Dear Venkatesh
Here is the judgement in Subhash Agrawal's case.
http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SRB/judgement/02-09-2009/SRB02092009CW2882009.pdf
I don't see where the Court had taken a view on the term "held by" relevant to our discussion.
Alternatively how the reasonings of how the CJI "holds" information is relevant to why information placed in public domain is no longer held by the P/A. Which is actually 180 degrees opposed to SC Agrawal's case.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarbajit,
> Thanks for sharing the background on this case. If the issue hinges on the
> phrase 'held by' then the Delhi High Court's decision becomes very relevant.
> If not then I understand. But such matters should be resolved quickly.
> Perhaps one of the petitioners should move the CIC.
> other issue will be involved.
> Thanks
> Venkat
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: rti_india@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rti_india@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of sarbajitr
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:56 PM
> To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [rti_india] Re: interpreation of Section 2(f) and 2(J)
>
>
>
>
> Dear Venkatesh
>
> The decision of SC Agrawal is not relevant to this issue
>
> We have 2 POVs in the CIC on this question.
>
> IC(AT) says only information EXCLUSIVELY held by a P/A can be disclosed
> under section 6. IC (SG) has "respectfully differed" with his
> interpretation.
>
> As a Moderator I alway guide our members in the most conservative fashion so
> that they are not eventually disappointed.
>
> The 2 links are
> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AT-12042007-01.pdf
> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-14072009-17.pdf
>
> As you know I have repeatedly asked for this matter to be resolved by Mr
> Habibullah - but for reasons best known to him he has evaded deciding the
> issue.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear friends,
> > I respectfully beg to differ from the interpretation given by Sarbajit to
> > the phrase "held by". "Held by" as a phrase indicates physical possession
> of
> > a document by a public authority. This has been made crystal clear by the
> > Delhi High Court in the CPIO, Supreme Court v S C Agarwal case. Critics
> may
> > say that the Delhi HC decision has been challenged before the SCI. I do
> not
> > think in this case the SCI is arguing on the definition of the term 'held
> > by'. Their problem is about coverage of the RTI Act vis-a-vis the CJI's
> > office and other ancillary issues.
> >
> > If a document is placed in the public domain it does not disappear from
> the
> > possession of the public authority. the hard and soft copies of the
> document
> > continue to be held by that public authority unless they have legitimately
> > destroyed it. Similarly the mere fact that something has been placed in
> the
> > public domain does not ensure that it stays there and is easily accessible
> > to people. We need to move beyond the bureaucratic perspective of looking
> > upon the 'public domain' as a notional sphere to turning it into a
> > functional domain. From a functional perspective unless a document is
> > accessible in the office of the public authority on demand, immediately or
> > in a publicly accessible library or on a noticeboard for all times to
> come,
> > or most importantly on the Internet, it must be treated as information
> that
> > is not available in the public domain.
> >
> > For example, publishing something in the gazette places information in the
> > public domain. But it does not ensure that it stays there and is easily
> > accessible to people. Copies of gazette notifications get exhausted. the
> > e-gazette database is accessible only on subscription. Unless some
> > department has made its gazette notifications openly accessible on its
> > website, the information is as good as not being available in the public
> > domain. Sarbajit and I have knocked our heads on DDA's doors trying to get
> > them to place on their website all their Rules notified in the gazette
> over
> > the years. This is because they are no longer accessible at any place
> except
> > through personal contacts with those who may have saved copies
> meticulousy.
> > This case alone is enough to demonstrate that what is placed in the public
> > domain does not necessarily stay there or is easily accessible to
> everybody.
> >
> >
> > At least one copy of the information placed in the public domain must be
> > presumed to be available with the concerned public authority. So what is
> > there in the law to prevent any citizen from seeking it under S. 6(1)? And
> > where in S 7(1) or S* or S9 does it say that what is proactively disclosed
> > under S. 4(1)(b) cannot be provided in response to an application under
> > S6(1).
> >
> > This kind of interpretation unfortunately has found its way in some
> previous
> > decisions of the CIC also. With due respect to the wisdom of the CIC it
> must
> > be said that such interpretations are bad in law and as activists we must
> > challenge them before the appropriate authorities at appropriate moments.
> >
> > The question that Sarbajit needs to ponder over is why has he litigated
> for
> > so long before the CIC for the DDA Rules when according to his own
> > definition they are already in the public domain.
> > Thanks
> > Venkat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: rti_india@yahoogroups.com <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:rti_india@yahoogroups.com <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf
> > Of sarbajitr
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:42 AM
> > To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [rti_india] Re: interpreation of Section 2(f) and 2(J)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Anurag
> >
> > The query is not very clear.
> >
> > Circulars are supposed to be proactively disseminated under section 4.
> Once
> > disseminated under section 4, they are in the public domain and no longer
> > "held by or under control of" the public authority - and hence cannot be
> > provided under section 6 process.
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> > --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > anurag prasad <yanuragprasad@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello everyone
> > >
> > > Can anybody interpret section 2(f) and 2(j) . One of the public
> authority
> > resorted to transfer a request under section 6(3) of the Act . The
> > receipient public authority ( who received the request under section 6(3)
> )
> > infered that the information is to be provided by the original public
> > authortiy and informed the applicant to receive the information from the
> > original public authrority. The information was sought by his was circular
> > issued by administrative ministry of his organisation and the requester is
> > an employee of subordinate office of the same administrative ministry.
> > >
> > >
> > > Anurag
> > >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment