy said. The RTI Chief Commissioner said that the Commission will resolve all pending cases in August and move forward with new applications. Steps have been taken to completely resolve the cases of 30 departments in two months and there should be zero cases. He said that 11 districts have been selected and awareness among the public information officers through the Right to Information Act has been raised and that the sections of the act are being explained in full. He said that they should come forward to provide information to everyone. He said that 17 departments out of 22 districts will show solutions to all the cases by next March and provide information. He said that the awareness conference will be very useful in bringing the hidden system forward with new enthusiasm and increasing accountability to the people.
Hamilton Spectator
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Advocate hopes review of N.B. right-to-information law strengthens legislation
FREDERICTON - Experts on government transparency are hoping a review of New Brunswick's right-to-information law — ranked as one of the worst in Canada — makes it easier for the public to access documents and records. The Liberal government has asked for public submissions on its election promise to modernize legislation governing the public's right to obtain information from provincial departments and agencies. The Centre for Law and Democracy last year ranked New Brunswick's freedom-to-information system as one of the two worst in Canada, along with Alberta's. Residents who are denied access to a government document or record can appeal to New Brunswick's information commissioner. But Toby Mendel, director of the law and democracy centre, said in an interview Tuesday a key weakness is that the information commissioner can only recommend that a department or agency release information. Citizens are then forced into expensive court proceedings when governments don't comply. Mendel said he hopes New Brunswick will consider an appeal system like Newfoundland and Labrador's, where the onus is on departments and agencies to go to court if they wish to reject the commissioner's recommendations. 'In Newfoundland and Labrador, when the commissioner makes a decision, the public body either has to follow that decision or go to court to contest it … We believe it is a good model for small jurisdictions like New Brunswick,' Mendel said. The Newfoundland and Labrador model is mentioned in New Brunswick's discussion paper on its existing information legislation. The paper provides questions for the Liberal government to consider, including if some of the exemptions that departments can use to refuse document requests need to be dropped or revised. The law and democracy centre says exemptions are too numerous and too broad. 'We see a lot of exceptions (to releasing information) that are on the face of it illegitimate,' Mendel said. New Brunswick's Green Leader David Coon says the province's Right to Information Act has 'degenerated' over the past 15 years. One of the more problematic changes to the law, Coon said, is the restriction that government records that include 'advice' to a minister can no longer be requested by the public. For example, he said, the work that consultants do for government, or reports to departments, can be interpreted as 'advice' to a minister. That change, he said, 'has been used extensively to keep lots of documents … a lot of reports, secret.' Nicole O'Byrne, an associate professor at University of New Brunswick's faculty of law, called the existing access to information system in New Brunswick 'slow and cumbersome,' adding that it can require months to appeal a decision. Government departments and agencies are often swamped by broad requests for information, which can take long to process, she added. She also suggested that departments and agencies be proactive and release more information without the need for the public to make formal requests to access it. O'Byrne commended the provincial government for its review. 'Citizens have every right to demand accountability from their elected representatives. This is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 29, 2025. — By Michael Tutton in Halifax and Hina Alam in Fredericton. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Winnipeg Free Press
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Advocate hopes review of N.B. right-to-information law strengthens legislation
FREDERICTON – Experts on government transparency are hoping a review of New Brunswick's right-to-information law — ranked as one of the worst in Canada — makes it easier for the public to access documents and records. The Liberal government has asked for public submissions on its election promise to modernize legislation governing the public's right to obtain information from provincial departments and agencies. The Centre for Law and Democracy last year ranked New Brunswick's freedom-to-information system as one of the two worst in Canada, along with Alberta's. Residents who are denied access to a government document or record can appeal to New Brunswick's information commissioner. But Toby Mendel, director of the law and democracy centre, said in an interview Tuesday a key weakness is that the information commissioner can only recommend that a department or agency release information. Citizens are then forced into expensive court proceedings when governments don't comply. Mendel said he hopes New Brunswick will consider an appeal system like Newfoundland and Labrador's, where the onus is on departments and agencies to go to court if they wish to reject the commissioner's recommendations. 'In Newfoundland and Labrador, when the commissioner makes a decision, the public body either has to follow that decision or go to court to contest it … We believe it is a good model for small jurisdictions like New Brunswick,' Mendel said. The Newfoundland and Labrador model is mentioned in New Brunswick's discussion paper on its existing information legislation. The paper provides questions for the Liberal government to consider, including if some of the exemptions that departments can use to refuse document requests need to be dropped or revised. The law and democracy centre says exemptions are too numerous and too broad. 'We see a lot of exceptions (to releasing information) that are on the face of it illegitimate,' Mendel said. New Brunswick's Green Leader David Coon says the province's Right to Information Act has 'degenerated' over the past 15 years. One of the more problematic changes to the law, Coon said, is the restriction that government records that include 'advice' to a minister can no longer be requested by the public. For example, he said, the work that consultants do for government, or reports to departments, can be interpreted as 'advice' to a minister. That change, he said, 'has been used extensively to keep lots of documents … a lot of reports, secret.' Nicole O'Byrne, an associate professor at University of New Brunswick's faculty of law, called the existing access to information system in New Brunswick 'slow and cumbersome,' adding that it can require months to appeal a decision. Government departments and agencies are often swamped by broad requests for information, which can take long to process, she added. She also suggested that departments and agencies be proactive and release more information without the need for the public to make formal requests to access it. O'Byrne commended the provincial government for its review. 'Citizens have every right to demand accountability from their elected representatives. This is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 29, 2025. — By Michael Tutton in Halifax and Hina Alam in Fredericton.
Indian Express
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Gujarat HC directs state education board to clearly specify questions meant for visually impaired students in Class 10, 12 exams
The Gujarat High Court has directed the state Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board (GSHSEB) to ensure that henceforth, question papers for Class 10 and 12 Board examinations will clearly specify which questions are to be answered by visually impaired students and by regular students. Justice Nikhil S Kariel, in the order issued on the writ petition on July 7, observed, 'The marks of 10th standard examination, though very important to a student, would not be the criteria for any future admission (except for standard 11) or any future employment. After the 10th board results were released and the students, including the petitioner, had joined new academic courses, it would not be in the larger public interest to interfere in the present petition.' The petitioner Mohammed Afzal Shaikh, on behalf of his daughter Aasiyabanu Shaikh, who studies at a private school in Surat, said the girl had appeared for her Class 10 exams in March this year, in which she opted for Basic Mathematics. She cleared the exams with a B1 grade. In Basic Mathematics, she scored 59 out of 80 marks and an overall 77 out of 100 marks. The petition states that after getting the Basic Mathematics examination paper, Aasiyabanu was confused as questions also appeared in sections B and C, which contained sections for visually impaired students. Each question carried 2 to 4 marks. She complained about this to her father. Following this, Shaikh filed a writ petition with the Gujarat High Court challenging the actions, arbitrary and negligent conduct of the State Board for having ambiguous information in the question paper, causing significant confusion among students. Aasiyabanu, the plea said, inadvertently answered questions meant specifically for visually impaired (blind) students, relying solely on her general understanding. Several other students too were misled and answered questions intended for visually impaired students. Despite Aasiyabanu's father submitting a detailed representation and a subsequent application under the Right to Information Act (RTI), there was no positive response. In the petition, Shaikh had sought directions to the respondents to re-evaluate Aasiyabanu's Basic Mathematics answer sheet, taking into account the confusion caused due to the defective question paper and appropriately revise the results. The petitioner's lawyer Dr Rafik Lokhandwala, in his representations to the court, said the issue occurred in part-B of the question paper. The same issue had occurred in the Class 12 question paper, he said. Public Prosecutor Aditya Pathak argued that the petitioner is presently studying in Class 11 in the Commerce stream and it is not the case that the petitioner, due to lack of marks, could not get appropriate admission to some other stream. Taking the arguments into consideration, the court observed, 'The petitioner had not suffered any real substantial prejudice on account of the error which may have been committed by the respondent Board. While the petitioner may have a case against the respondent Board, public interest and equity demand that there should not be any interference in the present petition.' 'The list of instructions contained in the question paper does not specify whether the questions preceding or following the instructions are for visually impaired students. Thus, a reasonable doubt would be caused in anyone's mind, more particularly a student appearing in the 10th standard examination, as to whether the instructions would be relatable to the preceding questions or later questions,' it added. Issuing a direction to the Board, the court said it has to 'ensure that for examinations held in future, both for standard 10th and 12th, the list of instructions preceding the actual questions shall specifically state that the questions are only to be attended by the visually impaired students. Furthermore, the general instructions in the body of the question paper shall also specifically mention the question numbers which are for the students having visual impairment.' Speaking to The Indian Express, B N Rajgor, Joint Director, GSHSEB, said, 'Generally, we set a common Board examination paper for visually impaired and general students. This time, the instructions were in the middle, and the questions appeared after the instructions for visually impaired students. Now, we will give more clarity in our Board examination papers.' Aasiyabanu's father, Afzal Shaikh, said, 'Now the mistake of the Board will be rectified in future board exams of Class 10 and 12, after the court's order. My act will benefit lakhs of students appearing in future Board exams.'
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Sports bill: Govt should guard against overreach
Secondly, the Bill would also bring the National Sports Board (NSB) under the ministry's scanner. The Board will have sweeping powers to recognise and monitor sports bodies. However, there's the risk of government overreach because the ministry is empowered to select the Board members. Then there is the matter of the government, which controls the source of funding and, to some extent, regulates sports bodies through the Sports Authority of India (SAI). Aligning with the sports code hasn't significantly changed the situation. A contentious issue relates to the recognition of an NSF. International Federation statutes and recognition govern them, and if an NSF has adequate funding, it can ignore any recognition issue. However, much debate centred on the BCCI's fate. The Bill has provisions that could allow BCCI to wriggle through, although technically it should follow the law of the land (and come under NSB). An argument in BCCI's favour is that it's a well-run, money-making organisation which, unlike other NSFs, doesn't depend on government funds. However, the sticky point is the BCCI's reluctance to be brought under the Right to Information Act. It is to be seen how the ministry handles the matter, given the cricket body's influence and reach. For now, the hope is that the sports bill ushers in positive change, discouraging government overreach, as India bids for the 2036 Olympic Games.
