Tuesday, June 22, 2010

[rti_india] Re: Is Section 7(9) Reciprocative


Dear Col.

Let us reduce the problem to its essentials.


1)From time to time the KLA proceedings are videographed by a private agency.

2) The KLA claims that it exercises no "control" over the recording.


1) This situation is not covered by 2(f) but by 2(j).

2) The "right to information" extends to "records" which are "held by" the public authority. This is in ADDITION to documents etc. which are "under the control of" the P/A.

3) So for eg. if the KLA considers the videotapes to be part of its records (also mandated to be indexed and catalogued u/s 4(a)) then an applicant is entitled to it "as is". If the videotape is only for reference value then it is not accessible in RTI.

4) The first thing to determine are the circumstances under which the the proceedings are being videographed. Who authorised it ? Who pays for it ? How many copies, if any, are provided to the KLA ? BTW "record" is defined to include reproductions and copies. So you can obtain a copy of KLA's copy even though the original is with videographer. It is important to determine the copyright status of these works, did KLA commission the videography, who is the first owner etc. ?

5) Since you are requesting copy of the archival tapes/video, there is no question of the PIO having to compare it with the official transcript. You must emphasise in your request that you are only interested in an exact copy of the video as available with the KLA, and that you are not interested in receiving a "certified copy" which WOULD disproportionately divert the resources of the P/A.


--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@...> wrote:
> Thank you for the clarification. Unfortunately, when the word
> "information' stated in Section 7(9) amplified with its defenition in
> 2(f) coupled with the waves created by my friend Palat Mohandas, SIC,
> Kerala my confusion is confounded. The key words in this case are "
> Under the control of the public authority"
> Certain portions of the Kerala Legislative Assembly Proceedings are
> videographed in addition to the official script. The Speaker of the
> House says that this is done through private agency and the KLA does
> not exercise any control over the video recording. The recorded tapes
> being under the control of the videographer he could edit those tapes
> the way he wish, lack authenticity and the KLA has no control over
> these tapes. Literaly, the video tapea exist; but is NOT UNDER THE
> CONTROL of the KLA. To me, if we go by Section 2(f) the information
> contained in the vieo tapes in the above circumstances does not fall
> under 'right to information'
> When an applicant ask for copy of the above video tapes, the PIO
> cannot provide it on a plea that those tapes are not under the control
> of the PA. If the PA want to give copy of those tapes the PA has to
> authenticate it by reconciling it with the formal information of the
> proceedings held with the PA in the printed form. This would of cource
> l disproportionately divert the resources of the PA. My doubt ub rgua
> case is whether the PIO can fulfil his legal obligation of providing
> the information under his control by providing the printed form
> instead of the video tapes.

Recent Activity:

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

Get real-time World Cup coverage on the Yahoo! Toolbar. Download now to win a signed team jersey!



No comments:

Post a Comment