You may like to read this
http://www.lawetalnews.com/NewsDetail.asp?newsid=2903
"The First Bench of Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal and Justice Ranjan
Gogoi today upheld an earlier judgement of a single judge of the high
court and dismissed Wadhwa's contention. The bench refused to agree
with the argument that information obtained pertained to 'leaders of
the nation and the information regarding their religion was sought in
public interest.' The court held, "the information supplied to the
Census Officer cannot be made public in view of the statutory bar
imposed by Section 15 of the Census Act which is not inconsistent with
Section 22 read with section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act,
2005."
Section 15 of the Census Act reads as "No person shall have a right to
inspect any book, register or record made by a census-officer in the
discharge of his duty as such, or any schedule delivered under section
10, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, no entry in any such book, register, record or
schedule shall be admissible as evidence in any civil proceeding
whatsoever or in any criminal proceeding other than a prosecution
under this Act or any other law for any act or omission which
constitutes an offence under this Act."
Wadhwa had argued that section 15 was in violation of section 22 of
the RTI Act and contended that the section could not stand in the way
of obtaining information he sought. Section 22 states, "The provisions
of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other
law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by
virtue of any law other than this Act."
The court based its decision on the reasoning that the provisions of
section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 are not inconsistent with
provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
and both can be read harmoniously. Accordingly, section 22 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 will not come into operation and cannot
sustain the pleas as argued by Wadhwa."
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Chitta Behera
<chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in> 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 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
> To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC" <rti_india@googlegroups.com>
> 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 <sidharthb...@gmail.com> 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