Dear Satishji
Umi's reply is very poorly drafted from the legal point of view and
also tactically speaking.
No doubt it is very emotionally satisfying (at this point in time) for
Umapathi - and
RTI activists all over the country. However, the consequences to the
RTI movement
are grave should the CIC decide to pursue the matter.
My brief comments.
1) Umi has fallen into CIC's trap by responding in detail to this notice. He
ought to have occupied the high moral ground instead of coming down to
CIC's level.
2) Umi is playing the game on CIC's terms, whereas he should have
refused to reply to teh contempt issue considering that he had already
moved a Constitutional authority (Prez) on the same issue for grievance
redressal.
3) He ought to have pointed out that the CIC notice was clearly an
intimidatory device devised to pressurise him to withdraw his complaints.
4) He ought not to have tried to reach "the Law" to CIC's Legal Officer.
5) He ought to have cited a few exemptions to IPC-499 (defamation).
6) He ought to have asked the CIC to go F*** themselves considering
the CIC minutes of meeting of 17-Aug-2010, which clearly reveal that
CIC's cause of action was during the hearing and Umi's subsequent
complaint to Prez, and that the contempt on the subsequent yahoogroup
posting was an afterthought and trumped up..
Umi should seriously consider withdrawing his reply, and submitting a
new one on the lines indicated.
Sarbajit
On 9/1/10, Satish Kumar Kapoor <kapoorsatish@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Sh Umapathi,
>
> Very well drafted reply, wish you success.
>
> S.K.Kapoor
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: umapathi s <umi_sbs@yahoo.com>
> To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:09:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Another Major Threat to RTI Applicants- "Notice
> of
> CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BY C
>
>
> Dear Members , regarding the subject of contempt notice, I have submitted a
> detailed reply to the Commission today by speed post and e-mail. I express
> my
> sincere thanks to many members of this Group who exchanged their views
> (both
> positive and negative)on the subject.Reading my detailed reply which is
> reproduced below would clarify many of the issues on the subject. if membes
> want
> ,the thread can be closed.
No comments:
Post a Comment