Dear Venkatesh
1) The reason I sent you the link (not the decision) was due to the fact that HC-DB has subsequently rendered another decision in the matter.
2) Point #3 Para 36 does not support your case at all. It is exclusively about information as defined in section 2(f). As we know, the RTI Act defines 2 categories of disclosable information a) that which the P/A must publish and b) that which a citizen has the right to access under the Act.
3) In so far as section 4 disclosure is concerned, the P/A is not limited to publishing only that information held by it or under its controlled. This is what Justice Bhat is referring to in point # 3 para 36. Please note that section 4 disclosure is NOT a right conferred to citizens, it is an obligation on the part of public authorities to facilitate citizens in obtaining information and reducing the burden on the system.
4) When it comes to section 6, however, the RTI Act specifies that a citizen only has the right to information defined in section 2(j) - ie. information (as defined in 2f) accessible under the Act AND held by or under its control.
(NB: What I am saying for items 3 and 4 is very subtle and may require multiple reads - since it is constructed as an "Occams razor" as you requested)
5) The settled law I refer to is IC(AT)'s order. IC(SG) did not have the legal acumen to challenge that order which is why he could only "respectfully disagree". As IC(SG) knows nothing about RTI or the law, and I'm sure if you've read his latest (17th May 2010) - I have - where he tries to take on IC(AT) on why he is entitled to use clerks to write up his orders and fails badly (qv. latest CIC minutes) you can confirm this.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarbajit,
> Thanks for sending the decision to me. I would not have been able to do an
> analysis of this decision last year if I had not read it already. Kindly
> read the discussion on Point #3 at para 36. The discussion is about the term
> 'material' but it clarifies what is meant by 'held by'. Here it means
> material possession. In plain language that means physical possession to me.
> You ma look upon it differently.The Court however did not go to the extent
> of saying whether any public authority materially possessing the information
> is competent to make a decision regards access. I think that would depend
> upon the context of the information (and not the request). But that's a
> discussion fro another day and it hinges on the recent OM issued by the DoPT
> on S. 11 and information received in confidence from one public authority by
> another.
> Your interpretation which you say is based on 'settled law' only complicates
> simply worded provisions which must be interpreted as if one were using
> Occam's razor. I hope you realise that the rules of construction used by the
> courts do not allow for the twisting and turning of meanings that are plain
> and apparent to the common sense. What is made public 'mandatorily' (if you
> prefer that term) cannot be said to end the citizens' right to seek the same
> information under S. 6(1). Importance must be attached more to the easy
> availability of the information in the public domain than to the mere act of
> making something public at some somnolescent moment in history.
> Thanks
> Venkat
>
No comments:
Post a Comment