Sunday, February 20, 2011

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


My Dear Sarab,


Forget about DoPT, according to it, initially even file notings did not form part of info u.s.2(F).  It is only after the order of CCIC, (now Retd) Mr. Wajahat Habibullah that it removed its posting from its website debarring file notings.  Very few people agree with DoPT even on single subject, 250 words limit and packing of RTI application after the death of applicant. If DoPT is allowed to have its say, it may state that the RTI Act should go in smoke. However, will be grateful if you mail the DoPT mandate my and the information of other members.


2.         I already said that reasons can be provided voluntarily and should not be forced upon an applicant. I apprehend that some PIO's will deny information stating that the furnishing the information is not justified on the reason given.  Otherwise, what is the purpose of giving reason?  

I am surprise on your stand that the section 6(2) stating that applicant is not required to give any reason for requesting information that it is unconstitutional.  In fact, you are providing material to the bete-noire (against) of RTI Act duly passed by the Parliament to challenge this provision in the Court of Law. Till now, no body has even though to challenge this Act on this ground.


3.   I hope you might have read the posting on this blog that filling RTI was of great help to uncover the irregularity in the Adarsh Housing Scam.  This has also been stated by Shri Krishan Raj Rao, the Sahasi Pad Yatri.  In fact, one of the main purposes of this Act is to dig out the corruption.


4.         In one of your posting, you said that u r not the RTI Activists, but, in contradiction, you are moderating an RTI group, filed many RTI application, fought case on RTI against DDA or CIC which resulting struck down of Management Regulations of CIC, Founder of RTI_India, first filed objections to the DoPT proposed amendments to Mgt. Regulations and now supporting them. These actions are not in one directions and self-contradictory.  You still want us to believe that u r working on your own and not for any outsider.   


Copy to Shri Wajahat Habibullah and Shri Krishan Raj Rao for comments.

--- On Sun, 20/2/11, Sarbajit Roy <> wrote:

From: Sarbajit Roy <>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act
Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 11:41 PM

Dear Guptaji,

1) As per DoPT (!!) section 6(3) mandates 1 subject per RTI request.

2)  If an applicant provides reasons / background of why he is applying for info, this does not give the PIO any right to dismiss the request. In any case there are specific Constitutional provisions requiring reasons for seeking info to be mandated and which over-ride 6(2) of the RTI Act. FYI,, 6(2) is actually unconstitutional and it is better that the Act be amended otherwise it would be struck down by some court.

3) So you admit that the RTI "activists" got info out of Govt on 2G, Adarsh etc under false pretences and with misrepresentation.. In any case the scheme of the Act does not allow a PIO to deny / suppress info had the applicants said why they were requesting the info.


On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 10:02 PM, M.K. Gupta <> wrote:
Dear Mr. Mathur and Sarabjit Roy,
If declaring the reasons for soliciting information is made mandatory, it will implicitly give power to the CPIO to reject the application too on the plea that the reason is not vaild or justified. .
2.    Only wrong does are prone to blackmail and moreover, exposing a wrong deed is not blackmailing from any angle but is eye-openor to others. If there is nothing wrong, are right, no body should be afreid of giving information. 
Most of the Journalists are working to further the social causes and protect public interest.  However, there exemption clauses already exits in the Act to stop undesirable information. ..
Dear Sarabjit Roy ji, please inform that In which section of the RTI Act, one subject rule is contained?
RTI Activists are whistle blowere fighting the corruption and malafide action/inaction and act of omission and commission. . 
If Public Servant seek some information using RTI Act, what is wrong in that?  Without its use, no department give any information easily though that is not confidential, and consign the application for information either to the dustbin or just file.
If the persons who sought details about 2G, Commonwealth, Adarsh Society and so on had declared the purpose of seeking information, do u think he must have got infn easlily.
However, reasons for seeking information can be disclosed on voluntarily basis as Shri Sarabjit Roy has given reason in one of your RTI applications,  I am sure, that he has not given reason in all of his application or in future will give in all. 
What is the mechanism to ensure that the infn is being used for the declared purpose or the purpose declared is correct?  A law which cannot be enforced is no law or bad law.
I invite adverse comments to my views from one and all with convincing arguments favouring
making mandatory to give reason for seeking infn.
M K Gupta
M K Gupta

No comments:

Post a Comment