Re: [HumJanenge] 8 of 16 CJIs corrupt & the list of 16 does not include Mr K G Balakrishnan..

I also salute to the courage shown by Mr. Prashant and Shashi Bhushans.  Let us wait for the out come of this case which has put the SC in a dillema. --- On Wed, 16/2/11, Hari Goyal <rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in> wrote: From: Hari Goyal <rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] 8 of 16 CJIs corrupt & the list of 16 does not include Mr K G Balakrishnan.. To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com, "Vaghela B D" <vaghelabd@yahoo.com> Cc: haridgoyal@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, 16 February, 2011, 8:40 PM Respected Vaghela Sahib,   Your suggestion is worth billion dollars. Salute to you. Let us see if we have some taker.   Regards,   Hari Goyal From: Vaghela B D <vaghelabd@yahoo.com> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Cc: Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> Sent: Wed, 16 February, 2011 10:06:33 AM Subject: [HumJanenge] 8 of 16 CJIs corrupt & the list of 16 does not include Mr K G Balakrishnan.. Dear All, Mr Prashant Bhushan, telling SC, 8 of 16 CJIs corrupt, under oath and sticking to it makes a prudent case for civil society to find out Income of those CJIs and also sitting Justices of SC & HCs of doubtful integrity in the experience of citizens dealing with them day in and day out. Such details of income / property obtained under RTI or otherwise should be put in public domain for people at large to know that there are some Unholy Cows in higher judiciary also. That public shaming should help reduce the tendency for corruption - physical or moral. 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 Tue, 2/15/11, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote: From: Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Ex-CJI Balakrishnan opposes release of his tax returns under RTI To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 11:52 PM Mr.Govind & Mr MK,  In my opinion ( I am open for correction, if I am proved wrong) "If a Return is filed as a statutory requirement and is available in a public Office and if that return is not marked as a "Confidential Communication" it is generally treated as a information belonging to the Public Office, even though filed by a citizen..  Also, if the Legislators are entitled to access the informatin the Public must be entitled to.     Second para of section 8(1) (j)  and Setion 11(1) to 11(4) are relevant to the issued under dicussion.   Under section 11(1) the CPIO or SPO has to chech whether the information provided by the Third Party (Balki in this case) has been 'marked' ( treated as "Confidential), Only in that case, notice inviting objection of the third party can be issued , if there is no such marking of confidential, the Information Officer is not bound to ask the objection of the third party and can take his own decisions."  Regards, dwarakanathdm On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Govind... Hoping for better <hopegovind@gmail.com> wrote: Reference: http://epaper.indianexpress.com/IE/IEH/2011/02/15/ArticleHtmls/15_02_2011_001_046.shtml?Mode=1 Print edition: Front page, Today's Indian Express Dear friends, When he was in power, he never allowed RTI to be implemented in our supreme Court. I always used to doubt his intention. If you are free, clean handed why do you need to worry. He was one of the most corrupt CJIs and harmed our democracy a lot. Therefore he never allowed RTI to be implemented in judiciary. Do we still say we are living in a democratic country? -- Govind ______________________________ "The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people, But because of the silence of good people!" --Napoleon Govind- 9960704146 URL: http://www.wix.com/hopegovind/homepage Blog: http://simplygovind.blogspot.com