Saturday, June 25, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: The People's fight against the pliable Attorney General - Ghulam Vahanvati

Dear Sir,
Do you know about the top corruption of India?
" No body can be punished in india for any crime under any
Law as per Apex court of India in a Contempt Petition No. 203 of 1996,
till this Judgment is alive . Do any crime but get the whole contents
of the matter from the Apex Court. Or President of india or Deptt. Of
justice or Secretary Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha of India."
Thanks with regards.
Yours Faithfully

Raj Kishore Vaish
118, Choubey Tola ,
Sitapur, U.P.

On 6/25/11, KN VENUGOPAL <> wrote:
> this is NOT a reply to your mail.
> this is something different but on the same theme.
> we have read  MAHABHARATHA.
> the whole epic is about human nature and if you read the book the chapter 4.
> come to know more ABOUT Mahabharats- I am not talking about its content.
> let us come to its CONTENT.
> Here we have a DHRITHARASHTRA. who was blind in more sensenes than
> physical. and you have a GANDHARI who was his advisor.
> over the years in the history of India , and more accurately in the post
> Independence  period
> you can see   parallels.
> in the Indian government run by many personalities you can see a
> DHRITHARASHTRA , who is honest but is sarrounded by DURYODHANA, perpetrating
> financial irregularities , DUSHASANA-  perverting laws,
> DURBUDHI, intellecutual dishonesty, DURLABHA etc
> there are many many DUR--- . IN AND AROUND the circle of government
> what do you see in the durbar. -dont be confined to the government , all
> condoning these acts of DUR---.. . of people like VIBHISHANA who look ON AND
> ON WITH SELF COMPELLED HELPLESSNESS and a self  procalimed sense of LOYALTY
> to the KING.
> in all their service to the KING they are WELL LOOKED AFTER.
> Well  that is food for thought.-  atleast I THOUGHT.
> --- On Thu, 23/6/11, sarbajit roy <> wrote:
> From: sarbajit roy <>
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: The People's fight against the pliable Attorney
> General - Ghulam Vahanvati
> To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005"
> <>
> Date: Thursday, 23 June, 2011, 7:50 AM
> "AG okayed CBI exemption from RTI purview
> TNN | Jun 23, 2011, 07.06am IST
> HYDERABAD: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was exempted from
> the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act on the sole
> recommendation of attorney general Goolam Vahanvati.
> The RTI exemption for the CBI announced by the central government on
> June 9 was in contradiction with suggestions made by the law ministry
> and also department of personnel and training (DoPT), the nodal agency
> for RTI implementation.
> This was unearthed by a Hyderabad-based RTI activist, C J Karira, on
> Wednesday after he went through the files at the DoPT office in North
> Block, New Delhi. Karira was allowed to inspect the documents after he
> filed an RTI application seeking permission for the same. His
> contention was that "transparent functioning" of CBI was crucial given
> that it was probing the country's biggest scams.
> The activist took 50 minutes to go through the documents and was also
> allowed to make copies of pages that he felt were important. Karira
> found documents revealing DoPT's denial to give CBI exemption from RTI
> on the grounds that it did not deal either with 'intelligence' or
> 'security' issues — the only two conditions that can make a government
> department RTI-proof.
> "The response of the law ministry carried the suggestion that while
> the agency could be exempted from RTI, it should be answerable to
> queries on matters of administration, personnel, budget, etc," said
> Karira, quoting from the files he scanned on Wednesday.
> However, the only document at DoPT that strongly recommended CBI's
> exemption from RTI was an 11-page report by attorney general
> Vahanvati, a copy of which was taken by the activist and is in
> possession of TOI. According to the AG's report, intelligence agencies
> are RTI proof because the information they gather is crucial to the
> nation's security.
> The report states: "While the main purpose of intelligence gathering
> and assessment is the prevention and occurrence of activities which
> could endanger the security of the country, it cannot be restricted
> only to gathering of intelligence prior to the happening of an event,
> but should extend to post-event intelligence gathered, which falls
> under investigation." It was soon after receiving this report that the
> government granted CBI the RTI ACT exemption.
> CBI, too, used Section 24 of the RTI Act for the exemption, which
> states that "nothing contained in the act shall apply to the
> intelligence and security organizations established by the central
> government"."
> On Jun 22, 11:26 pm, sroy 1947 <> wrote:
>> To:
>> 1) HumJanenge/GoogleGroups
>> 2) RTI_India
>> 4) RTIACT2005/GoogleGroups
>> Dear Group / Forum Members
>> All of us are stakeholders in the RTI process, either as clients or
>> servers.
>> Today I ("stoy1947") and Mr C.J.Karira ("rtiwanted") inspected the files
>> at
>> DoPT pertaining to exemption of CBI and 2 other Intelligence Agencies from
>> RTI Act. What we read SHOCKED us. We have already placed the AG's legal
>> opinion in public domain in public interest.
>> 1) Contrary to the belief that it was the "babus" of DoPT who wanted the
>> CBI
>> out of the RTI net, we found that the Babudom has consistently opposed
>> this
>> demand to the extent of recording that the CBI could not strictly be
>> considered to be either an "intelligence" or "security" organisation
>> established by Central Govt to fall within section 24. This was endorsed
>> by
>> the opinion of the Ld. Solictor General Mr Gopal Subramaniam on this point
>> (and others).
>> 2) Till as late as 2 months ago, the CBI itself did not seriously press
>> for
>> exemption under the RTI Act. So the question is what changed ? Could it be
>> a
>> string of recent legally bankrupt decisions against CBI by India's first
>> "private sector" Information Commissioner, who is also considered in
>> certain
>> circles to be a fixer par excellence. Is it a coincidence that almost all
>> these cases have a very strong Mumbai connection with the information
>> sought
>> concerning corruption worth thousands of crores of rupees or involves a
>> usual group of NGO RTI activists this IC was in bed with earlier.
>> 3) Is it a coincidence that the Ld AG (who is also from Mumbai) overturned
>> the deeply reasoned opinion of the nations next most senior (and highly
>> respected) Law Officer and gave a patently political, expedient and
>> legally
>> bizarre opinion to somehow get the CBI out of the RTI net till such time
>> as
>> these NGO 'haraamis" can get the CBI amalgamated into the Lokpal
>> apparatus.
>> 4)  On behalf of the members of this group, I feel we must say that ENOUGH
>> IS ENOUGH. It is now time for a CITIZENS WAR against lackeys like Mr
>> Vahanvati. I say that we should fight such toadies on their own home turf
>> (the Supreme Court) so that he can explain the GLARING INCONISTENCIES and
>> 5) It is bizarre that a primarily CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE agency like the
>> CBI
>> which inquires AFTER THE FACT can be equated with organistions like the
>> RAW
>> or the IB or the NatGrid which gather and analyse INTELLIGENCE BEFORE THE
>> FACT.
>> 6) The moderators of the above mentioned groups / forum have decided to
>> seek
>> the views of our members - RUNNING INTO ALMOST 3 LAKH REGISTERED
>> STAKEHOLDERS on wheter THIS kind of corruption must we tolerated. We don't
>> want your mere  moral support,, We need your sweat, toil, tears etc. We
>> need
>> active participants in this WAR against HIGH-LEVEL bootlickers and
>> collaborators.
>> SO please email me OFFLIST at "". We really want to know
>> what you think and if you are prepared to help us.
>> Sarbajit

RKishore Vaish
( Raj Kishore Vaish )
118,Choubey Tola,

No comments:

Post a Comment