I m faithful to Transparent working. Information Commissioners have come and gone, are coming and going, will come and go every after 5 year or early. I have not gone deep in to the matter on the comments of RTI regulations and individual recommendations but the RTI activists feel that there is need to watch the transparency watchdogs (CIC and Sacs). They feel that some ICs r working more for bureaucrats and less for the applicants/ for the cause of transparency. There r concrete examples of the same also. If even a non-bureaucrat IC is changing, v have every right to show raise the matter and ask for clarification even if he is 'Gandhi', or 'Sharma or 'Mishra or 'Dixit' or was 'Ansari' or Tiwari or someone else. V r not loyal to any individual may be Commissioner. V r loyal to the Constitution of India and the laws framed under it.
From: Raminder Singh <ramisingh.bbc@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, 23 December, 2010 8:16:53 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-013
Dear Sarbjit
I have verified the information. Shailesh Gandhi actually wrote each of the items you have attributed to him. Even his few remaining loyalists like M.K.Gupta are hard pressed to defend Mr Gandhi in the face of his own writings.
Raminder
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:54 PM, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Guptaji
I never say anything without having proof.
Shailesh Gandhi made the comment I referred to in this message at
HumJanenge-Yahoogroup. As you are a member there I suggest you verify
it at this link,
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/HumJanenge/message/13188
Titled "Disposals of information Commissions" dated 6,Jan,2007
Quotes:
"3.. Read the appeals/complaints to see primary admissibility, or if
suitable for
summary disposal. ... It might be worthwhile considering a pool of
about 50 people (appraisers), who could be paid maybe Rs. 200 per
case. They would be called by rotation and the cases given to them
would be in serial order number. They would read the
appeals/complaints and the annexures and make a short précis giving
the essential features of the matter. They would also recommend
whether the case is fit for summary disposal."
:
"3(b) If papers show that the Appellant has got a perfectly legitimate
rejection/
or has got information and is yet appealing or complaining unreasonably, dismiss
the appeal/complaint, and intimate the appellant. There may be cases, where in
at least five identical cases, the Commission has rejected the appeal/complaint,
in which case also it should be recommended for summary rejection."
:
"3(c) These suggestions along with the précis would be put before the
Information
Commissioner, who would take a decision. The Information Commissioner would also
be responsible for reading the original appeal and comparing it with the précis
being given to him in at least 10% of the cases. 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. "
"4) Each side should be given not more than 7 minutes usually for
their arguments.
As far as possible,-in atleast 90% of the matters,- an order should be dictated
in front of the parties. A secretary could take dictation and directly type on
the computer. An average hearing including giving the order should be over in 30
minutes, and each Commissioner should normally hold about 10 to12 hearings in a
day, if required. All other correspondence in the Commissioner's
office should normally be handled by the Registrar."
A careful reading of the extracts I have selected show that almost
every aspect of the badmaashi which is being attempted now by the
draft RTI Rules is based on what Shailesh-bhai (and I stress 'bhai')
had dreamed up 4 years back. For instance,
a) Registry, (incl Privatisaton of the Registry to NGOs at Rs.200 per case)
b) Hearing not required
c) Rejection of appeal at admission stage by Registry (in the name of
the Commission of course)
d) Matters being decided by the Registry, and the Commissioner only
checking "10%" of the cases.
Any normal / reasonable person reading this would tell you that he is
a maha-harami for honest decent citizens. And that is precisely what
our friend and member "ACF ANAND" told dear Shailesh bhai in reply
"Who has to implement this. I think you are in dreams"
Today my only query to Shailesh Bhai is this,
"In 2007 you calculated very scientifically (you are allegedly an
engineer) that even with only a farce of a hearing an Information
Commissioner could dispose of 10-12 cases per day. Yet, at your peak
you were disposing 25 cases per day - What are your secrets which are
still to be inflicted on the poor people of India ?"
Sarbajit
On 12/22/10, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Raminder ji, I think that we shold not take this seriously. This is an old
> song
> about Mr. Gandhi, without any proof.
> ________________________________
> From: Raminder Singh <ramisingh.bbc@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 22 December, 2010 1:01:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS :
> ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-013
>
> Dear Sarbjit
>
> I could not believe what you wrote about Government removing the right of
> citizens to be heard in person while their appeals are being decided at the
> Central Information Commission. I then re-read the new rules and discovered
> you
> are absolutely correct. Spoke to an Information Commissioner who says that
> the
> entire procedure and changes for Central Information Commission"s procedure
> are
> based on CIC response to the draft rules which CIC agreed to at their
> meeting. I
> then asked if Sailesh Gandhi had agreed to this, and learned that Gandhi had
> also given his assent to all the CIC proposals, and that this was actually
> one
> of Gandhi"s suggestions to increase the disposal rate at CIC.
>
> Raminder.
No comments:
Post a Comment