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

Friday, May 28, 2010

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

Dear Karira

You too must learn to decode "babuspeak"

There is no dispute that the *office* of the CJI is public authority as *part* of the Supreme Court of India. (Habibullah cleverly mixes singular "authority" with the plural)

The question at issue is if the CJI is a distinguishable public authority for information he holds (under established conventions / practice) which is not connected with the public authority Supreme Court of India or accessible to other judges of the Court.

In Nemi Chand Jain's case the CJI did not hold the information sought by appellant, so it was a non-issue

In the Judges assets case now pending before SC, the Court agreed to give information to the applicant without prejudice to their legal position once the appeal was filed in the SC. This does not mean that the CJI has agreed / conceded that he is a P/A.

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, C K Jam <rtiwanted@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Raminder,
>
> Unfortunately you are not a designated PIO under the RTI Act.
> Otherwise, i would have dragged you to the CIC/SIC and hoped that they take you to task for providing misleading and incorrect information.
>
> Please read: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/53519-supreme-court-agrees-office-cji-pa-defined-sec-2-h-right-information-act.html
>
> Don't ask me why no newspaper or agency has covered this till now.
> Maybe you can break the news.
>
> Regards
> RTIwanted
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 5/27/10, Raminder Singh <ramisingh.bbc@...> wrote:
>
> From: Raminder Singh <ramisingh.bbc@...>
> Subject: Re: [rti_india] Fwd: [Indiarti] CIC to approach SC as ICs refuse to work
> To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 5:38 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Shri Jam
>
>
>
> On 7 Mar 2010 the registry of Supreme court challenged
>
> order of bench of Delhi high court declaring office of the
>
> CJI "public authority" under RTI. Notice was issued after that
>
> to applicant S.C.Agarwall to reply. Case is still sub-judice.
>
> Court outsiders are speculating that Registry did not ask for
>
> stay so CJI has accepted the High court order. Actually
>
> the legal position is that court cannot grant itself relief in its
>
> own cause. So baba check your own facts.
>
>
>
> R S Pabbi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>