Thursday, May 31, 2012

ROLE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS


ROLE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS
3.1. Duties and Responsibilities
3.1.1. Public Information Officers, at Central and State level, as the case may be are
designated in all administrative units and offices  of public authority to provide
information to persons requesting for the information under the Act. They are to
be designated within 100 days of the enactment of the Act.
3.1.2. Assistant Public Information Officers are designated at each sub-divisional/subdistrict level to receive applications and appeals  for passing them on to the
concerned PIOs and Appellate Authority respectively. This ensures that the public
can apply for information in their own local areas.
3.1.3. The PIOs are expected to deal with the requests for information and also provide
'reasonable' assistance to those needing the same.
3.1.4. The PIO may seek the assistance of another officer for the discharge of his/her
duties. In such eventually, the other officer would be treated as a PIO, under sec 5
(5) of the Act.
3.1.5. The Public Information Officer's duties include:
- Dealing with the requests from persons seeking information and where the  
requests cannot be made in writing, to render reasonable assistance to the person
making the request orally to reduce the same in writing.
-  If the information requested for is held by or is a subject matter closely connected
with the functions of another authority, the PIO shall transfer, within five days
that request to the other public authority and inform the applicant immediately.
-  Any PIO may seek the assistance of any other officer for the proper discharge of
his/her duties.
-  Any PIO, on receipt of the request, shall as expeditiously as possible, and in any
case within 30 days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on
payment of such fee as may be prescribed along with the application or reject the
request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 or 9.
- Where the information requested concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same
shall be provided within 48 hours of the receipt of the request.
- Where a request has been rejected, the PIO shall communicate to the applicant,
the reasons for such rejection, the period within which the appeal against such
rejection may be preferred, and the particulars of the Appellate Authority.
-  PIO shall provide information in the form in which it is sought unless it would
disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be
detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.
- In allowing partial access, the PIO shall give a notice to the applicant, informing: 2
1) That only part of the record, after severance of the record containing
information which is exempted from disclosure, is being provided.
2) The reasons for the decisions, including any findings on any material,
question of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based.
3) The name and designation of the person giving the information
4) The details of the fees calculated and the amount of fee which the applicant is
required to deposit etc.
-  If information sought has been supplied by third part or is treated as confidential
by a third party, the PIO shall give a written notice to third party within 5 days
from the receipt of the request and take its representation into consideration.
- Third party must be given a chance to make a  representation before the PIO
within 10 days from the date of receipt of such notice.
3.2. Onus on the PIO
3.2.1. The total onus rests with the PIO in providing the information sought within the
stipulated period of 30 days. He is the interface between the citizen and the
organisation
3.2.2. The applicant could be aggrieved
(i) in the way the information is provided;
(ii) the reasons for rejection of the application;
(iii) time involved in the supply of requisite information;
(iv) the quantum of amount charged as fees for supply the information and he
can, thus, go in appeal to the Appellate Authority  and later, if still not
satisfied, to the Information Commission in second appeal
3.2.3. Depending on the findings and the decisions taken, the penalty is levied on the
PIO only
3.2.4. The burden is on the PIO to prove that he acted reasonably and diligently, before
the Information Commission. He has to support the same with documentary
evidence.
3.3. Understanding of the Information
3.3.1. 'Information' means any material in any form including records, documents,
memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases,  circulars, orders, log-books,
contracts, reports, 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. 3
3.3.2. The word 'material' is an all-inclusive term. The Act provides total and complete
right to 'information' and not to 'records' or 'documents' only. It permits the public
to inspect public works and also take samples of material.
3.3.3. As far as private bodies are concerned, seeking of information from such bodies is
limited to the statutory information which they are supposed to provide to any
public authority under any law.
3.3.4. Any information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or the State
Legislature has to be provided by the PIO to the person seeking that information.
3.3.5. Except in the case of trade or commercial secrets, protected by law, the PIO may
allow disclosures to the public, if the public interest in the disclosure outweighs
in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of the third party.
3.4. Getting Set
3.4.1. The Public Information Officer is the most important functionary in the scheme of
things. The responsibility of the success of the Right to Information Act largely
rests on him. The PIOs have to be in position latest by 100 days of the enactment
of the Act and set to start performance when the full Act comes into force on 12
th
October, 2005.
3.4.2. The PIOs should be ready with the following:
• Information to be made available electronically.
• Information proactively published by the public authority.
• Full details of the organisation
• Details about the Appellate Authorities
• The contact details of the other PIOs and APIOs
• Proforma of the receipt of the application
• The forms for receipt of fees and Acknowledgement.
• Proper seating arrangements for easy accessibility.
• Register for receipt, acknowledgements-separately for inward and outward
and roznama.
• Checklist  for monitoring the pendency, disposal of the applications.
• Identify place for inspection of records/taking samples
• Fix a day in the week for the above.
• Ready with the contingency plan.
3.5. Procedure and Steps Involved
3.5.1. Procedure to be followed by the Information officer right from the stage of receipt
of application for information till the disposal involves a number of steps. The
time stipulated for completing these steps are: 4
30 days  for providing information or for rejection for providing partial
information/organise inspection of the materials/sample etc.
35 days From the time of application is received by the Assistant PIO and
finally disposed off.
40 days If a third party is involved.
3.5.2. Procedural channel may briefly be indicated as:-
1. PIO receives application along with the application fee.
2. PIO scrutinizes the application received and the fees.
3. If required he renders reasonable assistance to the applicant by reducing the
oral request in writing.
4. Issues acknowledgement/receipt to the applicant.
5. Transfers the application/part of it to another public authority.
6. Informs the applicant about such transfers.
7. Makes necessary entries in the Special Register.
8. Considers the representations of the third party, if any.
9. In case of rejections, conveys reason for it, the period within which the
appeal may be preferred and the details of the Appellate Authority.
10. Communicates to the applicant the fee amount to be  paid along with its
calculations
11. Also intimates the right of the applicant for review the fees charged.
12. Wherever required provides assistance for inspection of the material.
13. Waives fees for citizens below 'Poverty line/information given beyond the
estimated time period.
14. Retains record on each application, updates records etc.
3.5.3. The PIO needs to constantly keep in view:
• The information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or the State
Legislature should not be denied to any citizen
• Notwithstanding the exemptions permissible under the Act, access to
information is allowed, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm
to the protected interest.
• Right to Information Act, 2005 overrides the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
• Any material relating to occurrence, event or matter, which has taken
place, occurred or happened up to twenty years before the date of the
application has to be proved to the applicant.
• Access to information should not involve an infringement of copyright
subsisting in a person other than the state.
3.6. Formats for Use
3.6.2. In implementing the Act the concerned parties have  to prepare formats for
different areas. If all the States could formulate common formats, it could help in
easy checks and monitoring. They could be same or similar to those which the
Central Government may develop for use by Central PIOs. 5
3.6.3. They would be required for application for information, formats for proactive
disclosure, formats for directly of PIOs and APIOs, formats for Special Registers,
formats for conveying rejections, formats for informing the quantum of fees,
formats for conveying the rights of the Public to appeal etc.
3.6.4. The specimen of Formats in this connection could be:
(a) Application for Information
(b) Directory of PIOs, APIOs, and the Appellate Authorities
Name of the Public Authority
i. Sr No Name & Address of PIOs Areas of Information
ii. Sr No Name & Address of APIOs Areas of Information
iii. Sr No Name & Address of officers designated as PIOs
Inward/Outward Registers
Sr
No
Date of
receipt of
Application
Name
and
Address
of
Applicant
Subject/Area Third
Party
Decision
on Supply
of
Information
Supply of
Information/Rejection
with date
     
The Public Information Officer
(Designation and Address)
1. Name of the Applicant
2. Address
3. Particulars of Information (in brief)
a. Subject/area
b. Category of document, if published
c. Specific periods for which the information is required
d. The language in which it is required
e. To be posted or will be collected
f. Application fee accompanied: Yes/No
Place
Date Signature6
(c) 'Rejection' Communication
(d) Fees for Provision of Information
3.7. Dealing with the APIOs and Other Departments
3.7.1. The PIO has to keep in constant touch with the APIOs. The APIOs are there to
avoid traveling of the public seeking information from the district, sub-district to
the place of posting of the PIOs. Where an application or an appeal is received by
the APIO, a period of 5 days is added in computing the period for response. The
APIOs job is that of a postman. He does not directly deal with any of the
applications.
3.7.2. The APIOs need to inform the PIO from time to time, about the status of the
application where information is provided, where information is denied, the fees
charged and the basis for the same etc. along with  the data on applications
wherein the action taken has exceeded the prescribed time limit etc.
3.7.3. The formats for the various forms, registers etc could be improved upon over a
period of time with due deliberations with the APIOs.
1. Name of the Applicant and Address
2. Date of receipt of Application
3. Grounds for rejection
4. Applicants right for review of the decision
5. Particulars of senior officer i.e. Appellate Authority
6. Particulars of Information Commissioner
7. Time limit for Appeal
Place
Date              Signature of PIO
1. Name of the Applicant and Address
2. Fees for supply of Information
3. Basis for calculation
4. Last date for payment
5. Mode of payment
6. Appellate authority for review on fees
7. Time limit for appeal
Place
Date                  Signature of PIO 7
3.7.4. The PIO may transfer the requests for information either in totality or partially to
another organisation/department if the subject matter pertains to the other
department. Similarly an information officer could get a request transferred to him
from another organisation/department. In both the cases, a period of 5 days is
added in computing the period of response.
3.7.5. The responsibility of the PIO does not cease when a request is transferred to
another public authority, while transferring he has to concurrently inform the
applicant about the same. He would also require to keep a record of transfer in his
outward register for future reference and monitoring.
3.7.6. The coordination between the two public authorities in such cases would also
enable the concerned PIO to picture the correct position before the Appellate
Authorities or Information Commission, as the case may be, when the applicant
prefers appeal.
3.8. Right of the Citizen
3.8.1. With the Right to Information Act, 2005 in place disclosure is a rule and secrecy
or exemption is an exception. The Act also enables principle of Human Right to
be realised.
3.8.2. The Act confers a right to 'Information' and not just 'records' or 'documents'.
"Information" again stands for any material. It permits the inspection including
taking of samples by a citizen.
3.8.3. An individual's right to privacy is protected in the Act. The privacy exemption
included in the Act reflects underlying public interest in protecting personal
privacy.
3.8.4. Keeping the importance attached to the citizens Right to Information, the Act bars
the courts from entertaining any suit application or other proceeding in respect of
any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question
otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.
3.8.5. Seeking information is citizens right and an applicant making a request for
information cannot be asked to give any reason for requesting the information or
any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting that
applicant.
3.8.6. There could be situation where an applicant has multiplicity of questions in a
single request. It could also be possible some of the questions may pertain to the
areas allocated to other PIOs. Can he request the applicant to make more than one
application and give them to the concerned PIOs and await responses from each
one of them? The negotiating skill of the PIO, would play an important part to 8
ensure that he does not become a mere 'Postman' and send copies of the request to
others, await their responses for consolidation and then finally respond to the
applicant.
3.9. Types of Help to be Extended to The Citizen
3.9.1. Every PIO is expected to deal with the requests from persons working information
and render reasonable assistance to the person seeking such information
3.9.2. The help from the PIO could be in any form as below:
• Where a citizen is enable to make a request in writing the PIO will render
assistance to the person making the request orally  to reduce the same in
writing;
• Where the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person the PIO
will take all steps to provide the required information within 48 hours of
receipt of such request.
• When the person to whom the access to record is to be provided is sensorily
disabled, the PIO should provide assistance to enable access to the
information, including such assistance appropriate for the inspection.
• The PIO will not charge fee for providing information to persons who are
below the 'poverty line'.
• When the right includes inspection of records, the PIO will reserve place and
time for such inspection. Necessary arrangements have to be done to ensure
the citizen can carry out the inspection without any disturbance or distraction.
• PIO would also make necessary arrangements for giving material samples,
wherever required.
3.10. Time frame
3.10.1. "Justice delayed is justice denied". There should not be undue delay in providing
information sought by the Public. The Act, therefore, stipulates time limits for
supply of information. If the requisite information is not provided to the applicant
within the stipulated period, the applicant can prefer an appeal against it.
3.10.2. In the event of above, the Information Commission would impose a penalty of
Rs.250/- per day (beyond the stipulated time limit) till application is received or
information is furnished. However, the total amount of such penalty shall not
exceed Rs.25000/-. The Information Commission could also recommend
disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules applicable  to him.
3.10.3. Every public authority is required to designate information officer within 100
days of the enactment of the Act. The time limits prescribed in regard to the
supply of information etc. are: 9
• 30 days- On receipt of a request for information, the PIO has either to
provide information of such fees as prescribed or reject the
request with reasons for the same.
• 48 hours- If the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a
person the same has to be provided immediately, in any case,
within 48 hours.
• 5 days- Where PIO intends to disclose any information which relates
to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated
as confidential by it, the PIO has to give a written notice to
such third party and to invite the third party to make a
submission.
• 10 days- for third party to make a submission.
• 35 days- An additional 5 days are added if the application for
information is received by the APIO.
• 35 days- Similarly an additional 5 days are added if the subjected of the
application pertains to another organisation/department
3.11. Exemptions
3.11.1. There is no obligation to give any citizen the following:
a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty
and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests
of the State, relation with the foreign State or lead to incitement of an
offence.
b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any
court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute the
contempt of court.
c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of
 Parliament or State Legislature.
d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual
property the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a
third party, unless the Competent Authority is satisfied that larger Public
interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the
Competent Authority is satisfied that larger Public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information.
f) Information received in confidence from a foreign Government.
g) Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical
safety of any person or identity the source of information or assistance given
in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.
h) Information which would impede the process of investigation or
 apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
i) Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of
 Ministers, Secretaries and Other officers. 10
j) Information, which relates to personal information the disclosure of which
has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
3.11.2. Not withstanding any of the exemptions listed above a public authority may allow
access to information, if Public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the
protected interest.
3.11.3. Finally, PIO can reject a request for information where such a request for
providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a
person other than the State.
3.11.4. The Act also does not apply to the intelligence and Security Organisations
specified in Second Schedule to the Act. However,   information pertaining to
allegations of corruptions and human rights violation in the organisations is not
excluded.
3.12. Third Party Information
3.12.1. "Third Party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for
information and includes a public authority.
3.12.2. If the information sought by the citizen pertains to a record or part thereof relates
or has been supplied by the third party and if it is not treated as confidential by
that third party, the PIO is at liberty to provide the same to the applicant.
3.12.3. If, however such above information is treated as "confidential" by that third party,
the following steps have to be taken:
• The PIO gives a written notice to the third party, within 5 days of receipt of
the application, and conveys his intention to disclose the information or record
etc. He also asks the third party to make a submission regarding whether the
information should be disclosed or not.
• The third party should, within 10 days from the date of receipt of notice from
 the PIO, make a representation against the proposed disclosure.
• The PIO can, within 40 days after the receipt of application for information if
the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation, make a
decision on disclosure.
• Third party is entitled to prefer an appeal against the decision of the PIO.
3.12.4. Except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosures in
such cases may be allowed, if the Public interest in disclosure outweighs the
importance of any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party. 11
3.12.5. If the third party is a private individual, the PIO has to be very cautious and
property weigh the consequences as Right to privacy of private individual is
equally important and protected.
3.13. Rejections and Steps Involved
3.13.1. The PIO is required under the Act to either provide the information, on payment
of the requisite fee or reject the request within 30 days of the receipt of the
request.
3.13.2. Grounds on which the PIO may reject the request for information are enumerated
in Sections, 8 & 9 of the Act. (The grounds are given under 'exemptions' at para
3.11.1 to 3.11.4. of the Handbook).
3.13.3. Where a request has been rejected, the following steps are involved:
• Within 30 days of the receipt of the request the PIO will communicate the
decision to the person making the request along with:
i)  the reasons for rejection
ii)  the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred
   (within 30 days of the date of the rejection)
iii) the particulars of the Appellate Authority  
• Within 90 days from the date on which the decision should have been made or
was actually received a second appeal can be preferred with the concerned
Information Commission.
• If a third party is involved the concerned Information Commission shall give a
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the third party.
• The onus to prove that a denial (ie rejection) of a request was justified is totally
and exclusively on the PIO.
• The decision of the Information Commission is binding.
3.14. Delay and Incomplete Information
3.14.1. In the case of delay in providing the requisite information to the person seeking it
or the information provided is incomplete, such an eventually could be a basis for
appeal.
3.14.2. The PIO, in addition to maintenance of special registers for receipt of requests for
information and disposal, has also to develop checklists to keep a check on the
pendency and/or completeness of the information provided.
3.14.3. The above needs to be kept and updated because the burden of proving that he
acted reasonably and diligently would be solely on the Public Information Officer.
3.15. Appellate Authority/Information Commission12
3.15.1. The PIOs should be well conversant with the powers and functions of Appellate
Authority and the Information Commission  as vested under the Right to
Information Act.
3.15.2. While conveying information or rejecting request for information; while
conveying the fee amount to be paid etc. the PIOs would indicate the right to
appeal and the details of the Appellate Authority to the applicant. Thus paving
way for appeal to be preferred and getting themselves ready for meeting the
requirements of the Appellate Authorities.
3.15.3. If the Information Commission arrives at a decision to levy penalty, it would give
a reasonable opportunity to hear the PIO before the penalty is imposed. The PIO
has, therefore, to prepare himself/herself to justify the action taken by him and
prove that he acted reasonably and diligently, which needs to be supported by
documentary evidence.
3.15.4. The PIO keeps public interest as paramount. When it come to private interest visa-vis public interest, it may not always be possible for him to distinguish between
the two and then take a view whether information sought is to be provided or
rejected. Sometime the line between what is private interest and what is public
interest is thin and could be a difficult situation for the PIO to face.
3.15.5. The State/Central Information Commission (as the case may be) shall impose a
penalty, if in its opinion a PIO has without any reasonable cause:
i) Refused to receive the application for information
ii) Not furnished information within the specified time or
iii) Malafidely denied the request for information or
iv) Destroyed the information which was the subject matter of the request or
v) Obstructed in any matter in furnishing information
The penalty would be Rs.250/- per day if the application is refused or for
everyday in excess of the stipulated time limit till the information is furnished.
Therefore is a ceiling that the total amount would not exceed Rs.25,000/-
3.16. Consolidation & Monitoring
3.16.1. The final responsibility of monitoring implementation of the Act rests with the
Information Commission and the Government. This requires maintenance of
proper data of all applications, appeals, how they  had been dealt with. It is,
therefore, necessary that the PIO, in particular, follows clear processes and
systems. 13
3.16.2. To start with, the PIO may maintain Special Registers for inflow of
requests/applications and outflow of information and a checklist to keep a tab on
the timely disposal of applications etc.
3.16.3. Each Government, Centre or State, as the case may be has a duty to compile from
its public authority data pertaining to requests received for information and send
them to the concerned Information Commission. Only PIOs can supply details of
the number of requests received, by each public authority, the number of
rejections and appeals, particulars or disciplinary action taken, amount of less
charged and collected etc. for incorporation/consolidation in such reports.
3.16.4. The success of monitoring system depends upon the quality and quantity of data
maintained and supplied at appropriate time by the PIOs.
3.17. Special Skills of PIOs
3.17.1. The Public Information Officer plays a pivotal role in the implementation of the
Act. The various provisions of the Act expect minimum skill to be possessed by
the PIO in various areas.
3.17.2. The PIO should have complete knowledge and experience of office procedure. He
should have adequate knowledge of record management prevailing with the
public authority.
3.17.3. The PIO needs to know the structure and delegation  of powers within the
organisation. He should be well versed with organisation chart, levels of disposal
of cases etc.
3.17.4. The PIO should be good in negotiations with the public, colleagues, third party
and others so that he could attend to his duties as PIO smoothly.
3.17.5 The work of PIO is additional to the work he performs as an officer of the public
authority. He should be able to apportion time available with him on various
activities entrusted to him. Availability of inadequate time cannot be the basis for
delay in disposal of requests for information or for supply of incomplete
information.

Self Improvement: Are You Married To Your Goals?

Self Improvement: Are You Married To Your Goals?

If your dream is to be successful in life, you are not alone. Many people have dreams and want to achieve their dreams one day. They work at fulfilling their dreams and bought numerous self improvement books to help them succeed in life. However, not many of them really make it through and even fewer are able to maintain their successes. Are we all missing out on some vital links that can connect us to success or have we been left out of some top secrets?

The truth is, there really isn’t any secret to attaining success in life. The one vital point that prevented many of us from attaining success is setting goals and staying committed to our goals! If you are not married to your goals, you will not stick with it long enough to see the end results. This is when you need to make full use of your power of mind in order to achieve success!

It is not enough to simply set your goals and leave them there. You have to love your goals and stay committed to them, much like how you would love and stick with your spouse once both of them got married. Without sticking to your goals, you will not be able to stay focus and will only end up jumping from one project to the next without waiting for the first one to complete.

As such, you will remain unsuccessful and lots of incomplete projects! Any self improvement experts will tell you that loving your goals will keep you motivated and committed so it will keep you going but your goals must also not be so small that you do not see the point in accomplishing them. Set goals that are big so that you will want to enjoy your dreams at the end of it.

Do not be afraid to set goals that may seem too big for you to achieve them. As long as it is what you want to get out of life, go for it. However, be persistent in striving towards what you want regardless of how difficult it may seem at the beginning. Condition your mind into believing that you can achieve your goals and you will soon get used to working on the actions you have planned. There are in fact many who have given up even before they get started, so you need a lot of self discipline to see you through.

You will not give up on your partner before you even married him but he must definitely be someone worth marrying in the first place. Similarly, set goals that you feel are worthwhile achieving, otherwise you will tend to give up along the way. You must ensure that your goals include all things that you really want in life so you will be proud of attaining them when you are really successful.

Having said that, you must also take into considerations the achievability of your goals. Do not set goals that you know will be impossible to achieve unless you strike lottery! By that, I am referring to setting goals to achieve a million dollars in a month or less. You know that sort of goals are almost impossible to achieve and your mind will not work towards getting that. Instead, you should set long term goals for yourself.

Write down on paper what you want to achieve in the future, say 5 years. Then go on to set goals on what you want to achieve in the short term, for example, 3 years, 1 year, 6 months and then 1 month. Setting short term goals are just as vital because that will take you a step closer to attaining long term goals.

Once you have your goals in place, the next important thing to do is to work at achieving these goals. Remember, in order to be successful at self improvement, you must be committed to working hard to achieve your goals. Follow the above mentioned tips and success will be yours very soon.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Child labour’ in government-aided schools


Last Updated : 25 May 2012 09:45:43 AM IST

BANGALORE: A study conducted by National Commission of Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and SICHREM, reveals that students (particularly girls) are made to perform domestic chores at government-aided schools.
“Although the state government has issued circulars, Group ‘D’ employees have not been appointed in primary schools. As a result, students are told to clean toilets, carry and wash utensils used for mid-day meals,” said Gangadhar Reddy, district co-ordinator.
Addressing a news conference on Thursday, Gangadhar Reddy said, the study had found that availing caste certificate was a major challenge to the parents.
“As many as 2,335 students from 47 schools are eligible for SC/ST scholarships but have not applied for it, as they do not have caste certificates, which is a must to procure scholarships.”  
The team suggested that the tahsildar visit these schools and provide the children caste certificates. Stating that majority of government schools did not have playground, the study has suggested the government to provide drinking water and toilet facilities to students.

Public Hearing on RTE Act and Recommendations

March 24, 2012
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act – 2009 (RTE) came in to force from April 1, 2010, with the aim of providing free and compulsory education to all children aged between 6 and 14 years. Though the Act came in to force, changes taken place in the state is yet to be seen. Due to lack of awareness among people, strong political will and private schools lobby, responsible governments (Union and State) have totally failed in effective implementation of the act. Karnataka state has even failed in notifying the rules. As a result many issues are arising at schools which are direct violation of the RTE Act–2009. Even after witnessing many such issues arising at schools, neither education department officials nor school authorities are taking appropriate initiatives to resolve them. There is no proper redressal mechanism in the state to solve these issues at district and state level. NGOs working at grassroots level also are facing problems in solving the issues due to lack of proper redressal system at state level.
Though, there are many complaints on RTE violations filed with the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (KSCPCR) few cases have been solved and many of them are still pending with the commission. In order to speed up the problem solving process in the state, it is necessary to strengthen the other mechanisms at district level to address issues pertaining to RTE violation.
To create wide spread awareness among people on the provisions of RTE Act and to provide a platform to depose cases of violation of RTE, CACL-K in collaboration with SICHREM had organised a Public hearing on RTE and its redressal system on March 21, 2012,  at Senate Hall, Bangalore University Campus, Bangalore. The programme is also acted as a tool to pressurise the state to address violations relating to RTE. About 100 participants from various parts of the state took part in the public hearing, where 11 cases of gross RTE violations were deposed before the jury.
The Jury members for the day were Dr. H.S Dore Swamy (Freedom Fighter), Ms. Kathyayini Chamaraj, (Child Rights Activist, Civic), Mr. Mathews Philip (Karnataka State Representative-RTE, NCPCR), Mr. Vasudeva Sharma (Member, KSCPCR).
The Public Hearing started with a presentation of photo snaps on the situation in the background of RTE Act implementation. The reality check reflected upon the violation of RTE Act includes, children engaged in manual work at school premises, children forced to serve coffee and food to teachers, scavenging school toilets, cleaning the school campus, washing huge utensils used to serve mid day meal, poor quality of mid day meal, children washing and cleaning vehicles of teachers and poor infrastructure in schools, etc,.
Mr. Lakshapathi, Core Committee Member, CACL-K, introduced the subject relating to the status of RTE and its implementation in Karnataka. He highlighted various violations under RTE. He further spoke about school drop outs, the reasons behind it and a few incidents of behaviour of teachers on students. Mr. Lakshapathi questioned that how can students be engaged in manual works at school premises by teachers. He added saying that, the lobby of private schools against RTE is a major drawback, which has lead to privatization of education and it simultaneously affects the right of free and compulsory education of 80,00,000 (Eighty lakh) children from 50,000 schools across Karnataka. While concluding his introduction Mr. Lakshapathi condemned the efforts of the state to close down the schools in the name of merging sighting less number of students in schools.
Kinds of cases deposed at the public hearing:   
  • Teachers extracting manual work from children during class hours.
  • Child severely injured due to collapse of classroom ceiling.
  • Children being used to sell Newspaper during class hours.
  • Corporal Punishment in schools
  • Denial of Admission
  • Denial of issuing hall tickets to take SSLC and PUC exams
  • A child severely injured due to collapse of the Compound wall.
  • Children forced to serve teachers (washing bike and serving tea and food)
  • School authorities demanding caste certificates from children at the time of enrolment.
The hearing was concluded with the following recommendation by the Jury members,
  • The state should notify the RTE rules immediately, without any further delay, and enable lakhs of disadvantaged children to get a right to free and compulsory education.
  • Redressal mechanism for reporting violations of RTE must be made clear under the Act.
  • There must be a separate cell to resolve, monitor and implement the issues related to RTE at KSCPCR.
  • There should be a special committee to address the issues relating to infrastructure. Further, the head-masters of schools should be held responsible for addressing the issues and to register FIRs against the violators of child rights, for example, engineers, contractors, and School Development & Monitoring Committee, if they are responsible for the violations.
  • Education Department to evolve guidelines to address any accidents to children that occur within the school campus and also about the available assistance and compensations provided by the government.
  • Obtaining and issuing of caste certificates to children should be the responsibility of the school authorities.  School authorities should not demand it from the parents.
  • There is a need for wide publicity with respect to RTE, by using various means and appropriate IEC materials and capacity building exercises.
  • Trainings on RTE must be conducted in order to make people understand about the main features of the Act, actions to be taken if RTE is violated and the existing redressal mechanisms.
  • KSCPCR is said to have completed enquiry into a few cases of violation of child rights in schools. In a few cases action has been initiated by citing Karnataka Civil Service Rules (KCSR). There is a need to make use of such cases to educate the school authorities on actions to be taken if child rights are violated in schools and hostels.
  • RTE watch groups to be established at various levels such as, village, gram panchayat, clusters, wards, etc.
  • The grievances or the complaints lodged must reach the grievance cell as and when it is filed; if delayed, there are chances of justice being denied to children.
  • There is a need for continuous discussions with respect to RTE among people at various levels; this is in order to encourage and to spread the essence of RTE to the larger public.
  • Authorities such as CWCs and KSCPCR should not hesitate to take up suo motu cases to address various violations of RTE.  Similarly, police also should take cognisance of child rights violations.
  • There is a need for life skills education and healthy sex education at school level. This has to be incorporated in the school curriculum and taught in the formal education.
  • Inclusive education must benefit differently-abled children. Although these children are enrolled in schools, they are prone to be school dropouts. In order to address this issue, every school must ensure that after enrolling children with special needs to schools, the school authorities strive towards retaining them in schools and ensure that they complete their elementary education.
Note: According to a Social Audit conducted by SICHREM in 47 schools of 5 wards in Bangalore city, more that 2000 SC/ST children have not applied for scholarships because of the complications in getting the caste certificate and the corruption involved in the system. 

76% cases of Right to education act violations remain unresolved


IANS Mar 31, 2012, 03.36PM IST
NEW DELHI: Two years after the government's flagship education programme came into force, its monitoring body has not been able to resolve as much as 76 per cent cases of violation of the right to education (RTE) Act, a right to information (RTI) document reveals.
Promising free and compulsory education to children from the age group of 6 to 14, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, brought about hope for change in the lives of children, and in the future of the country.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/images/pixel.gif
While things have more or less gone in the intended direction since the act's implementation two years ago, there have been a number of violations. And the chief monitoring body, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), has not been able to keep up with the breaches.
An RTI query reveals that over the last two years, the NCPCR received 2,850 complaints regarding the RTE Act. However, it has been able to resolve just 692 cases, or just 24 per cent of the entire lot, by now.
Breaking down the numbers year-wise, from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011, the commission received 1,089 complaints, of which it resolved 592 cases.
And from April 1, 2011, to March 16, 2012, the commission could only resolve a mere 100 of the total 1,761 complaints received.
Umesh Gupta of ActionAid India, who filed the RTI application, told IANS: "Not only is the data shocking, but the numbers actually denote the lowering efficacy of the NCPCR in monitoring the proper implementation of the RTE Act over the two years."
Despite what looks like a dismal performance, Delhi seems to be better off than most other states. According to the document, in 2011-12, of the total 517 complaints received from Delhi, 80 were resolved.
In Tamil Nadu, of the 15 complaints, three were taken care of; and in Uttar Pradesh, of 59 complaints, seven were acted upon. A case each was resolved in Maharashtra and West Bengal from where the number of complaints have been 132 and 99 respectively.
However, in states like Andhra Pradesh, from where 780 complaints were received, none has been resolved. Nor has any case been resolved in Odisha (35 cases), Haryana (17) or Assam (12).
Among the cases resolved by the NCPCR was that of a child being beaten by the teacher for not wearing the school tie in Uttar Pradesh. A notice was issued to the district magistrate regarding the matter.
In another case, Unnati Malik, a Class 7 student of K.R. Mangalam School in Delhi was detained - a violation of the RTE Act, which says no child can be detained until Class 8. The principal of the school was issued a notice.
Notices were also issued against the education department in 50 cases in Delhi. They were mostly related to denial of admission in schools because of disability of the child, screening tests conducted and corporal punishment.
There were public hearings organised too in 11 states, which included Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Delhi, Tamil Nadu and Manipur.
However, Gupta is not happy with the action taken by NCPCR.
"Simply issuing notice is not enough. Has the case seen its logical end after the notice? There should be strong action taken so that it serves as a deterrent for others," Gupta said.
Ramya Menon, a teacher in a Delhi school, said: "For the Right to Education Act to be properly implemented, strict monitoring is very important. Awareness about the Act is still low across the country, and those who are aware and approach the commission with a problem should not be discouraged with an unresponsive attitude...as if no one cares".
Besides the NCPCR, the RTE Act also puts the onus of monitoring of its implementation on the state commissions. As of now, 14 states have constituted their respective State Commission for Protection of Child Rights ( SCPCR).

Advertise RTE quota seats by tomorrow, state tells schools


Published: Wednesday, May 30, 2012, 8:00 IST,  By Puja Pednekar | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
Schools in the city will have to admit 25% students from the economically weak section before June 10 and start advertising the available seats by May 31.
Under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, the state government has issued notifications to all schools, except minority unaided ones, to start advertising the 25% seats in their schools by May 31.
The Supreme Court order in its April 12 order upheld the RTE Act and directed schools to implement 25% reservation for economically weaker students at the entry level, KG or class 1 from this academic year 2012-13 itself.
“There was a slight delay in formulating these notifications since we were waiting for the state to define weaker sections and set the income limit for economically backward classes. But now that they have been drafted, we expect schools to follow it immediately,” said Sanjay Deshmukh, special project director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan.
The directives say the schools will have to display on their notice board by May 31 their capacity, total number of students and the number of seats available for reservation. Schools will have to complete their admission process for the 25% weaker students before June 10.
Schools will need to conduct lottery admissions of applications that they receive from weaker sections. After the lottery, the schools will have to come out with a list of students who have got admission.
The notifications state that parents can seek admission for their wards only in schools within a kilometre of their residence. Activists Ramasagar Pandey of Aided Schools Bachao Samiti, says that parents, NGOs and citizen groups need to put pressure on schools to take in 25% students from the weaker sections.
“The government should have asked schools to add divisions so that they will not be able to turn down applications citing lack of space. The community needs to be on the watch out whether schools are actually admitting such students,” he said.

Poor turn their back on elite schools

BANGALORE: Much to their respite, the most sought-after private schools under RTE have been left high and dry on admissions under the RTE quota. Even before they could strike off the poor, the Economically Weaker Section has completely discarded them. 

Major city schools say they have received hardly any applications for admission under the RTE quota. While Delhi Public School has received only one application form, National Public School (NPS) said it's received four or five requests for admission. Likewise, other private schools have also received a minimal number of application forms. 

"We have not received any admission forms from RTE quota students. Anyway, we are done with the admission process and are holding a dialogue with the government to get exemption from RTE for this academic year. Although no decision has been taken yet, no one either from the EWS or disadvantaged section came to us for admission," said Deepa Sreedhar, principal, Sri Kumaran Children's Home. 

The scenario is more or less similar in all other elite schools that do come under RTE. NPS Koramangala says the school received one inquiry about admission, but the applicant did not return. "We answered their queries and asked them to come back for admission. But they never returned. I feel this reaction has a lot to do with psychology. Parents from the EWS section have doubts about how their kids will cope amid children from a completely different part of society," said Bindu Hari, principal, NPS Koramangala. 

Although Delhi Public School has lately joined the league of minority institutions, it received only one admission query before getting the minority certificate. "We got one query for Class IV. Now we are out of RTE, after receiving the minority certificate," said Mansoor Ali Khan, member, board of management, Delhi Public School. 

Indirect applications flood BEOs 

Children from EWS have a long way to go, with the first stumbling block in the form of the school management rejecting the admission application. According to data gathered from DDPI offices, 337 admission forms were rejected by city schools. "We've received 265 indirect admission forms. Indirect forms are those applications that are rejected by school managements at the time of submission and then come to us. There are many schools denying admission and parents turn to us as their last resort," said an education officer. Similarly, 72 indirect applications have been received from Bangalore South. 

At least 3,061 applications were received by Block Education Officers across Bangalore, apart from those submitted online or directly to the school authorities. While 1,568 admission forms were submitted from Bangalore North, 1,494 applications were received by Bangalore South. Around 400 indirect application forms have also been identified by BEOs.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Poor-turn-their-back-on-elite-schools/articleshow/13651809.cms

Monday, May 28, 2012

Vibgyor School told to accept applications of EWS students


Dipti Sonawala : Tue May 29 2012, 04:08 hrs
Following a complaint filed by an NGO against Vibgyor High School for allegedly violating the Right To Education (RTE) Act, the school education department on Monday wrote to the school asking it to accept the applications of students from economical weaker section (EWS) seeking admission.
On May 23, a few activists of NGO Desh Seva Samiti (DSS) had approached authorities of Vibgyor High seeking admission for eight EWS students. However, the students were denied admission and a non-cognisable complaint filed by DSS against the school and its manager.”
The Samiti activists had also staged a dharna outside the school on Monday morning along with a few parents.
According to the Right to Education (RTE) Act, which came into force from April 1, 2010, 25 per cent seats are reserved for EWS candidates in all private unaided schools. However, private schools in several states and Union Territories have not implemented this provision.
“We met the chairman and trustee of the school who informed us that they were given minority status by the Central government. However, when we asked for documents proving the same they refused to furnish the same and sought time for consulting their legal advisor. We issued them a letter asking them to accept the applications of EWS students who approach them for admissions,” said P R Pawar, education inspector west zone.
Rustom Kerawalla, founder and chairman of the school, refused to comment.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

EWS child denied admission to class 1


New Delhi, May 25, 2012, DHNS :
A child studying in Yuva Shakti Model School in Rohini Sector 3 has been denied admission to class 1 despite completing studies in UKG and LKG in the same school. Parents alleged that the school is forcing them to pay fees.

Kashish, a resident of Rohini, was admitted in 2009-10 academic session in LKG under the EWS category in this school. He was promoted to UKG in 2010-11, and was further promoted to class 1 in 2012-13. 

However, from April 1, 2012 the school asked the child not to come to school till his parents paid the entire fee. 

“We said that our child was studying under the EWS quota and we were not supposed to pay any fee. We tried to make them understand that we cannot afford such fees but the school authorities did not listen. 

“The child is still sitting at home as they are not allowing him to sit in class,” said Vijay Goel, the child’s father, who works in the organised sector. 

Since the school was turning a deaf ear to their problem, the parents approached the education officer of zone 13 in April and wrote a letter highlighting their issues. 

Ashok Agarwal, advocate and RTE campaigner, has written a letter to the directorate of education, asking the department to take action against the erring school. 

“It is submitted that the impugned action or inaction on the part of the school is arbitrary, discriminatory, unethical, unjust, improper, contrary to the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973, violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, 21A and 38 of the Constitution, and also contrary to the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,” stated the letter.

The school authorities have given a written reply to the education department, saying the child has studied for two full sessions and he will have to pay fees to continue with his schooling. 

“The student was given a seat in the school on sympathy grounds as the parents had financial constraints. In 2011-12 and 2012-13, the parents did not apply under the EWS quota in the school, and hence no record stands with the school regarding his admission under EWS category,” stated the letter given by the school.

Friday, May 25, 2012

On RTE, set the record straight


Vinod Raina : Fri May 25 2012, 03:12 hrs
Hostility to processes of inclusion has spawned misinterpretations of the 25 per cent clause
The public response to the Supreme Court verdict on the Right to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act 2009, particularly around the retention of the 25 per cent neighbourhood quota for children of disadvantaged groups in private schools, underlines the continued hostility to processes of inclusion in socially and economically fractured contemporary India.
Such hostility is, however, masked under misleading interpretations of the 25 per cent clause, which are at considerable variance with the intentions for bringing it in. The group that drafted the Act was beset with two extreme views. One contended that a universal “right” could not be applied in a differentiated manner by having both fee and non-fee paying children, implying a totally inclusive common school system (CSS) whereby a child would have a right to seek admission to any school in its neighbourhood, government or private, for free education. This would prevent private schools from charging fees. The counterpoint contended that as per Article 21(a), it is the state that has to provide free and compulsory education to children, and the obligation was thus on the government and not the “private” schools, which ought to be kept completely outside the Act. This would constitute the exclusion viewpoint. The challenge for the drafting group was to find a consensus from these extreme viewpoints, which could withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Based on the principles that: a) schools must be sites for social integration, b) private schools do not exist independent of the state that provides them land and other amenities, c) their social obligation can not be waived by contending that only children whose parents pay their fees have a right to be in these schools, and d) since the disadvantaged groups in the country constitute around 25 per cent of the total population. It was finally resolved, after difficult debate, that a 25 per cent neighbourhood quota was justified and could withstand judicial challenge. That was how clause 12 of the RTE Act was finally crafted. As it turns out, the 25 per cent limit has withstood the judicial challenge. It ought to be clear that the sole intention for bringing in this clause was inclusion and social integration, and not to sneak in poor children into “quality”private schools.
The dominant interpretations, however, greatly deviate from such intentions and also lack factual corroboration. Here is why:
One, that government is abdicating its financial responsibility and transferring it to private schools. If the 25 per cent children were not in private schools, under clause 3 of the Act the government would have had to provide a school to all such children at its per learner cost, which is what it will reimburse to the private schools. So how is the government’s financial burden reduced? Perhaps around 65 per cent of private schools in the country have fees that are less or equal to the per learner cost of the government. These schools will get exactly what they charge from the other 75 per cent children. The problem may be that of the rest 35 per cent elite schools whose fees may be higher than the government’s per learner cost. These schools are hardly poor.
Second, that government is providing an avenue to poor children for quality education in private schools without improving the quality of its own schools. This is based on the incorrect assumption that the quality of all private schools is good, and that of all government schools is bad. It could be argued that based on the quality criterion of preparing a creative person imbued with values enshrined in our Constitution, even the best private schools do not measure up. Maybe in around 35 per cent of private schools, children perform well in the usual rote-learning based competitive examinations, which in educational terms constitutes a very low criterion of quality. On the contrary, the government-run Kendriya Vidyalayas represent perhaps the best in terms of social inclusion and educational quality. The intention of the Act is that all schools ought to be socially inclusive, irrespective of their quality, which must improve at the same time. For quality improvement, the Act has many other clauses: to improve teacher quality, classroom transactions and assessment. The intention is also that the presence of these 25 per cent kids should alter the pedagogical nature of the classroom so that the knowledge base from where these children come from — farming, weaving, services, carpentry and construction, practical vocations like repair of vehicles, electricity, plumbing and so on becomes a part of the classroom, that can greatly benefit the other 75 per cent who are now cut off from the informal sector knowledge base that still dominates the Indian economy.
Third, that these children just can not integrate with elite children and will feel stigmatised. The Act prescribes that admission for the 25 per cent shall be in Class I or pre-primary, whichever is the induction class, and not in all classes at the same time. This implies that these children will be admitted at ages four, five or six. By no stretch of the imagination do children at these ages feel peer-level class or caste difference. In an inclusive environment, these children shall grow up together to become 12-14-year olds, and in the process have values different from those who reach such ages in an exclusive environment. That is the basic intention of the provision.
The inclusion versus quality argument continues to haunt our country. While we bemoan the fact that our children are nearly at the bottom of tests like PISA, even though such tests are and shall remain controversial, we should also pay attention to the fact that children from countries that are at the top of these tests, like Finland, Sweden, Denmark and even Singapore, have been practicing inclusive classrooms for years now. They have demonstrated that rather than fettering quality, inclusion helps improve it. It is time we gave up our colonial biases that poor and disadvantaged children will “pollute” our smartly dressed children in classrooms and as parents and teachers, learn the lessons of inclusion.
This judgment has the potential to aid such learning. It establishes two major criteria for future policies and litigations. One, that the RTE should not be seen in the narrow terms of providing schooling, but as a means of preserving and strengthening the social fabric of the country, to which inclusion is central; and second, the Act must be seen as child centric rather than school centric.
The writer played a key role in drafting and advocacy of the Right to Education Act

Reins of seat lottery in govt hands


Put to rest fears of schools rigging the admission process for seats reserved for students from socially and economically backward sections. The state government will make it clear on Tuesday that although schools will conduct the lotteries, the admission process will be in its hands.
This spells good news for several parents who were reportedly worried that they might have to bend over backwards to please schools to grant them a seat provisioned as reserved under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
The state will put up a prescribed admission form for the 25% reserved seats, which parents can directly download from the government website or take a copy of it from newspaper advertisements and submit it in a school.
The announcement will be made on Tuesday at a meeting, chaired by the school education minister, to frame guidelines for the implementation of the RTE Act.
The government is making this move to ensure that schools resort to no malpractices during admissions. To bring in a sense of transparency across the board, it even plans to introduce the lottery system for all admissions from next year.
Sanjay Deshmukh, special project director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, said, “All schools will be accountable to the government from now on. Schools will conduct the lottery for admissions, but they will be completely controlled by the state so that the process is not manipulated in any way. Education officers will monitor the entire process.”
The government will also tie up rules against the charging of capitation fee with the implementation of the RTE Act; errant schools will be fined 10 times the capitation fee they demand.
Also, schools conducting any sort of screening during the admission process for the 25% reserved seats this year and for all seats from the next will be charged a fine of up to Rs25,000 for the first offence. They will be slapped with a heavier fine for every subsequent offence.
Educationists, though, have raised doubts that such measures may not be enough to bring in a sense of transparency in the admission process. Jayant Jain, president of and NGO — Forum for Fairness in Education — said, “Schools will definitely have to play by the book if the government implements these provisions. But, school managements can still find a way to rig admissions. Centralised admissions and the government itself allotting candidates to schools will work best.”