Sh Amit Kaushik, Director (Policy) /
Sh Mukul Ratra, Deputy Secretary
CPIOs designated for Division-II (Policy) in DoEE&L -
MoHRD
Dear Sirs,
This is to request information under s.4(1) of the RTI
Act, 2005, apropos the Right to Education Bill, 2005 /
invitation of public comments thereon, as under:
1. Publication under s.4(1)(b)(vii) of details of
mechanisms for public consultation followed.
In this regard I want to point out that the general
information published in respect of s.4(1)(b)(vii) (at
<http://education.nic.in/Elementary/rtieel.pdf>, p.28)
says only that "Draft legislations/Policy documents
under consideration, and Reports of various
Committees, etc. submitted to the Department, are
placed on the Department's website from time to time,
for inviting comments of the public". However, placing
on the website amounts only to opening to public
scrutiny (as was done for the Bill by posting in
October a pdf file linked from the main page) and
inviting comments (as was done with accompanying link
to views.edu@xxxxxx labelled Send us your comments),
without any indication of the procedure by which they
will be considered or even a send-by date, also does
not amount to public consultation. It is pertinent
that even as the press had reported on 11.11.05 that
the Minister had approved the Bill and since 26.11.05
a Sub-Group of the National Advisory Council and
subsequently also a GoM is (re)considering it, links
posted in October on the main page to the pdf file and
the eml id to invite public comment are still
functional.
2. Publication as relevant facts under s.4(1)(c)
information about developments subsequent to
circulation of the Bill
>From press reports, etc, it appears views received
from state governments, some estimate of the cost of
the Bill, etc, are issues of further consultations (in
NAC, GoM, etc). Details of these seem not to be
available on any official website. (For CABE Committee
for FACE and National Coordination Committee on EFA,
the s.4(1)(b) document on the Department's website
does not clarify whether details of their
deliberations are accessible to public (p.30, which
has the obscure remark "Subject to provisions of RTI
Act" in this regard); NAC website clearly says minutes
of its meetings are not accessible to public and also
does not divulge details of its Sub-Group; details of
GoM are also not known to public). Central / National
advisers and union Ministers are all very capable
persons and their consultations must be taking care of
issues they have identified. However, education is a
subject on the concurrent list and there might be
others among public at large who have different /
additional concerns. The Department's website does not
disclose views received from public / states or even
lists of citizens / states from whom views have been
received even as this would have facilitated
meaningful comment and transparent consultations.
3. Providing me, as affected person, the following
information under s.4(1)(d) (I am affected person in
view of my petition of 14.11.05 to Rajya Sabha about
the Right to Education Bill, 2005, arising from
substantive engagements since 1999, including through
pending court matters, etc, in Delhi, loosely
chronicled up to September at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/f):
(a) view received from Delhi government on the Right
to Education Bill, 2005 (which, in effect,
extrapolates to national Bill the Delhi-idea of
free-seats quota for implementing which Delhi Govt has
not been able to provide, even after repeated orders,
a cogent view to Delhi High Court)
(b) reasons for decision for reconsideration of the
Bill prepared by duly constituted CABE Committee since
August 2004 by the NAC / GoM in November 2005 after it
had been circulated to states and put up for views of
public at large and whether NAC / GOM will be
considering the views received by MoHRD from states /
public through its consultation mechanisms
(c) reasons for rejection of my suggestions (for a
different approach to the legislation required by the
Constitutional Amendment and/or to the architecture of
the national Bill), proffered since 2003, including in
detailed communication forwarded to MoHRD by
President's Secretariat in June 2004, petition about
Free and Compulsory Education Bill forwarded to it by
Rajya Sabha Secretariat in 2005, and letters of June
and July 2005 in context of court matters in Delhi
I wish to clarify I am not writing to you as officials
of DoEEL Division-II for redress of grievance apropos
the Bill, but as CPIOs. My only grievance here is that
the above information, which I believe falls squarely
in ambit of s.4(1) of RTI Act, has not already been
published/provided and I expect and request simply
that you either refuse it or publish/provide (or agree
to publish/provide) it, item-wise.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: az plan
__________________________________
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/
Sh Mukul Ratra, Deputy Secretary
CPIOs designated for Division-II (Policy) in DoEE&L -
MoHRD
Dear Sirs,
This is to request information under s.4(1) of the RTI
Act, 2005, apropos the Right to Education Bill, 2005 /
invitation of public comments thereon, as under:
1. Publication under s.4(1)(b)(vii) of details of
mechanisms for public consultation followed.
In this regard I want to point out that the general
information published in respect of s.4(1)(b)(vii) (at
<http://education.nic.in/Elementary/rtieel.pdf>, p.28)
says only that "Draft legislations/Policy documents
under consideration, and Reports of various
Committees, etc. submitted to the Department, are
placed on the Department's website from time to time,
for inviting comments of the public". However, placing
on the website amounts only to opening to public
scrutiny (as was done for the Bill by posting in
October a pdf file linked from the main page) and
inviting comments (as was done with accompanying link
to views.edu@xxxxxx labelled Send us your comments),
without any indication of the procedure by which they
will be considered or even a send-by date, also does
not amount to public consultation. It is pertinent
that even as the press had reported on 11.11.05 that
the Minister had approved the Bill and since 26.11.05
a Sub-Group of the National Advisory Council and
subsequently also a GoM is (re)considering it, links
posted in October on the main page to the pdf file and
the eml id to invite public comment are still
functional.
2. Publication as relevant facts under s.4(1)(c)
information about developments subsequent to
circulation of the Bill
>From press reports, etc, it appears views received
from state governments, some estimate of the cost of
the Bill, etc, are issues of further consultations (in
NAC, GoM, etc). Details of these seem not to be
available on any official website. (For CABE Committee
for FACE and National Coordination Committee on EFA,
the s.4(1)(b) document on the Department's website
does not clarify whether details of their
deliberations are accessible to public (p.30, which
has the obscure remark "Subject to provisions of RTI
Act" in this regard); NAC website clearly says minutes
of its meetings are not accessible to public and also
does not divulge details of its Sub-Group; details of
GoM are also not known to public). Central / National
advisers and union Ministers are all very capable
persons and their consultations must be taking care of
issues they have identified. However, education is a
subject on the concurrent list and there might be
others among public at large who have different /
additional concerns. The Department's website does not
disclose views received from public / states or even
lists of citizens / states from whom views have been
received even as this would have facilitated
meaningful comment and transparent consultations.
3. Providing me, as affected person, the following
information under s.4(1)(d) (I am affected person in
view of my petition of 14.11.05 to Rajya Sabha about
the Right to Education Bill, 2005, arising from
substantive engagements since 1999, including through
pending court matters, etc, in Delhi, loosely
chronicled up to September at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/f):
(a) view received from Delhi government on the Right
to Education Bill, 2005 (which, in effect,
extrapolates to national Bill the Delhi-idea of
free-seats quota for implementing which Delhi Govt has
not been able to provide, even after repeated orders,
a cogent view to Delhi High Court)
(b) reasons for decision for reconsideration of the
Bill prepared by duly constituted CABE Committee since
August 2004 by the NAC / GoM in November 2005 after it
had been circulated to states and put up for views of
public at large and whether NAC / GOM will be
considering the views received by MoHRD from states /
public through its consultation mechanisms
(c) reasons for rejection of my suggestions (for a
different approach to the legislation required by the
Constitutional Amendment and/or to the architecture of
the national Bill), proffered since 2003, including in
detailed communication forwarded to MoHRD by
President's Secretariat in June 2004, petition about
Free and Compulsory Education Bill forwarded to it by
Rajya Sabha Secretariat in 2005, and letters of June
and July 2005 in context of court matters in Delhi
I wish to clarify I am not writing to you as officials
of DoEEL Division-II for redress of grievance apropos
the Bill, but as CPIOs. My only grievance here is that
the above information, which I believe falls squarely
in ambit of s.4(1) of RTI Act, has not already been
published/provided and I expect and request simply
that you either refuse it or publish/provide (or agree
to publish/provide) it, item-wise.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
cc: az plan
__________________________________
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/