1) You can take up the issue of moderation with the actual moderators
of this group. I am emphatically NOT one of them.
2) Venkatesh did NOT post to this group - ie HJ-GG. Please read his
comment at the foot of his email.
">> [I have not posted this message on humjanenge@googlegroups.com.
However>> this
>> message may be automatically relayed through that group to unintended
>> recipients. My apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused to such
>> recipients.]"
3) Not receiving emails from even a single one of the groups Venkatesh
posted to and in view of his comment, I was strongly objecting to
receiving his email "relayed" through HJ-GG or otherwise -
Urvashi_Sharma / Amitabh&Nutan_Thakur spammer network etc.
4) Venkatesh's message is littered with legal flaws, NGOspeak and
fallacious logic. This is why he avoids posting to any forum where I
(or "other forces out to destroy RTI") can reply :-).
5) In addition the moderator of this group - HJ-GG has some Regulation
which says long boring scholarly articles are prohibited (incidentally
this originated from RTI_India where Venkatesh was involved).
Venkatesh doesn't want to lose his membership here by posting.
6) So my young friend, please go ahead and comment / appreciate /
enjoy / learn from Venkatesh's post. The RTI movement needs young
blood like you.
Sarbajit
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Kuldip Gyaneswar
<kuldipgyaneswar@gmail.com> wrote:
> The group is in total mess. Issues which are irrelevant are being brought up
> and seriously discussed and pursued. Mr. Sarbajit Roy you may challenge my
> knowledge on RTI, definitely not of your level, but even as someone young I
> can very strongly say the group is not being moderated properly and let me
> thank Mr. Venkatesh for at least posting something very relevant to be
> discussed. Let the discussion begin with the content rather than mailing
> list. Everyday I see more mails on the identity issues and mailing list
> issues rather than discussion on RTI.
> I am sure Mr. Sarbajit with all your intellectual understanding and
> experience would take cognizance of these issues and start a healthy
> discussion on RTI.
> Regards
> Kuldip
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Venkatesh
>>
>> I have not elected to receive emails for any of these groups listed
>> below and yet I am receiving unasked for posts. Please unsubscribe me
>> from HumJanenge Google Groups immediately.
>>
>> FYI, this is not the first time I have asked you people to do so.
>>
>> PS: Surely Shailesh Gandhi has circulated these draft Rules to you and
>> all his other NCPRI working committee colleagues like he did those
>> DoPT Minutes of 14.Oct.2009. So why don't YOU share these with
>> everyone - in the LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST ??
>>
>> PPS: When you give out your "alternate email" <alternate email:
>> <mailto:nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com> nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com > in your
>> posts why then complain when people /egroups send emails to it ?.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Venkatesh Nayak <venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org>
>> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:08:54 +0530
>> Subject: [HumJanenge-YG] Alert: RTI Rules being drafted in secrecy in
>> India- DoPT must coply with CIC decisions on public consultation on
>> draft laws, policies and rules
>> To: HumJanenge@yahoogroups.co.in, jharkhand@yahoogroups.co.in,
>> rti4ngo@yahoogroups.com, childrensrighttofood@googlegroups.com,
>> loksatta_initiative@yahoogroups.com,
>> ncpriworkingcommittee@yahoogroups.com,
>> urja-delhi-rwas@googlegroups.com, pwap@yahoogroups.com, Dalits Media
>> Watch <PMARC@dgroups.org>, ncprimailinglist@yahoogroups.com,
>> antibriberycampaign@yahoogroups.com,
>> development_communication_in_Orissa-owner@yahoogroups.com
>>
>> Dear all,
>> I am writing to alert you about Government of India's attempts to draft a
>> new set of Rules under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Some of you may
>> already be aware of this exercise. I am only adding to this debate a very
>> important element, namely, the current absence of and urgent need for
>> public
>> consultation.
>>
>> The minutes of the meeting held at the Central Information Commission
>> (CIC)
>> on 16th November 2010 indicate that it has been asked to comment on a set
>> of
>> draft RTI Rules prepared by the Government of India. The relevant extract
>> from the minutes is given below:
>>
>> "Agenda 1: Draft RTI rules- for discussions
>> Commission discussed the draft rules and suggested some modifications. The
>> changes as suggested by the Commission shall be incorporated and sent to
>> the
>> Government at the earliest. (Action: Secretary/JS (law)) "
>>
>> The complete text of the minutes of this meeting is attached and may also
>> be
>> accessed on the CIC website at:
>> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Minutes/Minutes16112010.pdf
>>
>> In 21st century where the RTI Act seeks to establish a regime of
>> transparency, rules governing the processes of seeking and obtaining
>> information are being discussed by only a handful of people behind closed
>> doors. There is no official word on what the draft RTI Rules contain. Till
>> date neither the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) the
>> administrative depatrment for the RTI Act, nor the CIC, has taken any step
>> to consult with the people of India on these draft Rules. The people of
>> India- the world's largest democracy are its the primary stakeholders and
>> have a deeply vested interest in ensuring that there is transparency in
>> the
>> administration, especially in policy making and implementation. The
>> secrecy
>> surrounding the draft RTI Rules is in clear violation of two decisions of
>> the CIC emphasising the duty of public consultation while drafting laws
>> and
>> policies. Whether the CIC has reminded the DoPT about the imperative of
>> public consultation on these Draft RTI Rules in not publicly known.
>>
>> Public Consultation is necessary while drafting legislation or policy: CIC
>> directs the Delhi Government in July 2010
>> In July 2010 a single member bench of the CIC directed the Government of
>> the
>> National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to fully comply with Section 4
>> of the RTI Act while formulating draft laws and policies. In this decision
>> the CIC observed as follows:
>>
>> " A plain reading of Section 4(1) (c) of the RTI Act suggests that every
>> public authority is required to publish or disclose all facts and
>> circumstances which are relevant and taken into account while formulating
>> policies and taking decisions that would affect the public. Section
>> 4(1)(c)
>> of the RTI Act requires proactive disclosure of proposed laws/ policies
>> and
>> amendments thereto or to existing laws/ policies to enable citizens to
>> debate in an informed manner and provide useful feedback to the
>> government,
>> which may be taken into account before finalizing such laws/ policies.
>> Given
>> that the DP Bill" (Delhi Police Amendment Bill) "is a significant
>> legislative change, the relevant public authorities involved in drafting
>> of
>> the said bill had a duty to proactively disclose its contents under
>> Section
>> 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act... The public authority should have disclosed the
>> contents of the DP Bill suo motu and by omitting to do so, the very
>> purpose
>> of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act stands defeated. The Commission has further
>> observed that at present, the GNCTD is not fully complying with Section 4
>> of
>> the RTI Act and therefore, is of the view that citizens must be provided
>> with means to debate legislative and policy changes which are likely to
>> affect public lives as contemplated by the GNCTD. The citizens
>> individually
>> are the sovereigns of the democracy and they delegate their powers in the
>> legislature. The RTI Act has recognized this and Section 4(1) (c) is meant
>> to ensure that the citizens would be kept informed about proposals for
>> significant legislative and policy changes...
>> In view of the aforesaid, the Commission, under the powers vested in it
>> vide
>> Sections 25(3) (g) and 25(5) of the RTI Act hereby directs the Chief
>> Secretary, GNCTD to develop a credible mechanism in all departments for
>> proactive and timely disclosure of draft legislations/ policies and
>> amendments thereto or to existing laws/ policies in the public domain, as
>> required under Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act, during the process of their
>> formulation and before finalization."
>>
>> The complete text of this decision is attached. It is also accessible at:
>>
>> http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_C_2010_000345_8440_M_37452.pdf
>>
>> Public Consultation is necessary while drafting legislation or policy: CIC
>> full bench directs the Central Government in Septmber 2010
>> In September 2010 a full bench of the CIC reiterated this stand and
>> directed
>> the Cabinet Secretariat under the Government of India and the DoPT to take
>> steps to create a mechanism for public consultation on draft laws before
>> they are tabled in Parliament. In this decision the CIC observed as
>> follows:
>>
>> "The Commission further recommends u/s 25 (5) that Cabinet Secretariat
>> considers amending Part V of Circular No. 1/16/1/2000-Cab of 15.4.2002 to
>> allow for public consultation in appropriate form."
>>
>> The complete text of this decision is attached. It is also accessible at:
>> http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_WB_C_2010_000120_T_41373.pdf
>>
>> What does Part V of Circular No. 1/16/1/2000-Cab of 15.4.2002 contain?
>> The Cabinet Secretariat issued a circular in April 2002 instructing all
>> departments and ministries under the Government of India on the
>> methodology
>> of preparation of Cabinet notes. Drafts of proposed laws or amendments to
>> existing laws are attached to draft Cabinet notes and circulated to the
>> relevant ministries and departments for consultation. Part V refers to the
>> procedure for conducting such inter-ministerial consultations. During such
>> consultations with various ministries the draft Cabinet note is circulated
>> with the classificatory label- "TOP SECRET" So save a handful of senior
>> officers, all other citizens of India are excluded from this consultation
>> process. The full bench of the CIC directed the Cabinet Secretariat to
>> amend
>> this portion of the circular and create appropriate spaces for public
>> consultation.
>>
>> The complete text of this circular is attached. It is also accessible at:
>> http://cabsec.nic.in/showpdf.php?type=circulars_april_2002
>> <http://cabsec.nic.in/showpdf.php?type=circulars_april_2002&special>
>> &special
>>
>> Despite the principle of mandatory public consultation having been laid
>> down
>> by the CIC, the DoPT has not yet begun consultation with the people of
>> India
>> on the draft RTI Rules. If the draft is ready for consultation with the
>> CIC
>> which is a body outside of Government, surely it can be opened up for a
>> more
>> widepsread consultation with the people of India who are using this law
>> every day. Surely no harm would be done if people's views are elicited on
>> so
>> important a subject. The Rules lay down the detailing of the framework for
>> accessing information under the RTI Act. The people of India have a right
>> to
>> be consulted on the draft Rules as they are the primary users of the RTI
>> Act. THE PEOPLE OF INDIA HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE CONSULTED NOW.
>>
>> The principle of public consultation on draft Rules is more than a century
>> old in India
>> The principle of consulting people on draft Rules under any law made by
>> Parliament or a State legislature is not a recent one. It is mentioned in
>> the General Clauses Act, enacted under the British Raj in 1897. The
>> complete
>> text of this Act is available at:
>> <http://trivandrum.gov.in/trivandrum/images/pdfs/generalclausesact.pdf>
>> http://trivandrum.gov.in/trivandrum/images/pdfs/generalclausesact.pdf This
>> law explains how common terms and phrases used in all laws enacted before
>> and after independence must be interpreted or understood. It is the basic
>> law for interpreting the meaning of terms used in the Constitution as well
>> (see Article 367, Constitution of India- accessible at:
>> http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/welcome.html). According to Section 23 of
>> the
>> General Clauses Act:
>>
>>
>> "Provisions applicable to making of rules or bye-laws after previous
>> publication.- Where, by any (Central Act) or Regulation, a power to make
>> rules or bye-laws is expressed to be given subject to the condition of the
>> rules or bye-laws being made after previous publication, then the
>> following
>> provisions shall apply, namely:- The authority having power to make the
>> rules or bye-laws shall, before making them, publish a draft of the
>> proposed
>> rules or bye-laws for the information of person likely to be affected
>> thereby.
>>
>> The publication shall be made in such manner as that authority deems to be
>> sufficient, or, if the condition with respect to previous publication so
>> requires, in such manner as the (Government concerned) prescribed.
>>
>> There shall be published with the draft a notice specifying a date on
>> after
>> which the draft will be taken into consideration.
>>
>> The authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws, and where the
>> rules or bye-laws are to be made with the sanction, approval or
>> concurrence
>> of another authority, that authority also, shall consider any objection or
>> suggestion which may me received by the authority having power to make the
>> rules or bye-laws from any person with respect to the draft before the
>> date
>> so specified.
>>
>> The publication in the (Official Gazette) of a rule or bye-law purporting
>> to
>> have been made in exercise of a power to make rules or bye-laws after
>> previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule or byelaw has
>> been duly made."
>>
>>
>>
>> In simple terms Section 23 explains that an administrative department may
>> make draft Rules public knolwedge through a gazette notification, give
>> people the time to file suggestions and objections on the draft Rules and
>> take such comments into consideration before finally notifying the Rules.
>> The administrative department is free to fix a time limit for this
>> consultation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is this principle not observed in practice?
>>
>> The principle of public consultation on draft Rules is sidestepped by
>> almost
>> all governments by using a simple device. They simply fail to mention the
>> phrase - "subject to previous publication" in the rule-making provision of
>> a
>> statute. When this phrase or its equivalent is not mentioned, the
>> Government
>> is not duty bound to consult with people on draft Rules. Section 23 of the
>> General Clauses Act becomes ineffective. It has remained a dead letter for
>> a
>> long time except in some instances in States like Karnataka. So the noble
>> principle of public consultation developed under foreign rule,100 years
>> ago,
>> is mostly ignored by democratically elected governments in independent
>> India. This is one of the ironies of governance in India today. More often
>> than not undue secrecy governs the exercise of drafting laws, rules and
>> regulations.
>>
>>
>>
>> What can you do to make the discussion on the draft RTI Rules more
>> transparent and participatory than it is today?
>> You may send an email or a post card or a letter to the Minister and the
>> Secretary in charge of DoPT urging them to publicise the draft RTI Rules
>> and
>> allow people adequate time to offer their comments and suggestions. The
>> DoPT
>> is under the charge of a new Minister of State: Shri V. Narayanasamy and a
>> new Secretary Ms. Alka Sirohi.
>>
>> You may use the following sample message or adapt it as you think fit:
>>
>> "Dear sir, (if addressing the Minister) or Dear Madam, (if addressing the
>> Secretary)
>>
>> I/We have learnt that your Ministry has drafted a new set of Rules under
>> the
>> Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and sought comments from the
>> Central Information Commission. These draft Rules have not been placed in
>> the public domain.
>> The RTI Act was drafted after widespread consultations with the people.
>> Civil society organisations actively participated in these consultations.
>> These consultations have helped in crafting a robust law that has become a
>> model for many countries.
>> There is no justification for drafting the Rules under the RTI Act in
>> secrecy. In September 2010 the Central Commission directed the Government
>> to
>> India to open up draft laws and policies for public consultation before
>> they
>> are finalised for introduction in Parliament. Your Ministry has not yet
>> honoured this directive in relation to the draft RTI Rules.
>> I/We urge you to direct your Ministry to immediately place the draft Rules
>> in the public domain and give us a month's time to send comments and
>> recommendations. The existing RTI Rules must not be changed without
>> undertaking public consultation in a credible manner.
>>
>> Thanking you,
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> (Name/postal address/signature of the sender)"
>>
>>
>> Please send your email/postcard/letters to:
>>
>> Shri V. Narayanasamy
>> Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
>> Government of India
>> North Block
>> New Delhi- 110 001
>> Email: mos-pp@nic.in, <mailto:samyselvi@sansad.nic.in>
>> samyselvi@sansad.nic.in
>>
>> and to
>>
>> Ms. Alka Sirohi, IAS
>> Secretary to the Government of India
>> Department of Personnel,
>> Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
>> North Block
>> New Delhi- 110 001
>> Email: secy_mop@nic.in
>>
>> In order to access the our previous email alerts on RTI and related issues
>> please click on:
>>
>> <blocked::http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&
>> view=article&id=65&Itemid=84>
>>
>> http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic
>> le&id=65&Itemid=84
>>
>> You will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
>> receive these email alerts please send an email to this address indicating
>> your refusal.
>>
>> [I have not posted this message on humjanenge@googlegroups.com. However
>> this
>> message may be automatically relayed through that group to unintended
>> recipients. My apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused to such
>> recipients.]
>>
>>
>>
>> Venkatesh Nayak
>> Programme Coordinator
>> Access to Information Programme
>> Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
>> B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
>> New Delhi- 110 017
>> tel: 91-11- 43180215/43180200/ 26864678
>> fax: 91-11- 26864688
>> website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org
>> <http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/>
>> alternate email: <mailto:nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com>
>> nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment