Monday, November 29, 2010

Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Dear Chitta

In addition to my earlier post.

The Right to Information is essentially a Fundamental Right to seek
information to participate in public democratic processes. In a
democracy, voting is the primary way for citizens to be represented.
So if the citizen cannot participate (ie. cast his vote) then he has
no right to seek info either.

It would also be good to refresh ourselves about the Greco-Roman
concept of citizenship.

"Citizenship in ancient Greece and Rome, as well as Medieval cities
that practiced polis citizenship, was exclusive and inequality of
status was widely accepted. Citizens had a much higher status than
non-citizens: Women, slaves or 'barbarians'. For example, women were
seen to be irrational and incapable of political participation
(although some, most notably Plato, disagreed). Methods used to
determine whether someone could be a citizen or not could be based on
wealth (the amount of taxes one paid), political participation, or
heritage (both parents had to be born in the polis)."

PS: I trust Seema Misra is reading this.

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:21 PM, sroy 1947 <> wrote:
> Under Indian Penal Code, consent, which includes an essential
> ingredient for capacity to contract, can only be given by child 12
> years or more. (section 90 if I recall rightly)
> A child of 9 years has no independent mind of its own and must be
> presumed to be a proxy for the parent / keeper. Hence cannot file RTI.
> The sooner we accept the truth the better - Urvashi Sharma is a
> publicity seeking hound who doesn't shrink from using her daughters
> for this purpose. In civilised society we have another name for such
> ladies.
> The law is the law, there has to be a cut-off point applied uniformly
> to everybody.
> A boy can impregnate at age 10-11 yrs, a girl can conceive at age 12.
> Does that mean that marriage should be legal from 12 years ?.
> Sarbajit
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Chitta Behera
> <> wrote:
>> Dear Mr.Roy,
>> What about Section- 22 of RTI Act 2005, as per which all other laws and
>> instrumentalities of the State including CPC are to be read, subject to the
>> provisions of this Act. It is one thing to say that a child as young as 3
>> years needs to be represented by a major, but it is altogether a different
>> thing to say that he has no right to apply for information under this Act.
>> Then what about a college going boy or girl of say 17 and half years old,
>> who is legally a minor, but very much capable of applying for information
>> and pleading for his case before any forum. Do you mean to say that because
>> of his/her minority in age, he or she should be deprived of his right to
>> apply directly to a public authority? Section 3 of RTI Act gives right to
>> every citizen to apply for information under this Act, and a citizen by
>> definition given in the Constitution is he or she who is born in this
>> country irrespective of his/her present biological age.
>> Regards,
>> Chitta Behera
>> ________________________________
>> From: sroy1947 <>
>> To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC" <>
>> Sent: Sat, 27 November, 2010 7:55:59 AM
>> Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information
>> Dear Sid (and everyone else who has replied later to this thread)
>> 1) IC Shailesh is an idiot.
>> 2) IC Shilesh is a 'bhada ka tattoo' (ie mule for hire) who has been
>> made to wear blinkers so that the only road he can see in front of him
>> is RTI Act. (and not the whole wide world around him).
>> 3) Minors have no right in law to file RTIs or Court cases (or to sue
>> or be sued) independently. They must always have an adult with them,
>> as their "next friend" / guardian. Its all there in CPC and other
>> special / procedural laws..
>> 4) Mrs Urvashi Sharma is trying to get cheap publicity to show that
>> her daughter age 9 (?) or is it 4(?) is the youngest RTI applicant. My
>> own son has filed a RTI application to a Central Govt regulatory
>> agency in Jan 2003 !!! (with fee) and they accepted it and gave the
>> reply (after lot of fighting) in May 2003. He was 2yrs 11 months when
>> he filed it. Based on this he filed a Writ in SC (at age 3 years) as
>> petitioner in person - I was his next friend - the Court; listened to
>> him carefully and dubbed him "learned counsel" (recorded in their
>> order) and passed an order which eventually caused "Hathaways" a loss
>> of 600 crore rupees.
>> Sarbajit Roy
>> On Nov 27, 5:59 pm, Sidharth Misra <> wrote:
>>> I have come across a news item where the UP SIC Sh Pankaj has rejected a
>>> Minor's appeal saying that she is a MINOR.
>>> IC Shailesh says that there's no such bar in the Act.
>>> Who is right ?
>>> If yes then How minor he/she can be ? ? ?
>>> Can any one throw some light on this ?
>>> Regards,
>>> sidharth

No comments:

Post a Comment