| The budget was a non-event. It is a tinkerer's budget; I impose a few crores here, I give reduce a few crores there. It is completely lacking in vision, and fails to even acknowledge the burning issues of food price inflation (agricultural chain productivity), corruption, mal-governance. One would have liked the thousands of babus that eat up hundreds of crores in salaries and benifits to have produced a document better than an accounting document, eg. a thrust in agricultural chain productivity vis-a-vis world standards: a dramatic funding of watersheds, soil and water conservation, linkage of babu salaries to increased productivity by, say 50% in 5 years, formation of agricultural co-ops; dramatic increase in canning of foodstuffs (and zero taxes thereon); improved seeds, farmer training, etc, etc. One would also have liked to hear about doubling or trebling of resources to justice delivery system, so that errant are punished swiftly, and crime carries some real costs that are several fold higher than acquisition price. It is many months, if not years, since the issue of huge corruption monies came up. Other than a few being put behind bars for a few days, there is nothing elese by the government to show for. This applies equally to BJP, except for Mr. Nitish Kumar (long live Mr. Nitish Kumar.) All this goes to show that we should not expect anything much from the government. God help India, for it is headed for very troubled times in the coming decade or so. Regards, Victor |
Monday, February 28, 2011
[HumJanenge] A tinkerer's budget
[HumJanenge] We The People have the right to know : Who is "Transparency Officer" at DoPT Goi New Delhi...
| Dear Dr Manmohan Singh, We, The People have the right to know as to who is the "Transparency Officer" at DoPT, the Nodal Govt Agency implementing Transparency Law to improve transparency and accountability of public administration towards the citizens. Kindly direct DoPT to make it public without further waste of time. The concerned citizen complaint Shri Sarbajit Roy, who has been trying hard to contribute towards improving the governance, also be informed directly. Regards, -- (Babubhai Vaghela) C 202, Shrinandnagar V, Makarba Road Vejalpur, Ahmedabad - 380051 M - 94276 08632 http://twitter.com/BabubhaiVaghela About me in Annexure at - http://bit.ly/9xsHFj http://www.youtube.com/user/vaghelabd (Administrator - Google Group - Right to Information Act 2005) http://groups.google.com/group/Right-to-Information-Act-2005/about?hl=en --- On Mon, 2/28/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
|
[HumJanenge] PUBLIC GRIEVANCE PETITION: Who is "Transparency Officer" at DoPT
To:
The Department of Personnel & Training, by
the Secretary to the Department.
BY EMAIL
01-March-2011
Kind Attn: Ms Alka Sirohi
Dear Madam
Sub: PUBLIC GRIEVANCE PETITION: Who is "Transparency Officer" at DoPT
As I have oft complained in previous (and pending) Grievance Petitions, the DoPT has comprehensively failed to comply with the mandate of section 4 of the RTI Act 2005 which is administered by your Department. I have suffered great loss, harm and/or detriment thereby.
Taking cognisance of the State's woeful track record in document management and proactive disclosure in my case, the Central
Information Commission (by order of Shri A.N.Tiwari) had directed all Secretaries to the Govt of India to appoint senior level officers (of the level of #2 or #3 in the hierarchy of the department) as "Transparency Officers" within November 2010. This directive dt 15/Nov/2010 of the then Chief Information Commissioner was later ratified by all Central Information Commissioners and duly communicated by a DO dated 18.Nov.2010 to yourself..
It is noteworthy that virtually all Departments/Ministries have complied with the said direction and appointed Transparency Officers well in time, this includes bodies like the Cabinet Secretariat and the PMO etc. The DoPT, however, under your able stewardship is a resolute holdout and has quite properly decided to ignore the said directive as being bad in law. As usual I am in complete agreement with the stand of the DoPT that the CIC is off his rocker and has no powers to issue such directions off his own bat (unless some complainant or appellant first bowls a ball for him to hit you with). I also agree with DoPT that the CIC cannot condone the brazen disregard and contempt for section 4 of RTI Act (which incidentally DoPT delights in instructing other public authorities to flout via DoPT's circulars) and grant public authorities more time to comply than the RTI Act permits.
I therefore pray that I be formally informed by DoPT immediately that there is no Transparency Officer at DoPT (along with brief reasons) so that I can lodge my grievance to Madame President's online grievance facility asking for this wasteful, non-statutory and unlawful scheme of CIC to be scrapped. If, however, the DoPT has appointed / designated a Transparency Officer, his/her particulars may kindly be provided to me. This information is also sought by me u/s 4 of the RTI Act.
Yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 011-2433-4262
The Department of Personnel & Training, by
the Secretary to the Department.
BY EMAIL
01-March-2011
Kind Attn: Ms Alka Sirohi
Dear Madam
Sub: PUBLIC GRIEVANCE PETITION: Who is "Transparency Officer" at DoPT
As I have oft complained in previous (and pending) Grievance Petitions, the DoPT has comprehensively failed to comply with the mandate of section 4 of the RTI Act 2005 which is administered by your Department. I have suffered great loss, harm and/or detriment thereby.
Taking cognisance of the State's woeful track record in document management and proactive disclosure in my case, the Central
Information Commission (by order of Shri A.N.Tiwari) had directed all Secretaries to the Govt of India to appoint senior level officers (of the level of #2 or #3 in the hierarchy of the department) as "Transparency Officers" within November 2010. This directive dt 15/Nov/2010 of the then Chief Information Commissioner was later ratified by all Central Information Commissioners and duly communicated by a DO dated 18.Nov.2010 to yourself..
It is noteworthy that virtually all Departments/Ministries have complied with the said direction and appointed Transparency Officers well in time, this includes bodies like the Cabinet Secretariat and the PMO etc. The DoPT, however, under your able stewardship is a resolute holdout and has quite properly decided to ignore the said directive as being bad in law. As usual I am in complete agreement with the stand of the DoPT that the CIC is off his rocker and has no powers to issue such directions off his own bat (unless some complainant or appellant first bowls a ball for him to hit you with). I also agree with DoPT that the CIC cannot condone the brazen disregard and contempt for section 4 of RTI Act (which incidentally DoPT delights in instructing other public authorities to flout via DoPT's circulars) and grant public authorities more time to comply than the RTI Act permits.
I therefore pray that I be formally informed by DoPT immediately that there is no Transparency Officer at DoPT (along with brief reasons) so that I can lodge my grievance to Madame President's online grievance facility asking for this wasteful, non-statutory and unlawful scheme of CIC to be scrapped. If, however, the DoPT has appointed / designated a Transparency Officer, his/her particulars may kindly be provided to me. This information is also sought by me u/s 4 of the RTI Act.
Yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 011-2433-4262
[HumJanenge] Re: A RAY OF HOPE ON RTI EFFECTIVENESS
Dear Bhaskar
NB: THIS GROUP RT4EMP-GG is not to be used ordinarily for RTI / RTI related discussions. That takes place on HJ-GG insofar as RTI-Unity project is concerned.. This group is for matters flowing out from RTI such as corruption, empowerment, Baba Ramdev etc. So I am cross-posting this thread there for a wider discussion. Your sentimental attachment to HJ-YG should not become a route for taking this group beyond its range. HJ-GG is open to anyone who wants to join / rejoin.
There is every reason why reasons for filing RTI should and must be required to be stated by RTI applicants. Section 6(2) should and ought to be challenged and struck down. The issue is actually to be restated as "can the PIO refuse to give information / process a request if applicant states a reason?".
Let me set out the logic step-wise. Simply say YES or NO. (If "no" then your reasons)
1) The State is duty bound to give effect to Fundamental Rights of citizens (such as RTI) on its own. The norm is that the State should suo-moto publish ("disseminate") all information so that citizens have minimum recourse to requesting for information formally. YES / NO
2) "Requesting" for information formally by citizens takes place EITHER
a) when the State fails to declare information suo-moto, OR
b) When the citizens seek access to information which the State deems to be exempt from disclosure, OR
c) Some other reason (Fill in the blanks). YES / NO
3) For case 2(a) above, the remedy is exclusively by Complaint jurisdiction u/s 18. For 2(b) the remedy is to file an RTI request u/s 6 and pursue it using appellate options u/s 19. YES / NO. (Since this is crucial read it carefully)
4) Filing a section 6 request and pursuing it through appeal route is an "extra-ordinary" (not normal) process YES / NO.
5) Hence, section 6(2) of RTI Act is ultra-vires the Constitution of India, specifically the Chapter of Fundamental rights and their enforcement. YES / NO (I have purposely left out 2 steps between 4 and 5)
Sarbajit
NB: THIS GROUP RT4EMP-GG is not to be used ordinarily for RTI / RTI related discussions. That takes place on HJ-GG insofar as RTI-Unity project is concerned.. This group is for matters flowing out from RTI such as corruption, empowerment, Baba Ramdev etc. So I am cross-posting this thread there for a wider discussion. Your sentimental attachment to HJ-YG should not become a route for taking this group beyond its range. HJ-GG is open to anyone who wants to join / rejoin.
There is every reason why reasons for filing RTI should and must be required to be stated by RTI applicants. Section 6(2) should and ought to be challenged and struck down. The issue is actually to be restated as "can the PIO refuse to give information / process a request if applicant states a reason?".
Let me set out the logic step-wise. Simply say YES or NO. (If "no" then your reasons)
1) The State is duty bound to give effect to Fundamental Rights of citizens (such as RTI) on its own. The norm is that the State should suo-moto publish ("disseminate") all information so that citizens have minimum recourse to requesting for information formally. YES / NO
2) "Requesting" for information formally by citizens takes place EITHER
a) when the State fails to declare information suo-moto, OR
b) When the citizens seek access to information which the State deems to be exempt from disclosure, OR
c) Some other reason (Fill in the blanks). YES / NO
3) For case 2(a) above, the remedy is exclusively by Complaint jurisdiction u/s 18. For 2(b) the remedy is to file an RTI request u/s 6 and pursue it using appellate options u/s 19. YES / NO. (Since this is crucial read it carefully)
4) Filing a section 6 request and pursuing it through appeal route is an "extra-ordinary" (not normal) process YES / NO.
5) Hence, section 6(2) of RTI Act is ultra-vires the Constitution of India, specifically the Chapter of Fundamental rights and their enforcement. YES / NO (I have purposely left out 2 steps between 4 and 5)
Sarbajit
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bhaskar N <bhaskar_n55@yahoo.com> wrote:
the clauses regarding the 'purpose' of the query still stands, as i read it- we need to get this clause also removed. there should be no need to state the purpose why an individual is asking for information.bhaskar
From: Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, 27 February, 2011 11:35:36 AM
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] A RAY OF HOPE ON RTI EFFECTIVENESSSarbajit,Not Again, you generally would like to be in discussion by blame game by using names of known prominent citizens (i know you will again disagree) but I appreciate your commitment of negative marketing system of making genuine public spirited persons names known to others -:).Thanks and i remainYours in service of RTIBhaskarOn Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Guptaji
This is NOT good news. This is the pre-planned lollilops they had planned all along to keep the little babies who cry all the time quiet. Please do not waste time of group members publicising such non-events. Instead, please post a copy of the comments YOU had submitted to DoPT on Draft RTI Rules. What are YOU doing to ensure that your voice is heard ? Do YOU agree that only Aruna Roy can negotiate on behalf of citizens with DoPT?
Sarbajit
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
A RAY OF HOPE ON RTI EFFECTIVENESS
(Extract from Times of India, 27.2.2011)
Sonias NAC prevails over govt on RTI, forest rights
Seeks Staggered Food Act RolloutSubodh Ghildiyal & Himanshi Dhawan | TNN
New Delhi: The Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) has won decisive victories in keeping at bay the governments attempt to regulate the Right to Information and ensuring that the pro-tribal Forest Rights Act (FRA) is made more effective for its intended beneficiaries.
It disagreed with the government and insisted that procuring 65 million tonnes of foodgrain for a full rollout of the programme was not a difficult task.The Council,seen as a policy interface with civil society,is an influential body providing policy and legislative inputs,headed as it is by the Congress president.
Prevailing on RTI and forest rights are major achievements while guaranteeing 35kg of foodgrain a month to families below the poverty line and sections of the urban poor is a key Sonia scheme,too.
The differences had fed into a perception of divergence between the Congress and the government.
On RTI, the government ceded ground on its bid to restrict an application to 250 words and a clause stating inquiry end on applicants death.
NAC forces govt to lift word limit on RTI applications
New Delhi: On RTI, the government ceded ground to Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) in its bid to restrict an application to 250 words and a clause stating an inquiry would end if the applicant died.
Now,it will say an application should preferably not exceed 500 words.It has also agreed that a query will not cease on an applicants death.The government is still insisting that an RTI application should be focused on one subject.But NAC has decided not to give up.Sonia Gandhi told council members on Friday that this should be pursued with the government.
Department of Personnel and Training had earlier opposed NACs suggestions.Information activists who saw the proposed amendments as a bid to dilute the powerful act can rejoice after a protracted three-month battle.The 250-word cap and the single-subject rule are in particular seen to be limiting clauses.Abatement of an appeal in case of an applicants death has also seen activists arguing that this provision could be misused to kill people asking uncomfortable questions as has been reported in some cases recently.
****
Sunday, February 27, 2011
RE: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
Take the help of your freind. Ask him file RTI application seeking inspection of work and record the proceedings
Sent from my Nokia phone
-----Original Message-----
From: M.K. Gupta
Sent: 27/02/2011 9:11:10 am
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
What about hearing in person? any clue, dear Anand.
Thanks for this information, next time, I shall opt for video conference but in
Video Conference, one problem, how to make written submissions of about 2-3
pages. In Video Conference, it these may take 5-16 minutes and which long
conference may not be allowed or may not continue in the network.
M K Gupta
________________________________
From: "acfanand@gmail.com" <acfanand@gmail.com>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, 27 February, 2011 12:14:48 AM
Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata
Banerjee
As hearring is done jhrough video conference. The data becomes infformation
Sent from my Nokia phone
-----Original Message-----
From: M.K. Gupta
Sent: 26/02/2011 7:51:00 pm
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata
Banerjee
Dear Roy,
I want to know we can legally audio record the proceedings of the case at
Information Commissions, without causing any disturbance to the proceedings.
This is in the wake of many complaint of the applicants that their submissions
have not been considered and have not been included in the decision or the order
is not an speaking one.
Shall be thankful if you can share this information for members, if you know
about this too otherewise I will have to file an RTI with CIC and DoPT for
taking a clarification. I add that such hearing are held in open court and thus
these are not confidential.
If any other member is aware about this, please share.
________________________________
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 26 February, 2011 12:05:57 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata
Banerjee
As per my submission to the DoPT, the right of personal
hearing does not extend to being fobbed off with audio/
video conferences where the evidentiary process cannot
be given effect to.
Sarbajit
O
Email truncated to 2,000 characters
:::0:b16201ea244cdb3d56b2e0b8367a4cfd:7d0::::
Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
| There are just too many of them. You might recall the case No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00040 dated 27th March 2006 which you had assisted with applicant Mujibur Rehman V/s South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Chattisgarh. Was not the requested information ".....should be common knowledge and is suitable for suo moto disclosure u/s 4 (1) of the Act." as observed by the CIC in this decision? With CPIOs denying information falling Under Section 4, the applicants were forced to approach the CIC or High Courts as the case may be, arriving to the point where, like described by you in your previous post. " Architect Mr Sudhir Vohra has won a case in High Court to get blueprints of Delhi Metro Rail's structures. Why cannot a terrorist or their proxy apply for the same in RTI ". Manoj --- On Mon, 2/28/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: I'm baffled. HOW have PIOs who use Section 8 more liberally than implementation of proactive disclosure under Section 4. made us arrive to this stage where such sensitive information could fall in the hands of terrorists and endanger our lives and that of our families/friends. ??? |
Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Dear Manoj
I'm baffled. HOW have PIOs who use Section 8 more liberally than implementation of proactive disclosure under Section 4. made us arrive to this stage where such sensitive information could fall in the hands of terrorists and endanger our lives and that of our families/friends. ???
Sarbajit
I'm baffled. HOW have PIOs who use Section 8 more liberally than implementation of proactive disclosure under Section 4. made us arrive to this stage where such sensitive information could fall in the hands of terrorists and endanger our lives and that of our families/friends. ???
Sarbajit
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
The route for denial of such sensitive information already exists in the RTI Act Under Section 8. Unfortunately, our friendly neighborhood CPIOs decided to wrongly, use this escape clause, to deny simple information like staff duty charts, land records, recruitment, statement of accounts etc. They have used Section 8 more liberally than implementation of proactive disclosure Under Section 4. It is thanks to these secretive CPIOs / FAA (and not the RTI haramis) that we have arrived to this stage where such sensitive information could fall in the hands of terrorists and endanger our lives and that of our families/friends.
I would still agree with your point, that centre may insist on the "purpose" clause into the RTI Act. As a "tie breaker" could they also consider adding "termination from service" clause for secretive CPIOs who deny the information to genuine seekers or give them wrong information???
If the CIC could terminate the services of their contract staff for wrong diary marking, what is wrong in sacking the CPIOs for disclosing wrong information?
Manoj PaiLet me take another example. An Architect Mr Sudhir Vohra has won a case in High Court to get blueprints of Delhi Metro Rail's structures. Why cannot a terrorist or their proxy apply for the same in RTI ? In the old days the OSA ensured that such info would not be given, now all our lives are at risk
Sarbajit
Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
| The route for denial of such sensitive information already exists in the RTI Act Under Section 8. Unfortunately, our friendly neighborhood CPIOs decided to wrongly, use this escape clause, to deny simple information like staff duty charts, land records, recruitment, statement of accounts etc. They have used Section 8 more liberally than implementation of proactive disclosure Under Section 4. It is thanks to these secretive CPIOs / FAA (and not the RTI haramis) that we have arrived to this stage where such sensitive information could fall in the hands of terrorists and endanger our lives and that of our families/friends. I would still agree with your point, that centre may insist on the "purpose" clause into the RTI Act. As a "tie breaker" could they also consider adding "termination from service" clause for secretive CPIOs who deny the information to genuine seekers or give them wrong information??? If the CIC could terminate the services of their contract staff for wrong diary marking, what is wrong in sacking the CPIOs for disclosing wrong information? Manoj Pai --- On Sun, 2/27/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: Let me take another example. An Architect Mr Sudhir Vohra has won a case in High Court to get blueprints of Delhi Metro Rail's structures. Why cannot a terrorist or their proxy apply for the same in RTI ? In the old days the OSA ensured that such info would not be given, now all our lives are at risk |
Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Let me take an example
"A Mr. Ajmal Kasab applies from London UK to the CPIO of the Central Railways Mumbat asking to be provided building plans and 1:10000 scale blueprints of the building popularly known as Victoria Terminus Railway Station (Mumbai) including the inter-track tunnel system at the prescribed fees under RTI".
Is the PIO allowed to ask him to provide "evidence" that he is a citizen of India ?
How can the PIO assess the if the disclosure of such information would lead to incitement of an offence (like planting timed bombs in railways carriages) or damage the security of the State unless he is allowed to ask reasons. Would it make a difference if a registered architect or a conservationist is seeking this information for research ? Unfortunately nobody has applied their minds to these questions.
Let me take another example. An Architect Mr Sudhir Vohra has won a case in High Court to get blueprints of Delhi Metro Rail's structures. Why cannot a terrorist or their proxy apply for the same in RTI ? In the old days the OSA ensured that such info would not be given, now all our lives are at risk because of RTI..
Sarbajit
"A Mr. Ajmal Kasab applies from London UK to the CPIO of the Central Railways Mumbat asking to be provided building plans and 1:10000 scale blueprints of the building popularly known as Victoria Terminus Railway Station (Mumbai) including the inter-track tunnel system at the prescribed fees under RTI".
Is the PIO allowed to ask him to provide "evidence" that he is a citizen of India ?
How can the PIO assess the if the disclosure of such information would lead to incitement of an offence (like planting timed bombs in railways carriages) or damage the security of the State unless he is allowed to ask reasons. Would it make a difference if a registered architect or a conservationist is seeking this information for research ? Unfortunately nobody has applied their minds to these questions.
Let me take another example. An Architect Mr Sudhir Vohra has won a case in High Court to get blueprints of Delhi Metro Rail's structures. Why cannot a terrorist or their proxy apply for the same in RTI ? In the old days the OSA ensured that such info would not be given, now all our lives are at risk because of RTI..
Sarbajit
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:
Friends, The Indian Evidence Act does not have a place for 'suspicion' or for recognising 'suspicion'. If the CPIO suspects contravention of other provisions of the Act or other laws in force, he can keep and store his suspicions within himself. The RTI Act in the relevant sections have used the mandate "SHALL" INSTEAD OF "may". The PIO can make as much suspicision as he wants but cannot attribute those suspicisions as reasons for rejection. If the suspicisons are well founded, he is at liberty to inform the concerned Police/CID/COD, invstigation agencies or the Income Tax Authorities, about his suspicion for further action found suitable by them. Regads dwarakanathdm, nbca.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir
I concur that when a High Court prescribes rules under RTI Act it must be made within the 4 corners of the Act.
In the specific case of 6(2) whereas the Act only requires that an applicant requesting information cannot be required to give reasons for seeking information or inessential personal information, there is no bar in the Act to a CPIO requiring such information as a precondition to disclosing information if he has reason to suspect contravention of other provisions of the Act or other laws in force.
In this light, 6(2) is certainly open to question / challenge in a fit case.
Sarbajit
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sri Sarbajit ji,
Statutes mean what they say, not what may follow from them. If the
High Court has to make rules in respect of RTI Act, they must be made within
the four corners of RTI Act. The Court cannot make Rule to demand
disclosure of reason, because it would be ultra vires of Section 6(2); the
same would apply to Governments. The Parliament will have to amend Section
6(2) of the Act; but that may be violative of the Fundamental Right
independently of RTI Act. On second thoughts, it may be permissible for
Parliament to amend Section 6(2) and provide for reason; but that would be
violative of the 'spirit' of FR/RTI Act which may not be 'illegal' but
certainly would be 'ill-advised'. The Court cannot question the wisdom of
legislature. After all, RTI Act does provide for exceptions in Section 8
and elsewhere. The 'reason' issue will certainly be open to question.
Regards,
KN
: Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ), Vice Chairman - C.A.T ( Allahbad ),
From the Desk of :
Justice Kamleshwar Nath
Retd.
Judge - High Court ( Lucknow & Allahbad )
AddressRes. :
:
`Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, Lucknow : 226 020. Uttar Pradesh, India
Phone(s)
Mob. :
+91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459+91-9415010746
Behalf Of Sarbajit RoySir
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 1:37 PM
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Art 225 actually clarifies that the pre-Constitutional powers of the
EXISTING High Courts (incl. their powers to frame their rules) are
henceforth (26 Jan 1950) subject to the Constitution and any laws made
under the Constitution (which includes RTI Act).
You are correct Sir that the rules I referred to concern enforcement
of Fundamental Rights which now includes the Right to Information. My
point was that if a High Court can lawfully restrict citizens from
filing Writs by demanding all kinds of personal information and
reasons for filing writs, then by analogy the State can do so too when
it comes to giving effect to a particular right AT THE APPELLATE STAGE
(since the application stage faces a legal bar in the RTI Act)
Sarbajit
On 2/25/11, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sri Sarbajit,
>
> Thanks. Rules of the Bombay High Court seem to concern Petitions filed in
> the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction for enforcement of Fundamental
> Rights. High Court's power to frame Rules for its own business are
contained
> in Article 225 of the Constitution. That has nothing to do with RTI Act.
>
> It is correct that I retired long ago (1988) and there may be laws or
their
> interpretation of which I may not be aware. That is why I wished to have
> latest information from you.
>
> Thanking you again and with regards,
>
> KN
Re: [HumJanenge] Sonia Gandhi now has a NAC email ID
Good work, needs to be congratulated, dwarakanathdm
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Members
I am glad to confirm to you that after my repeated follow up NAC, Ms. Sonia Gandhi's
email ID is now functional and is displayed on NAC website under her profile.
the email ID is. "chairperson@nac.nic.in"
Sarbajit
Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Friends, The Indian Evidence Act does not have a place for 'suspicion' or for recognising 'suspicion'. If the CPIO suspects contravention of other provisions of the Act or other laws in force, he can keep and store his suspicions within himself. The RTI Act in the relevant sections have used the mandate "SHALL" INSTEAD OF "may". The PIO can make as much suspicision as he wants but cannot attribute those suspicisions as reasons for rejection. If the suspicisons are well founded, he is at liberty to inform the concerned Police/CID/COD, invstigation agencies or the Income Tax Authorities, about his suspicion for further action found suitable by them. Regads dwarakanathdm, nbca.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir
I concur that when a High Court prescribes rules under RTI Act it must be made within the 4 corners of the Act.
In the specific case of 6(2) whereas the Act only requires that an applicant requesting information cannot be required to give reasons for seeking information or inessential personal information, there is no bar in the Act to a CPIO requiring such information as a precondition to disclosing information if he has reason to suspect contravention of other provisions of the Act or other laws in force.
In this light, 6(2) is certainly open to question / challenge in a fit case.
Sarbajit
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sri Sarbajit ji,
Statutes mean what they say, not what may follow from them. If the
High Court has to make rules in respect of RTI Act, they must be made within
the four corners of RTI Act. The Court cannot make Rule to demand
disclosure of reason, because it would be ultra vires of Section 6(2); the
same would apply to Governments. The Parliament will have to amend Section
6(2) of the Act; but that may be violative of the Fundamental Right
independently of RTI Act. On second thoughts, it may be permissible for
Parliament to amend Section 6(2) and provide for reason; but that would be
violative of the 'spirit' of FR/RTI Act which may not be 'illegal' but
certainly would be 'ill-advised'. The Court cannot question the wisdom of
legislature. After all, RTI Act does provide for exceptions in Section 8
and elsewhere. The 'reason' issue will certainly be open to question.
Regards,
KN
: Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ), Vice Chairman - C.A.T ( Allahbad ),
From the Desk of :
Justice Kamleshwar Nath
Retd.
Judge - High Court ( Lucknow & Allahbad )
AddressRes. :
:
`Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, Lucknow : 226 020. Uttar Pradesh, India
Phone(s)
Mob. :
+91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459+91-9415010746
Behalf Of Sarbajit RoySir
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 1:37 PM
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Art 225 actually clarifies that the pre-Constitutional powers of the
EXISTING High Courts (incl. their powers to frame their rules) are
henceforth (26 Jan 1950) subject to the Constitution and any laws made
under the Constitution (which includes RTI Act).
You are correct Sir that the rules I referred to concern enforcement
of Fundamental Rights which now includes the Right to Information. My
point was that if a High Court can lawfully restrict citizens from
filing Writs by demanding all kinds of personal information and
reasons for filing writs, then by analogy the State can do so too when
it comes to giving effect to a particular right AT THE APPELLATE STAGE
(since the application stage faces a legal bar in the RTI Act)
Sarbajit
On 2/25/11, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sri Sarbajit,
>
> Thanks. Rules of the Bombay High Court seem to concern Petitions filed in
> the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction for enforcement of Fundamental
> Rights. High Court's power to frame Rules for its own business are
contained
> in Article 225 of the Constitution. That has nothing to do with RTI Act.
>
> It is correct that I retired long ago (1988) and there may be laws or
their
> interpretation of which I may not be aware. That is why I wished to have
> latest information from you.
>
> Thanking you again and with regards,
>
> KN
Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Sir
I concur that when a High Court prescribes rules under RTI Act it must be made within the 4 corners of the Act.
In the specific case of 6(2) whereas the Act only requires that an applicant requesting information cannot be required to give reasons for seeking information or inessential personal information, there is no bar in the Act to a CPIO requiring such information as a precondition to disclosing information if he has reason to suspect contravention of other provisions of the Act or other laws in force.
In this light, 6(2) is certainly open to question / challenge in a fit case.
Sarbajit
I concur that when a High Court prescribes rules under RTI Act it must be made within the 4 corners of the Act.
In the specific case of 6(2) whereas the Act only requires that an applicant requesting information cannot be required to give reasons for seeking information or inessential personal information, there is no bar in the Act to a CPIO requiring such information as a precondition to disclosing information if he has reason to suspect contravention of other provisions of the Act or other laws in force.
In this light, 6(2) is certainly open to question / challenge in a fit case.
Sarbajit
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sri Sarbajit ji,
Statutes mean what they say, not what may follow from them. If the
High Court has to make rules in respect of RTI Act, they must be made within
the four corners of RTI Act. The Court cannot make Rule to demand
disclosure of reason, because it would be ultra vires of Section 6(2); the
same would apply to Governments. The Parliament will have to amend Section
6(2) of the Act; but that may be violative of the Fundamental Right
independently of RTI Act. On second thoughts, it may be permissible for
Parliament to amend Section 6(2) and provide for reason; but that would be
violative of the 'spirit' of FR/RTI Act which may not be 'illegal' but
certainly would be 'ill-advised'. The Court cannot question the wisdom of
legislature. After all, RTI Act does provide for exceptions in Section 8
and elsewhere. The 'reason' issue will certainly be open to question.
Regards,
KN
: Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ), Vice Chairman - C.A.T ( Allahbad ),
From the Desk of :
Justice Kamleshwar Nath
Retd.
Judge - High Court ( Lucknow & Allahbad )
AddressRes. :
:
`Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, Lucknow : 226 020. Uttar Pradesh, India
Phone(s)
Mob. :
+91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459+91-9415010746
-----Original Message-----
From: humjanenge@googlegroups.com [mailto:humjanenge@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Sarbajit RoySir
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 1:37 PM
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Art 225 actually clarifies that the pre-Constitutional powers of the
EXISTING High Courts (incl. their powers to frame their rules) are
henceforth (26 Jan 1950) subject to the Constitution and any laws made
under the Constitution (which includes RTI Act).
You are correct Sir that the rules I referred to concern enforcement
of Fundamental Rights which now includes the Right to Information. My
point was that if a High Court can lawfully restrict citizens from
filing Writs by demanding all kinds of personal information and
reasons for filing writs, then by analogy the State can do so too when
it comes to giving effect to a particular right AT THE APPELLATE STAGE
(since the application stage faces a legal bar in the RTI Act)
Sarbajit
On 2/25/11, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sri Sarbajit,
>
> Thanks. Rules of the Bombay High Court seem to concern Petitions filed in
> the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction for enforcement of Fundamental
> Rights. High Court's power to frame Rules for its own business are
contained
> in Article 225 of the Constitution. That has nothing to do with RTI Act.
>
> It is correct that I retired long ago (1988) and there may be laws or
their
> interpretation of which I may not be aware. That is why I wished to have
> latest information from you.
>
> Thanking you again and with regards,
>
> KN
RE: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Dear Sri Sarbajit ji,
Statutes mean what they say, not what may follow from them. If the
High Court has to make rules in respect of RTI Act, they must be made within
the four corners of RTI Act. The Court cannot make Rule to demand
disclosure of reason, because it would be ultra vires of Section 6(2); the
same would apply to Governments. The Parliament will have to amend Section
6(2) of the Act; but that may be violative of the Fundamental Right
independently of RTI Act. On second thoughts, it may be permissible for
Parliament to amend Section 6(2) and provide for reason; but that would be
violative of the 'spirit' of FR/RTI Act which may not be 'illegal' but
certainly would be 'ill-advised'. The Court cannot question the wisdom of
legislature. After all, RTI Act does provide for exceptions in Section 8
and elsewhere. The 'reason' issue will certainly be open to question.
Regards,
KN
From the Desk of :
Justice Kamleshwar Nath
Retd.
: Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ), Vice Chairman - C.A.T ( Allahbad ),
Judge - High Court ( Lucknow & Allahbad )
Address
:
`Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, Lucknow : 226 020. Uttar Pradesh, India
Phone(s)
Res. :
Mob. :
+91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459
+91-9415010746
-----Original Message-----
From: humjanenge@googlegroups.com [mailto:humjanenge@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 1:37 PM
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Sir
Art 225 actually clarifies that the pre-Constitutional powers of the
EXISTING High Courts (incl. their powers to frame their rules) are
henceforth (26 Jan 1950) subject to the Constitution and any laws made
under the Constitution (which includes RTI Act).
You are correct Sir that the rules I referred to concern enforcement
of Fundamental Rights which now includes the Right to Information. My
point was that if a High Court can lawfully restrict citizens from
filing Writs by demanding all kinds of personal information and
reasons for filing writs, then by analogy the State can do so too when
it comes to giving effect to a particular right AT THE APPELLATE STAGE
(since the application stage faces a legal bar in the RTI Act)
Sarbajit
On 2/25/11, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sri Sarbajit,
>
> Thanks. Rules of the Bombay High Court seem to concern Petitions filed in
> the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction for enforcement of Fundamental
> Rights. High Court's power to frame Rules for its own business are
contained
> in Article 225 of the Constitution. That has nothing to do with RTI Act.
>
> It is correct that I retired long ago (1988) and there may be laws or
their
> interpretation of which I may not be aware. That is why I wished to have
> latest information from you.
>
> Thanking you again and with regards,
>
> KN
RE: [HumJanenge] Sonia Gandhi now has a NAC email ID
Good work done; keep it up. Congrats.
KN
From the Desk of :
Justice Kamleshwar Nath
| Retd. | : | Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ), Vice Chairman – C.A.T ( Judge – High Court ( |
| Address | : | `Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, |
| Phone(s) | : | +91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459. |
From:
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 6:23 PM
To: humjanenge; rti4empowerment
Subject: [HumJanenge] Sonia Gandhi now has a NAC email ID
Dear Members
I am glad to confirm to you that after my repeated follow up NAC, Ms. Sonia Gandhi's
email ID is now functional and is displayed on NAC website under her profile.
the email ID is. "chairperson@nac.nic.in"
Sarbajit
[HumJanenge] Sonia Gandhi now has a NAC email ID
Dear Members
I am glad to confirm to you that after my repeated follow up NAC, Ms. Sonia Gandhi's
email ID is now functional and is displayed on NAC website under her profile.
the email ID is. "chairperson@nac.nic.in"
Sarbajit
I am glad to confirm to you that after my repeated follow up NAC, Ms. Sonia Gandhi's
email ID is now functional and is displayed on NAC website under her profile.
the email ID is. "chairperson@nac.nic.in"
Sarbajit
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
Dear M.K.Gupta, I think the content of Video Conferrencing is not information as cited by Mr . Anand. In one of my Video Conferrencing (vc) at Bangalore with CIC, I enquired if the proceedings of the VC are stored in the form of data. For which they clarified that they can't store such data. However, they told us that prior to the commencement of the VC, if the request is made to record such proceedings, this can be considered with the approval of CIC and Cheif of NIC Center.
regards.
umapathi.s
regards.
umapathi.s
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 9:11 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
What about hearing in person? any clue, dear Anand.Thanks for this information, next time, I shall opt for video conference but in Video Conference, one problem, how to make written submissions of about 2-3 pages. In Video Conference, it these may take 5-16 minutes and which long conference may not be allowed or may not continue in the network.M K Gupta
From: "acfanand@gmail.com" <acfanand@gmail.com>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, 27 February, 2011 12:14:48 AM
Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
As hearring is done jhrough video conference. The data becomes infformation
Sent from my Nokia phone
-----Original Message-----
From: M.K. Gupta
Sent: 26/02/2011 7:51:00 pm
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
Dear Roy,
I want to know we can legally audio record the proceedings of the case at
Information Commissions, without causing any disturbance to the proceedings.
This is in the wake of many complaint of the applicants that their submissions
have not been considered and have not been included in the decision or the order
is not an speaking one.
Shall be thankful if you can share this information for members, if you know
about this too otherewise I will have to file an RTI with CIC and DoPT for
taking a clarification. I add that such hearing are held in open court and thus
these are not confidential.
If any other member is aware about this, please share.
________________________________
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 26 February, 2011 12:05:57 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata
Banerjee
As per my submission to the DoPT, the right of personal
hearing does not extend to being fobbed off with audio/
video conferences where the evidentiary process cannot
be given effect to.
Sarbajit
On 2/25/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Add video conference to the list.
>
> Manoj
>
> --- On Sat, 2/26/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the DoPT should either exempt PIOs from attending (and
>> allow them to
>> engage advocates), or prescribe as part of appeal procedure
>> rules that
>> PIOs must travel by 2nd class (ordinary) only. Shall we
>> have a poll on
>> this ?
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
What about hearing in person? any clue, dear Anand.
Thanks for this information, next time, I shall opt for video conference but in Video Conference, one problem, how to make written submissions of about 2-3 pages. In Video Conference, it these may take 5-16 minutes and which long conference may not be allowed or may not continue in the network.
M K Gupta
From: "acfanand@gmail.com" <acfanand@gmail.com>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, 27 February, 2011 12:14:48 AM
Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
As hearring is done jhrough video conference. The data becomes infformation
Sent from my Nokia phone
-----Original Message-----
From: M.K. Gupta
Sent: 26/02/2011 7:51:00 pm
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
Dear Roy,
I want to know we can legally audio record the proceedings of the case at
Information Commissions, without causing any disturbance to the proceedings.
This is in the wake of many complaint of the applicants that their submissions
have not been considered and have not been included in the decision or the order
is not an speaking one.
Shall be thankful if you can share this information for members, if you know
about this too otherewise I will have to file an RTI with CIC and DoPT for
taking a clarification. I add that such hearing are held in open court and thus
these are not confidential.
If any other member is aware about this, please share.
________________________________
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 26 February, 2011 12:05:57 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata
Banerjee
As per my submission to the DoPT, the right of personal
hearing does not extend to being fobbed off with audio/
video conferences where the evidentiary process cannot
be given effect to.
Sarbajit
On 2/25/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Add video conference to the list.
>
> Manoj
>
> --- On Sat, 2/26/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the DoPT should either exempt PIOs from attending (and
>> allow them to
>> engage advocates), or prescribe as part of appeal procedure
>> rules that
>> PIOs must travel by 2nd class (ordinary) only. Shall we
>> have a poll on
>> this ?
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>
>
>
>
RE: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
As hearring is done jhrough video conference. The data becomes infformation
Sent from my Nokia phone
-----Original Message-----
From: M.K. Gupta
Sent: 26/02/2011 7:51:00 pm
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
Dear Roy,
I want to know we can legally audio record the proceedings of the case at
Information Commissions, without causing any disturbance to the proceedings.
This is in the wake of many complaint of the applicants that their submissions
have not been considered and have not been included in the decision or the order
is not an speaking one.
Shall be thankful if you can share this information for members, if you know
about this too otherewise I will have to file an RTI with CIC and DoPT for
taking a clarification. I add that such hearing are held in open court and thus
these are not confidential.
If any other member is aware about this, please share.
________________________________
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 26 February, 2011 12:05:57 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata
Banerjee
As per my submission to the DoPT, the right of personal
hearing does not extend to being fobbed off with audio/
video conferences where the evidentiary process cannot
be given effect to.
Sarbajit
On 2/25/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Add video conference to the list.
>
> Manoj
>
> --- On Sat, 2/26/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the DoPT should either exempt PIOs from attending (and
>> allow them to
>> engage advocates), or prescribe as part of appeal procedure
>> rules that
>> PIOs must travel by 2nd class (ordinary) only. Shall we
>> have a poll on
>> this ?
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re: [HumJanenge] Write up on Maoist abduction of the Collector, Malakangiri, Orissa
On 22 march, 2011 anindya will organise a dharna for getting information under RTI. This is the first time happening in kolkata . All RTI activists of the state and the Kolkata city are requested to join the programme.The dharna is about giving information regarding appointment of primary teachers.
Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
As per Act, sevel clear days notice is must for PIO and Appellant / Complainant and if that has not been given, the order of IC can be challenged on this ground. However, if the notice has been delayed or has not been served due to the lapse of postal department, that will not be a valid excuse for the PIO or Appellant.
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 26 February, 2011 12:27:49 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
The PIOs of India are quite fedup with Mr Satyananda Mishra.CCIC and
Ms. Mamata Banerjee
Previously they used to get at least 7 days notice before CIC appeal
hearings. This gave them enough time to buy an air-ticket and buy a
Tatkal rail ticket after 5 days, The air-ticket (always booked online
with e-ticket) could be cancelled and they could pocket the
difference.
Nowadays, SN Mishra's inefficient CIC gives them only 3 days notice to
attend hearings,
Tatkal has been reduced to 2 days before journey (risk of no ticket is
very high) and
PIOs have actually started flying in to attend hearings (and they are
complaining very
bitterly about this in the CIC visitors room). I daresay that there
are some aspects of the mechanics of this fraud that I haven't
understood as yet.
I think it is high time that honest tax-paying citizens demand that
the DoPT should either exempt PIOs from attending (and allow them to
engage advocates), or prescribe as part of appeal procedure rules that
PIOs must travel by 2nd class (ordinary) only. Shall we have a poll on
this ?
Sarbajit
Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
Dear Roy,
I want to know we can legally audio record the proceedings of the case at Information Commissions, without causing any disturbance to the proceedings. This is in the wake of many complaint of the applicants that their submissions have not been considered and have not been included in the decision or the order is not an speaking one.
Shall be thankful if you can share this information for members, if you know about this too otherewise I will have to file an RTI with CIC and DoPT for taking a clarification. I add that such hearing are held in open court and thus these are not confidential.
If any other member is aware about this, please share.
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 26 February, 2011 12:05:57 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
As per my submission to the DoPT, the right of personal
hearing does not extend to being fobbed off with audio/
video conferences where the evidentiary process cannot
be given effect to.
Sarbajit
On 2/25/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Add video conference to the list.
>
> Manoj
>
> --- On Sat, 2/26/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the DoPT should either exempt PIOs from attending (and
>> allow them to
>> engage advocates), or prescribe as part of appeal procedure
>> rules that
>> PIOs must travel by 2nd class (ordinary) only. Shall we
>> have a poll on
>> this ?
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Dear Sarbajit Roy,
Let me first ask from you the reason of your keenness that RTI applicants must give reason for seeking information.
From: Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: Rina Mahindra <rina17@gmail.com>; sudhakar hegde <sudhakarhegde733@gmail.com>; Dhyan - <dhyan40@hotmail.com>; yogi5050@gmail.com; surisureshsuri23 <surisureshsuri23@yahoo.com>; samkrupadass <samkrupadass@yahoo.co.in>; gladsraghu@gmail.com; lalita_c <lalita_c@indiatimes.com>
Sent: Sat, 26 February, 2011 5:16:56 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Friends, From what I can understand ( I am subject to correction) the provision of Art 225 refers to pre-constitutional-. But does the amendment apply to post-constitutional maaters.??? Regards, dwarakanathdm, nbca, bangalore
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir
Art 225 actually clarifies that the pre-Constitutional powers of the
EXISTING High Courts (incl. their powers to frame their rules) are
henceforth (26 Jan 1950) subject to the Constitution and any laws made
under the Constitution (which includes RTI Act).
You are correct Sir that the rules I referred to concern enforcement
of Fundamental Rights which now includes the Right to Information. My
point was that if a High Court can lawfully restrict citizens from
filing Writs by demanding all kinds of personal information and
reasons for filing writs, then by analogy the State can do so too when
it comes to giving effect to a particular right AT THE APPELLATE STAGE
(since the application stage faces a legal bar in the RTI Act)
Sarbajit
On 2/25/11, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sri Sarbajit,
>
> Thanks. Rules of the Bombay High Court seem to concern Petitions filed in
> the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction for enforcement of Fundamental
> Rights. High Court's power to frame Rules for its own business are contained
> in Article 225 of the Constitution. That has nothing to do with RTI Act.
>
> It is correct that I retired long ago (1988) and there may be laws or their
> interpretation of which I may not be aware. That is why I wished to have
> latest information from you.
>
> Thanking you again and with regards,
>
> KN
Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Friends, From what I can understand ( I am subject to correction) the provision of Art 225 refers to pre-constitutional-. But does the amendment apply to post-constitutional maaters.??? Regards, dwarakanathdm, nbca, bangalore
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir
Art 225 actually clarifies that the pre-Constitutional powers of the
EXISTING High Courts (incl. their powers to frame their rules) are
henceforth (26 Jan 1950) subject to the Constitution and any laws made
under the Constitution (which includes RTI Act).
You are correct Sir that the rules I referred to concern enforcement
of Fundamental Rights which now includes the Right to Information. My
point was that if a High Court can lawfully restrict citizens from
filing Writs by demanding all kinds of personal information and
reasons for filing writs, then by analogy the State can do so too when
it comes to giving effect to a particular right AT THE APPELLATE STAGE
(since the application stage faces a legal bar in the RTI Act)
Sarbajit
On 2/25/11, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sri Sarbajit,
>
> Thanks. Rules of the Bombay High Court seem to concern Petitions filed in
> the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction for enforcement of Fundamental
> Rights. High Court's power to frame Rules for its own business are contained
> in Article 225 of the Constitution. That has nothing to do with RTI Act.
>
> It is correct that I retired long ago (1988) and there may be laws or their
> interpretation of which I may not be aware. That is why I wished to have
> latest information from you.
>
> Thanking you again and with regards,
>
> KN
Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Sir
Art 225 actually clarifies that the pre-Constitutional powers of the
EXISTING High Courts (incl. their powers to frame their rules) are
henceforth (26 Jan 1950) subject to the Constitution and any laws made
under the Constitution (which includes RTI Act).
You are correct Sir that the rules I referred to concern enforcement
of Fundamental Rights which now includes the Right to Information. My
point was that if a High Court can lawfully restrict citizens from
filing Writs by demanding all kinds of personal information and
reasons for filing writs, then by analogy the State can do so too when
it comes to giving effect to a particular right AT THE APPELLATE STAGE
(since the application stage faces a legal bar in the RTI Act)
Sarbajit
On 2/25/11, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sri Sarbajit,
>
> Thanks. Rules of the Bombay High Court seem to concern Petitions filed in
> the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction for enforcement of Fundamental
> Rights. High Court's power to frame Rules for its own business are contained
> in Article 225 of the Constitution. That has nothing to do with RTI Act.
>
> It is correct that I retired long ago (1988) and there may be laws or their
> interpretation of which I may not be aware. That is why I wished to have
> latest information from you.
>
> Thanking you again and with regards,
>
> KN
Friday, February 25, 2011
RE: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Dear Sri Sarbajit,
Thanks. Rules of the Bombay High Court seem to concern Petitions filed in the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. High Court’s power to frame Rules for its own business are contained in Article 225 of the Constitution. That has nothing to do with RTI Act.
It is correct that I retired long ago (1988) and there may be laws or their interpretation of which I may not be aware. That is why I wished to have latest information from you.
Thanking you again and with regards,
KN
From the Desk of :
Justice Kamleshwar Nath
| Retd. | : | Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ), Vice Chairman – C.A.T ( Judge – High Court ( |
| Address | : | `Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, |
| Phone(s) | : | +91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459. |
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:47 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Sir
I was commenting on behalf of public spirited citizens who use RTI for the greater good.
Probably the Constitution of India has changed or its interpretation/caselaw by the High Courts since your tenure.
I commend to your notice recent High Court Rules regulating petitions for citizens to enforce their Fundamental Rights through the Courts such as those for Bombay High Court framed in 2010
extracts
"5. In the petition to be filed under Clause (e) of Rule 4, the petitioner shall disclose :-
(a) petitioner's name, complete postal and E-mail address, phone number, proof regarding personal identification, occupation and annual income, PAN number and National Unique Identity Card, if any and registration under the Act."
:
(d) the nature and extent of the personal interest, if any, of the petitioner(s).
(e) details regarding any civil, criminal or revenue litigation, involving the petitioner or any of the petitioners,
:
7(a) annexe to the petition an affidavit stating that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique reason in filing...
(b) file an affidavit undertaking to pay costs as ordered by the Court, if it is ultimately held that the petition is frivolous or has been filed for extraneous considerations or that it lacks bona fides.?
Most High Courts have similar rules nowadays
warmly
Sarbajit Roy
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sri Sarbajit Roy,
Your mail mentions that ‘there are specific Constitutional provisions requiring reasons for seeking info to be mandated and which over-ride 6(2) of the RTI Act’. I shall be grateful if you could communicate those Constitutional provisions to me. On the contrary my understanding is that right to information is a Fundamental Right for which no reason need be given and which cannot be abrogated by enactment.
Regards,
KN
Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
As per my submission to the DoPT, the right of personal
hearing does not extend to being fobbed off with audio/
video conferences where the evidentiary process cannot
be given effect to.
hearing does not extend to being fobbed off with audio/
video conferences where the evidentiary process cannot
be given effect to.
Sarbajit
On 2/25/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Add video conference to the list.
>
> Manoj
>
> --- On Sat, 2/26/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the DoPT should either exempt PIOs from attending (and
>> allow them to
>> engage advocates), or prescribe as part of appeal procedure
>> rules that
>> PIOs must travel by 2nd class (ordinary) only. Shall we
>> have a poll on
>> this ?
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
Add video conference to the list.
Manoj
--- On Sat, 2/26/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> the DoPT should either exempt PIOs from attending (and
> allow them to
> engage advocates), or prescribe as part of appeal procedure
> rules that
> PIOs must travel by 2nd class (ordinary) only. Shall we
> have a poll on
> this ?
>
> Sarbajit
>
[HumJanenge] Jet-setting PIOs are unhappy with CIC & Mamata Banerjee
The PIOs of India are quite fedup with Mr Satyananda Mishra.CCIC and
Ms. Mamata Banerjee
Ms. Mamata Banerjee
Previously they used to get at least 7 days notice before CIC appeal
hearings. This gave them enough time to buy an air-ticket and buy a
Tatkal rail ticket after 5 days, The air-ticket (always booked online
with e-ticket) could be cancelled and they could pocket the
difference.
Nowadays, SN Mishra's inefficient CIC gives them only 3 days notice to
attend hearings,
Tatkal has been reduced to 2 days before journey (risk of no ticket is
very high) and
PIOs have actually started flying in to attend hearings (and they are
complaining very
bitterly about this in the CIC visitors room). I daresay that there
are some aspects of the mechanics of this fraud that I haven't
understood as yet.
I think it is high time that honest tax-paying citizens demand that
the DoPT should either exempt PIOs from attending (and allow them to
engage advocates), or prescribe as part of appeal procedure rules that
PIOs must travel by 2nd class (ordinary) only. Shall we have a poll on
this ?
Sarbajit
[HumJanenge] RTI COUNCIL OF U.P. AWARENESS PROGRAMME
RTI COUNCIL OF U.P. HOLDS AWARENESS PROGRAMME Today, 25th Feb-2011, Dr.Niraj Kumar (Margdarshak) of RTI Council of U.P. gave a brief details of RTI Act to the students of Lucknow University, Department of Social Work, The session lasted for more than 4 Hours. Students showed their overwhelming interest and were much curious to know "How we can involve ourselves in this mission." Dr. Niraj gave a detailed brief to the students about the "Use of RTI Act in Social Work". and also "through this Act how they can make a Corruption Free Society". This Awareness programme was organised as its first programme by RTI Council of U.P. in coordination with Dr. Roopesh Kumar Assistant Professor of Department of Social Work, Lucknow University who given a Sound Support in Conduct a Awareness of RTI Act to the Students of MSW and Diploma in Criminology.The students offered their unconditional full support to conduct various RTI awareness studies which the RTI COUNCIL OF U.P. is going to conduct very shortly all over U.P. This will be a Pilot Project of the Council. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)