The Right to Information is now an ordinary right.
Previously I could write a letter to a Public authority seeking information (free of charge) and after a reminder or 2 expect a reply under say the DopT's Manual of Procedure. If I wasn't happy I could file a Writ Petition u/a 32 in the Supreme Court, or u/a 226 in the High Courts.
Today if you did so, the Court would ask - "have you applied under RTI and exhausted all your appellate remedies before approaching us?"
Previously (ie. when RTI was a Fundamental Right) I would be standing before a senior Justice within about a week arguing my case. Today (when RTI is an ordinary right) I have to wait for 2 years to stand before Mr Habibullah / Mr Suresh Joshi / Mr Arha or whoever.
I am not misleading anyone. The language of the law is clear - section 3 of the RTI Act
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information."
FoI has thus been taken out of the ambit of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarbajit,
> Like I said before, the human rights discourse is much more complex than
> what it is portrayed to be in the layperson's understanding. Rights do not
> vest in an individual as a reward for duties performed. They arise and vest
> because of the inherent dignity of the human being which he/she is entitled
> to, therefore they are not directly linked with the performance of duties.
> But since this is not a forum for discussing human rights I rest this matter
> here.
>
> You also need to look at the statement of objects and reasons of the RTI
> Bill as tabled in Parliament in 2004. The RTI Act was brought in to give
> effect to the implied fundamental right to information. It as not been
> downgraded. Instead a system and a mechanism has been created for the
> exercise of this fundmental right and that has been given primacy over OSA.
> If we miss this point then we end up misleading other members of this group.
> RTI is not merely a statutory right. It is a law that gives effect to a
> dundamental right. This has been recognised in several HC decision on RTI
> matters but some HCs I would respectfully say got it wrong when they held
> that it is a statutory right in addition to the fundamental right to know.
> Any good government will pass laws to promote, fulfil and protect rights.
> That is why NREGA was passed protecting the right to livelihood and a just
> wage for people in rural areas, Prevention of Torture Bill is being debated
> to provide for a system where torture can be prevented or wher it occurs it
> can be dealt with (but the Bill is crazily drafted). By passing a law to
> enable the exercise a fundamental right, that right does not get downgraded.
> Of course section 8 contains more restrictions than the list of reasonable
> restrictions found in article 19(2). Again I rest my case on this issue.
> Thanks
> Venkat
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: rti_india@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rti_india@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of sarbajitr
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:49 AM
> To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [rti_india] Re: interpreation of Section 2(f) and 2(J)
>
>
>
>
> Dear Venkat,
>
> 1) Let me express my sadness that you have chosen not to participate in the
> discussion here. As a member of this group, you would have doubtless
> observed the steps taken by us to ensure that the decks here are kept clear
> for a high level of civilised discourse / debate on pure RTI.
>
> 2) I hope that you will participate in taking this discussion to a logical
> conclusion notwithstanding our individual public positions. There are no
> winners or losers in such discussions - just a desire to ensure that our
> members get exposed to all possible viewpoints on the interpretations
> involved - and reach their own independent conclusions.
>
> 3) As I have oft stated, including on this platform, by the RTI Act 2005,
> the court conferred Fundamental Right to Information has been downgraded to
> an ordinary right enforceable only under the provisions of the Act. If I was
> to take this stand in a superior court, there is no court in the country
> which would disagree with me, for with the passage of the Act all the
> previous decisions of the Courts have been rendered obsolete.
>
> 4) On your position on jural duties as the opposite of right, The Indian
> Constitution clearly specifies the duties of citizens (separate chapter) in
> addition to
>
No comments:
Post a Comment