Friday, October 29, 2010

Re: [HumJanenge] HumJanenge a nest of haramis

in my case decided in June 2010, Mr SG said that Directorate of education cant
access information from private school in delhi ( although rule 50 of delhi
school education allow DOE to do so ) and later in Pinnacale school where Mr
Gandhi was on full bench gave decision that Rule 50 allows Directorate of
education in delhi to access information from private school ....


----- Original Message ----
From: S.D. Sharma <>
Sent: Sat, 30 October, 2010 12:11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] HumJanenge a nest of haramis

Dear Sarbjit

Your plain words have struck chord with those persons who have
personally experienced Sailesh Gandhi's corrupt ways and double
standards. Even SG associates have not spared him publicly.

" NEW DELHI: Of the nine members appointed so far to the
three-year-old Central Information Commission (CIC), Shailesh Gandhi,
the latest nominee who joined in September, had raised the greatest
expectations. He is the first member to be appointed from among
activists to this bureaucrat-dominated institution. But, for all his
avowed zeal to clear the backlog of appeals by a self-imposed
deadline, the government's experiment of casting an activist in the
role of a detached adjudicator already seems to be coming unstuck.

This is apparent from a series of orders passed by Gandhi on
disclosure of information related to examinations. Displaying an
elementary lack of judicial discipline, he brushed aside a five-member
decision, which was binding on him. And then, rendering himself
vulnerable to the charge of bias, this IIT graduate refused to apply
to JEE a standard of transparency that he had himself laid down for a
CBSE examination.

Consider the manner in which Gandhi first overturned the April 2007
decision of the five-member CIC bench, which barred disclosure of
subjective-type answer sheets in the case of examinations conducted by
specialised agencies like UPSC and CBSE. It held that answer scripts
could be divulged only in the case of examinations conducted by those
public authorities like the Indian Railways and Lok Sabha secretariat
whose main function was not to hold tests.

The rationale behind the distinction made by the larger CIC bench was
that specialised academic or recruitment institutions anyway had a
foolproof system in place and the disclosure of evaluated answer
sheets would result in rendering the system unworkable. On an appeal
seeking answer sheets of CBSE's class 10 examination of 2006, Gandhi
disregarded the immunity granted to specialised institutions by the
five-member bench. Since CBSE took the alternative plea that it had,
as per its practice, destroyed the answer scripts after a certain
lapse of time, Gandhi directed it to furnish proof of their

In his order passed on December 8 on the appeal filed by Satyendra
Kumar Singh, Gandhi said, "In cases where records have been destroyed
as per a standard rule, the information officer should supply a copy
of the record evidencing actual destruction of the record."

Subsequently, in a further violation of the five-member decision,
Gandhi ordered CBSE to disclose answer-wise marks of a 12th class
examination. When CBSE cited the five-member decision, Gandhi shrugged
it off by invoking the RTI Act. In his December 22 order on an appeal
filed by Manoj Kumar Pathak, he said, "The matter has to be decided on
the basis of the RTI Act only. The onus of proving that the denial was
justified is on the information officer. He is able to advance no
reasonable reason for denying this information."

All this activist zeal seems to have however evaporated when it came
to an appeal seeking information from IIT Kharagpur on JEE 2006. Since
the five-member bench's prohibition applied only to subjective-type
answer scripts, IITs are obliged to disclose computer-evaluated,
objective-type answer sheets. On an appeal filed by its own computer
sciences professor, Rajeev Kumar, IIT Kharagpur claimed before Gandhi
that the answer sheets of JEE 2006 had been destroyed although the
matter had been sub judice in the Calcutta HC.

Rather than directing IIT to furnish proof of destruction, Gandhi
acquiesced with its evasive stand. In his January 2 order, he said,
"The respondent states that the answer sheets have been destroyed as
per their procedure and hence cannot be given. The Commission agrees
with this." Gandhi's double standards could not have been more

Gandhi's selective activism reinforces the worst of the stereotypes
about activists: that they can't be trusted to display judicial
temperament and impartiality."

S D Sharma

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:17 PM, sroy1947 <> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Owner / Moderator HumJanenge
> I am aggrieved that I have not been unsubscribed from this group. It
> is a trivial mater for me to unsubscribe myself, but I require you to
> do so as an acknowledgment of my grievance.
> I reiterate that Humjanenge is a nest of haramis, and I want to have
> nothing to do with this group. I strongly object to your posting
> messages I have posted to this group without my permission.
> It is groups such as Humjanenge which are responsible for the mess
> that RTI is in today. You f***ers are the ones responsible for getting
> one of India's most corrupt citizens appointed as an IC. The entire
> CommonWealth Games ghotala could only be facilitated because he was
> handpicked to be the Information Commissioner responsible for Delhi
> Government and also its PWD (Public Works) division.
> That this particular individual has repeatedly demonstrated his
> inherent corruptibility is demonstrated by messages posted to the HJ
> group where he calls for proceedings of the Central Information
> Commission to be
> A) conducted without the farce of having an open hearing
> B) If not, then oral submissions to be restricted to 7 minutes by the
> appellant
> C) Orders to be dictated in advance by professional "appraisers" who
> are paid Rs.200 per case. and so on.
> This is exactly what that HJ M**F**r has being doing in the last 2
> years sitting in Delhi.
> If any 'mai ka laal' disputes this, please read message no.13188 on
> HJ(yahoo) archives and reads his comments like this.
> "If there is a need to observe the farce of a hearing, as per the so-
> called principles of 'natural justice' enshrined in a Supreme Court
> judgement, about 60 matters could be disposed on
> one day and a farcical 'hearing' held, as is done in certain courts. "
> Until you unsubscribe me, I shall carry on posting more messages like
> this, so F*** you too.
> Warmly
> Sarbajit

No comments:

Post a Comment