Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act

In the contrary, during the hearing of the Mulayam Singh Yadav's disproposnate Assets case recently, Advocate of Mr. Yadav or probably the Union Government also objected to the hearing on the plea that this cannot be heard u.s. 32 of the Constitution as no fundamental right of the petitioner has been encroached upon. To this, the Court asked Govt. Counsel (who was probably, if I remember correctly, was Mr. Gopal Subramanian) that why the Court cannot take up the case even if any FR of the petitioner, Mr. Vishwanath Chaturvedi has not been violated. The Court was seemingly not impressed with this plea from the Yadav's and/ or govt. side. Judgment reserved?

 

When the SC is willing to hear and decide such a case where no FR has been violated, the Right to Infn is the fundamental Right and how any body can force to reveal the purpose of getting information.

 

I do not oppose of giving purpose voluntarily but can you say that u smell a rat and want to dig out further and need the information and the Deptt. will oblige you without forcing you to take up the matter to the stage of CIC/SIC and Courts and without invoking the technalities of the legal jargon, RTI and other Acts.

 

The government proposal on this is ill-conceived and panic reaction in the face of strings of scams exposures and should be opposed with tooth and nail in the interest of corruption free governance.

---

From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, 22 February, 2011 1:01:41 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act

Dear Dwarkanath

You evidently have a highly theoretical idea of "Rights".

In reality, a State only grants such rights when the "cost" to it of a firing squad bullet or hangmans's rope is more than the cost of granting that right. As the proverb goes "Talk is cheap". Power thus flows from the barrel of a gun.

If you want a right, then you must either keep it "cheap" (a bullet costs about US$1) or you must have a "gun". From the example of the USofA (our member Mr MKG has studied all the great Constitutions of the world) , their Constitutions First Amendment (Free speech) was unenforceable till they passed a Second one (right to bear arms)

Sarbajit

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:

Friends, Whether it is section 6(2) or section 8, the Act is basically to enable the right to information.  The referred sections are only regulatory in nature and for guidance and can be reviewed by the judiciary. The basic nature is to provide the information.   If an MLA or an MP who represents the elected public , the information that cannot be divulged to a citizen can also be denied to  the elected representative.  The electred representative has an opportunity of getting the information on top priority.  Who he is serving.  Whatever allegations of misuse of the RTI information could also be reflected  on our representatives. Wherever nationl secrets are dealt with there is sufficient protection all other civil matters where the secrecy is placed or restrictions are placed are not in public interest.  The elected members cannot function in their private capacity. Any thing they act officially is of the nature of public and belongs to public.   Only they do not care to divulge. RTI Act is not for regulation of national secrets or other secrets.    There are other laws in the country which take care of all these matters including the Cr PC, Official secrets Act ( to take actions), etc., etc.,   Diluting the RTI Act must not take place.   The Centre has to apply its mind and avoid the situation otherwise it will have effects which limit the privilegs and powers of the elected representatives themselves. Regards, dwarakanathdm 

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Govind... Hoping for better <hopegovind@gmail.com> wrote:

Ref: Times of India
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2011/02/17&PageLabel=4&EntityId=Ar00403&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T

I completely oppose such move. This will help Babus to deny information. First of all Suo motu disclosure should be implemented, citizens should have free access without time bound to any information. Govt is saying "misuse" because their many wrong doings are coming out. If Government is honest, how one can misuse the information? Misuse can happen only in form of blackmailing. You can let other blackmail you when you know you are wrong. This is a reactive step instead of proactive.

Regards
Govind

'Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act'

Prafulla Marpakwar TNN

Mumbai: Given the doubts raised by a section of chief ministers, the Centre is planning to amend the Right to Information (RTI) Act to curb its misuse.
    "A group of chief ministers has approached the Centre for amending the RTI Act. In several cases, it was used to settle personal scores by rival businessmen, builders and politicians," a senior information commissioner told TOI on Wednesday.
    The information commissioner said that when the Democratic Front government promulgated an ordinance in 2004 to provide for right to information, it was specifically mentioned that a person seeking information will have to state the purpose for which the information is required. When the Centre enacted the RTI Act in 2005, this clause was removed. "If the Centre wants to curb misuse, it must include the purpose clause in the act. It will have to move an amendment bill for the purpose," he said.
    The information commissioner said that in Mumbai, the maximum number of applications are filed by the same group of persons. "We are bound to provide information but we don't know how it will be used," he said.
    In Pune, the commissioner said, of the 2,500-odd appeals pending before the information commission, 800 are filed by 30 persons, while of the 2,200 applications filed under the RTI Act, 1,400 are by one person. "If we know the purpose, we can decide his case on merit," he said.
    If the Centre is serious, the commissioner said, it should ask the states to follow Karnataka government's example. "Karnataka has made it clear that an application will not have more than 250 words and that in one letter, the applicant will ask questions only about one issue. This has ensured that only genuine applicants seek information," he said. Secondly, the commissioner said, the act should allow for punitive action against mala fide applicants. Information is provided free of cost to below poverty line (BPL) applicants. In a recent case, a BPL applicant sought information on a project, which comprises 50,000 pages. "It seems that someone was using him to get the information free of cost," he said.

--
______________________________
"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