[rti_india] Re: Fwd: [Indiarti] CIC to approach SC as ICs refuse to work

Hi Binu,

Yes it does - but you have to read between the lines :-).

Actually my info was that this judgement was going to be reserved till after Mr. Habibullah retired. However, on 19.May.2010 the PIO of High Court despatched a reply to my RTI and 2 days later this judgement popped out prematurely. It is not as harsh on Mr H as a previous draft which was readied as far back as Feb 2010.

Same sample (actual) quotes from the Court proceedings (from memory) : Justice B.D Ahmed to K.K.Nigam .. which luckily didn't make it to the judgement.

a) "I can't believe what I'm hearing" (on being informed by me that Secretary CIC had written in 2006 to DoPT asking for amended Rules allowing Benches with retrospective effect from 12.Oct.2005)

b) "Do you know what you are saying ? I hear 60 cases a day" (in the context of why the Management Regulations were created to ease the suffering of the citizens who were bombarding the CIC with 100 cases per day, and the poor Commissioners not being able to cope - no staff - no support - no funds - boo hoo).

c) "You are not equal to the Election Commission, they are on a much higher plane, next you'll be telling me that you are a Supreme Court judge." (on being told by Prof Nigam that Mr. Habibullah was equal in status to the Chief Election Commissioner of India)

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, binu peter <binupeterdelhi@...> wrote:
>
> Sir,
> Â
> Your disclosure by Para (5) is interesting. Does it reflect in the judgment of HC ?
> Â
> BINU PETER
>
> --- On Thu, 5/27/10, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@...>
> Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Fwd: [Indiarti] CIC to approach SC as ICs refuse to work
> To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 11:06 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Dear Venkatesh
>
> 1) I agree with you that our silent (and very knowledgeable) members should
> come forward on this issue.
>
> 2) I am virtually a tee-totaller except for some rare social / happy occasions
> where I take a sip or 2. .
>
> 3) One of the best constitutional lawyers of this country (who is presently the
> SG) has already voiced his opinion (as recorded in Pyare Lal Verma) about
> the nature of the CIC (as defined in 2.b) as a body of 1 & upto 10.
> The CIC in their
> wisdom chose to listen instead to one of the duffer advocates present
> who were illegally
> representing the appellant (in violation of Rules) proposing 12(4) as
> the magic steroid which would grant Mr Habibullah unfettered powers
> over his ":assistants".like Mr.T. It is not a coincidence that the
> advocate is a senior member of NCPRI who operates through his proxy
> (benami) filing RTIs for another Judicial Accountability Forum on his
> behalf.
>
> The Hon;'ble High Court has dismissed 12(4) as the source of CIC's
> powers - "in the garb of
> managing internal affairs the C'IC has ARROGATED TO HIMSELF the powers
> to do all manners of things" !!!
>
> 4) If anyone is responsible for this tragic state of affairs - it is
> Mr Habibullah (in whom all powers and blame vests) and the poor orders
> he delivers behind the backs of parties. As a citizen who wants RTI to
> proceed smoothly I say, Mr Habibullah should listen carefully to what
> equally expert citizens formally put forth in hearings rather than
> behaving like
> sly Mohd-bin-Tughlak by passing orders drafted by opposite side.
>
> 5) I can say one more thing on this issue, Had I not defended CIC
> against my better instincts (virtually pleading their case during
> arguments lasting 4 hours and earning the censure of the court for
> flip-flopping) on the 2nd day of the hearing, this HC order would have
> been much much worse. If any should give me Black Dog it should be Mr
> H.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 5/27/10, Venkatesh Nayak <venkatesh@...> wrote:
> > Dear friends,
> > What worries me is that some observers and users of RTI in this discussion
> > group and elsewhere are exulting in the fact that the Commission's work has
> > been upset by the DDA decision. While this is not how the Delhi High Court's
> > decision must be interpreted, it serves little purpose to argue that all
> > possible routes to getting out of the logjam are closed. If change of Rules
> > will not help RTI, if amendment of the Act cannot help RTI and if the
> > clarificatory orders route is also closed (it indeed is) then the only way
> > left is to go to courts again for seeking enforcement of RTI every time we
> > want information. I certainly cannot afford it on my income. Should we just
> > dump the RTI Act then? malafide interpretations of the RTI Act and the Delhi
> > High Court's decision are not what we need today. This chain of discussion
> > started of by a few members agreeing to celebrate this situation with
> > liquor. if that was not said in jest and was a true gut reaction to what has
> > happened then I can only say- "how disgusting". This kind of attitude does
> > not help RTI at all.
> >
> > The saddest part is that the more moderate majority of members of this group
> > are only watching silently without speaking up. To all such people, I would
> > like to say- "This is your fundamental right also, my friend. The Commission
> > will not belong to you if you treat it as the domain of the Commissioners
> > and the babus only. THE COMMISSION EXISTS FOR ONE REASON ONLY- TO SERVE THE
> > PUBLIC INTEREST BY PERFORMING ITS APPOINTED TASKS. We are members of that
> > public. This is not merely NGO-speak. Any bonafide constitutional lawyer
> > with a sound understanding of the basic principles of public law will tell
> > you the same thing. We need to be more responsible in our reactions to the
> > current difficulties that the Commission is facing. After all we are paying
> > for the upkeep of this Commission through our taxes and we do not want to
> > see that money wasted. We need to have a sense of ownership towards this
> > Commission and other public bodies that subsist on taxpayer funds.
> >
> > I have no problems with people voicing any view on any matter so long as
> > they do it decently. Happy to read even illogical views and react to them
> > because what seems illogical today may seem very logical from a different
> > perspective tomorrow. but if some members are looking upon this situation as
> > an instance of macabre entertainment and are going about analysing issues
> > which in fact is not analysis but vitriolic bile gushing out uncontrollably,
> > then it is time to see the doctor. if such people cannot help RTI with
> > solutions then my advice is "kindly leave RTI to others who are more
> > interested in finding solutions. If you cannot come up with a solution then
> > you are probably part of the problem. the moderates amongst us have an
> > ethical duty to speak up in favour of what is right- not just in this
> > matter, but always. So can we have more constructive discussions on this
> > issue, please?
> > Thanks
> > Venkat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: rti_india@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rti_india@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> > Of sarbajitr
> > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 8:27 AM
> > To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [rti_india] Re: Fwd: [Indiarti] CIC to approach SC as ICs refuse to
> > work
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Incidentally Raminder was the journo who posted that very
> > prophetic story (when the CIC selection controversy was
> > ongoing) that Habibullah would complete his term in office.
> >
> > The ToI today, however, says that CIC will approach the DoPT
> > to get the Rules amended - which is even better for us - since
> > legally the Rules cannot be amended for this purpose. The
> > RTI At is so poorly drafted that any skilled objector to DoPT
> > can stall Rule amendments till the RTI Act is amended or
> > Sonia Gandhi (through the PMO - Deepak Sandhu ??) intervenes.
> >
> > Let me put this plainly to Mr Habibullah, LEGALLY SPEAKING
> > THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF RTI ACT 2005, AS IT STANDS AT PRESENT,
> > DOES NOT PERMIT THE CENTRAL GOVT BY RULES TO ALLOW PARTIAL
> > BENCHES OF CIC TO DECIDE APPEALS OR COMPLAINTS. You know this
> > very well as Mr Singhi had privately advised you on many occasions.
> > The only option for you was section 30 of the RTI ACT - which you
> > failed to avail because of your ego and the bad advisors who you
> > listen to. The section 30 route is now closed - and you should do the same
> > to CIC.
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> > --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > ashish kr1965 <ashishkr1965@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> > http://www.mynews.in/News/CIC_to_approach_SC_as_ICs_refuse_to_work_N57918.ht
> > ml
> >>
> >> *Posted On: *26-May-2010 05:52:47 *By:* Raminder Singh Font Size:
> >>
> > <http://www.mynews.in/News/CIC_to_approach_SC_as_ICs_refuse_to_work_N57918.h
> > tml#>
> >> >
> >> India's FoI watchdog the Central Information Commission "CIC" has decided
> > to
> >> approach the Indian Supreme Court next week against a recent order of the
> >> Delhi High Court which has caused at least 3 of its members to inform the
> >> Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah that they shall not be
> >> hearing cases from next week as this would amount to contempt of court.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>