Re: [HumJanenge] Ex-CJI Balakrishnan opposes release of his tax returns under RTI

Dear Mr Govind, I think I have not mae my question very clear.   The time limit allowed, as is proposed by Law minister were to be 3 years, going to be, once the Argumens are heard and judgement is reserved, the only question that remains is to apply mind and dictate the judgement and get confirmation from the other bench brothers. Should this process of delivering the judgement after the arguments are heard and reserved, take nearly 4 years.  Normally I have seen judgements are delivered after reserving in a very short time say about a month or so. But if your experience shows it takes about 3 years (proposed) to deliver judgement - after reserving it (after the hearing), I would be enlighted to that extent, Regards. dwarakanath, nbca

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Govind... Hoping for better <hopegovind@gmail.com> wrote:

There is no such limit but recently Law Minister Veerappa Moily has announced that Union Government is going to introduce such a system where  the maximum time limit to clear a case will be 3 years

Let's hope for the better

On 16 February 2011 23:55, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:

Friends, thee is one serious doubt , whether a case reserved for Judgement in a Supreme Court can take nearly FOUR YEARS FOR delivering judgement and that too two days before retirement after a lapse of four years the judgement comes out.  Could we call it as justice delayed is justice denied or can anybody knows what is the maximum time taken to delivery a judgement after reserving for judgement in supreme Court.  Regards. 

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Govind... Hoping for better <hopegovind@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes to all 3 points

But, you cannot threat expulsion. Everyone has right to keep their view. this is a common platform of discussion.

On 16 February 2011 11:25, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All,

Lets get some common facts straight.

1) FACT #1: ex-CJI "Balki" is one in a long line of corrupt CJIs. Today the only qualification to be a SC judge or CJI, or CJ of a High Court, or CCIC or SCIC or IC is that you are a corrupt person.

Please vote YES or NO to this. (No discussion will be tolerated - instant expulsion)

2) FACT #2, Even dishonest / corrupt persons are not united / monolithic. They have their own factions, political affiliations, groupings. They pay homage to different power centres, are on the payrolls of different mafias. All factions are leaking information about the other factions via the media and activist groups.

Please Vote YES or NO to this. (No discussion will be tolerated - instant expulsion)

3) FACT #3, Controversy on Balki's IT returns under RTI is a serious LEGAL issue. Balki is a loyal soldier, he will sacrifice himself for the larger cause of Nehru-Gandhi mafia. He has damaged RTI enough when he was CJI. His present assigned task (for which he was given NHRC lollipop) is to ensure that nobody can ask for Sonia Gandhi's, (or Wajahat Habibullah's) IT and WealthTax  returns in RTI. It was very funny seeing Mr.H defending the proposition on all media channels last night --> That is why Mr Habibullah was given his own lollipop to suck on (off ?).

Please Vote YES or NO to this. (No discussion will be tolerated - instant expulsion)

Sarbajit

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Govind... Hoping for better <hopegovind@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dwarkanathji,

Any information pertaining to third part can be provided only after consent of the concerned party.
Here, information related to Balakrishnan is definitely of public interest in nature. I oppose S Roy's view that all public servant has something to hide. I have come across through such people even at IAS/ IPS level who has nothing to hide.

Balakrishnan held a highly reputed position, independence from executive and legislature. When our constitution made, this feature added to ensure that there should be check on legislature and on executive if they are going against of constitution and against of public or negative for the nation.

Yesterday I watched news and read his useless and not acceptable reason that the IT return has his PAN card no and bank account no. which can be misused. I think he is behaving like as a child. The basic reason is, instead of RTI, if you bribe Income Tax people, they will easily reveal his details and he definitely knows this. Second, If you go to Income Tax India website and enter any person's name and date of Birth you can easily get PAN card no. Bank account no. also we can get by bribing Bank people even a simple peon by paying Rs. 50 to 100.
Third, if he has concern about his PAN Card and bank details, he could direct Income Tax CPIO to hide these two details and provide information. The CPIO doesn't need to give copy of Saral for, the CPIO can simple tell what income he has declared, what deduction and exemption he has sought and what is the final amount of Tax he has paid.

This is simply misleading people and looting.

On 15 February 2011 23:52, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:

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

--

______________________________
"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

--

______________________________
"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

--

______________________________
"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