Re: [rti_india] What clinched the Govt's decision to exempt CBI under Sec 24 ?

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Re: [rti_india] What clinched the Govt's decision to exempt CBI under Sec 24 ?

Why exactly does this order preclude us from going to Court ?
If anything it reinforces our view that we must go to Court !

Please note that the CIC order clearly records that Respondent
was not present during the hearing - this is because after
the notification of 9-June-2011 he is not required to appear
before CIC except for case of corruption and human rights
violation.

Secondly, arguably Bhopal Gas disaster concerns human rights
violation.

Thirdly, the REAL problem is Shailesh Gandhi's poor quality
and badly reasoned orders which are cyclostyled in a great rush

Sarbajit

Sarbajit

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:16 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Before going to any court, read this order delivered on 20th June, after the govt. granted the exemption to CBI.

ENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000240/SG/12970
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000240/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: : Mr. S. P. Mishra,
Advocate, Sector-K, B 1155, Aliganj,
Lucknow (U. P.)
Respondent: : PIO & Dy Inspector General of Police
Central Bureau of Investigation
Anti Corruption-I, 7th Floor
Block No. 3, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03
RTI application: 09/07/2010
PIO reply: 10/08/2010
First appeal 19/08/2010
FAA order 12/10/2010
Second appeal 03/11/2010
Information sought:
Information was sought about the Bhopal Union Carbide matter:
1. When did you get the investigation of the case?
2. List of those charged in the case. Which of them were examined and reasons for delay in
examining them?
3. What actions were undertaken by you on the issues of compensation and rehabilitation?
4. Names of persons against whom action was required to be taken. Who were the powerful ministers
and bureaucrats against whom action could not be taken?
5. Number of deaths, number of people dependent on those who died and those afflicted by diseases?
PIO's reply:
Point-1 CBI took up investigation of the case from 06-12-1984
Point-2 The following persons/company are charge-sheeted by CBI:
i) Warren M. Anderson. the then Chairman. Union Carbide
Corporation, America
(ii) Keshub Mahindra the then Chairman. Union Carbide
Corporation. Mumbai .
(iii) Vijay P. Gokhale, the then General Manager. Union Carbide India Limited, Mumbai
(iv) Kishore Karndar, the then Vice-President Incharge, Union Carbide India Limited . Mumbai
(v) J Mukund, the then Works Manager. Union Carbide India Limited. Bhopal
(vi) Dr. R. B: Rai Choudhary, The then Assistant Works Manager Union Carbide India Limited . Bhopal -
(vii) S.P. Choudhary the then Production Manager, Union Carbide India Limited, Bhopal
(viii) K. V. Shetty, the then Plant Superintendent, Union Carbide India Limited , Bhopal
(ix) S. I. Qureshi, the then Production Assistant, Union Carbide India Limited , Bhopal
(x) Union carbide Corporation, United States of America
(xi) Union Carbide (Eastern) Inc. Hongkong
(xii) Union Carbide India Limited, Calcutta
No delay was caused in the examination of any accused person except Mr. Warren Anderson of the case
during investigation. CBI couldn't examine and record statement of Mr. Warren M Anderson as he was
absconding.
Point 3 CBI was not involved in the matter of compensation and rehabilitation,
Point-4 The list of persons/company indicated by CBI in Charge sheet dated 01-12-1984 is mentioned at
SI. No.2 of the answer,
Point-5 In CBI Charge sheet, 2850 deaths were mentioned:
Grounds for First appeal:
Dissatisfied with the information provided.
FAA order:
The FAA gave some additional information.
Grounds for Second appeal:
Complete information not provided. In query-1 reasons for delay in investigating Mr.Warren Anderson
and other was not provided. In query-3 the number of deaths mentioned by CBI is 2850 whereas the
number of deaths actually was 15000. Reasons for the delay in the investigations have not been provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. S. P. Mishra on video conference from Lucknow Studio;
Respondent : Absent;
The Appellant states that on 06/12/1984 the case was given to CBI and Mr. Warren Anderson of
Union Carbide had come to India after that. Hence if there are any reasons on record for not interrogating
him these should be provided. The Appellant claims that he should be provided information regarding
issue of compensation. However the CBI has stated that they were not involved in the matter of
compensation and rehabilitation.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information about the reasons for not
interrogating Mr. Warren Anderson as per available records to the Appellant before
10 July 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) AN

--- On Wed, 22/6/11, Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rti_india] What clinched the Govt's decision to exempt CBI under Sec 24 ?
To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 22 June, 2011, 5:53 PM

I too endorse Mr. Venkatesh's opinion.

Best of luck,

Sunil.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com> wrote:

I endorse Mr. Venkatesh opinion.

Bhaskar Prabhu

Mahiti Adhikar MAnch

Maharashtra RTI Council

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Venkatesh Nayak <venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org> wrote:

Dear friends of RTI,

I would urge you not to rush to the Supreme Court first. Please try out the High Court first. If you get a negative decision from the Supreme Court then nothing can be done about it ever unless the government changes its mind. So please do not rush to the Supreme Court without trying out other options first.

I know you are going to blow me apart for this suggestion. But if you think calmly you will see what I am implying.

Thanks

Venkat

From: rti_india@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rti_india@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of C K Jam
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:28 PM
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com; rti_india@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [rti_india] What clinched the Govt's decision to exempt CBI under Sec 24 ? [1 Attachment]

I had file a RTI application with DoPT (quite some time back)

seeking copies of complete file related to the exemption sought

by CBI, under Sec 24.

The information provided by CPIO was that file not available.

On a visit to Delhi, I got a chance to inspect the complete file (along with Mr Sarbajit).

It seems that the final clincher was the '"opinion" given by the Attorney General (AG).

Basically, he has tried to extend the term "investigation" to include "intelligence and security", so that

the main prerequisite for exemption under Sec 24 is satisfied.

Based on what we saw in the files, we have decided to directly approach the SC,

as soon as it reconvenes after the summer recess.

Any member/s desiring to join us and strengthen the petition/plea in the SC,

please send a separate email (off group) to a separate email id which will be provided by

Mr Sarbajit shortly. DO NOT extend support by hitting the reply button !

Attached is the 11 page opinion of the AG.

RTIwanted