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

Dear Vagelaji,  I agree with u.  I had a similar study in mind and in fact studying many of the Judgements delivered by High and Supreme Courts, over a long period of time.  In some cases, I am so much confused, as to the Judgements which some times border on contradictions of earlier ones,   In some cases the interpretations appears to be  bordering on relevancy  to either the objects or the provisions contained thereat.  When my study is completed with absolute credence, It will be my pleasure to seek the authentications  in this regard.   I should also be glad to have details of what is stated by Mr Prashant Bushan to the SC, in which case, to educate myself about the details.   Regads, dwarakanathdm, Bangalore

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Vaghela B D <vaghelabd@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear All, Supreme Court, with active participation of Litigants, Advocates, past Judges, past Registrars of Courts & the Citizens at large, should conduct the objective data based extensive study to bring out the whole truth for corrective action of stopping judicial corruption - physical & moral - latter one being much more dangerous & deadly for Democracy. Keeping everything wrapped up under secrecy, on the ground that image of Judiciary will be tarnished is ill-concieved and will neither be in the interst of justice nor in the interest of accountability of Judiciary towards the citizens.  Regards. Babubhai Vaghela.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:34 IST shak her wrote:

>Dear All,
> 
>what will happen to the Judgements given by them by the means of corruption ??
>
>
> 
>From: Vaghela B D <vaghelabd@yahoo.com>
>To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>Cc: Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2011 10:06 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>