Dear Sunil,
If we see 4(1)(b), (c), and (d) they directly concern either the "public" or "affected persons". The usage of "shall" for these clauses is unqualified, so I would unhesitatingly declare that these are the mandatory sections.
The case of 4(1)(a) is different. It makes no direct reference to any person or any class of person. It repeatedly states that it is only a "facilitative" clause, hence it is not a substantive clause. Nothing would be gained or lost (advantage / benefit) to any person / party if the section was not in the law. It is purely your opinion that there are advantages to computerisation. It could be equally well argued that computerisation is disadvantageous, dangerous and opposed to letter and spirit of RTI <--- Read this carefully.
There is no question of "subject to (3) conditions" for computerisation of records in 4(1)(a). The clause lays down that only records "appropriate to be computerised" are connected through a network all over the country to facilitate access to information. It is entirely the P/As prerogative (discretion) to determine which records are appropriate to be accessed from all over the country.
The working rule is "Section 4 is for the P/A, section 6 is for the citizens". A citizen cannot complain about non-comptersiation unless he has actually been denied information, or as Prof Ansari would say "there is no denial of information to the appellant / complainant".
Read 18(1)(c) carefully, it distinguishes "request for information" (sec 6)from "access to information" (sec 4). The access to information for section 4(1)(b)/(c) is all that is allowed under the Act.
In conclusion to some of your other points. The information is held by the Govt. When a citizen "requests" for information he is in the position of a beggar (the same is true when you "beg" the courts for relief). Obviously, a beggar cloaks his lowly position with some moral justification ('saab do din se mere baccha bhooka hain') or comfort clauses found in some law which permits them to beg. IF WISHES WERE HORSES THEN BEGGARS WOULD RIDE. I am not a beggar.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarbajit,
>
> 1) I disagree with your contention. The reasoning is given below.
>
> 2) Agreed.
>
> 3) Partially agreed, reasons follow.
>
> 4) *Quote *
> "shall" is "not always imperative but may be consistent with an exercise of
> discretion
> *Unquote*
>
> The word shall almost always follows with the subject to conditions laid
> down in that particular section, if ALL of those conditions are in the
> affirmative then the word "shall" means mandatory and if ANY of those
> conditions are in the negative then the word "shall" does not mean
> mandatory.
>
> *Quote*:
> Thus it may be construed to mean "may" when no right to anyone depends upon
> its imperative use;* when no advantage is lost*; when no right is destroyed,
> *when no benefit is sacrificed*, either to the public or to any individual
> by giving it that construction."
> *Unquote*
>
> If the appropriate records are not computerized then advantage is lost as
> well as benefit is sacrificed, and I am sure we all know the advantages and
> benefits of computerization.
>
> 5) As you rightly said that all the sections of an Act as wells all the Acts
> have to be read along with together, for a just and fair interpretation.
>
> Hence if the mandate under section 4(1)(a) of computerization of records
> subject to the conditions laid down therein is overruled or inconsistent
> with the IT Act, I would appreciate if you can share those inconsistencies
> (relevant sections, sub-sections of the IT Act) with the forum.
>
> 6) :)
>
> 7) See point No. 5
>
> 8) I partially agree:
>
> Agree:
>
> *Quote*: (Excerpt from section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act)
> computerised and connected through a network all over the country on
> different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;
> *Unquote*
>
> *Quote*:
> ignore all 3rd party rights and give tonnes of exempted information
> *Unquote*
>
> That is precisely why section 4(1)(a) has mandated computerization of
> records and uploading it through a network all over the country on different
> systems and not on the INTERNET, so the PA has the records computerized to
> facilitate access to information but may disseminate severed information in
> accordance with section 10 and in compliance with section 8 and 9 of the RTI
> Act.
>
> Disagree:
>
> *Quote*:
> on a CD at Rs. 50
> *Unquote*
>
> There is nothing wrong in seeking information (or for that matter anything)
> in an easy, convenient and economical way, we all do that for quite a few
> things all the time.
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Sunil.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment