Re: [HumJanenge] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI

Can you e-mail a copy of the order to me?

FASTJUSTICE@GMAIL.COM

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 3:56 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Dear Sarab, ,   How u have concluded that this order was first reserved as there is no such indication that the order was reserved?  However, if it was reserved, the same make sense as a detailed and speaking order running into 11 pages cannot the dictated instantly on the same day leaving all other cases.   It has nowhere mentioned in the decision whether the complainant or respondent were present or not during the hearing. Even if the they are not present, CIC has to take decision on the basis on the material available before him.   Section 18 (1) says, " Subject to the provision of this Act, it shall be duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person, ---   (d) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act;"   As per order, complaint was filed on 5.2.2011, it was not the second appeal.  This has come for hearing within 4 months while it takes much more time with some other ICs.   Every accused has a right to fair trial and the RTI Act is applicable to him also.  There are enough safeguards in RTI Act against its misuse in section 8, 9 and 24.    Executive cannot outdo an Act duly passed by the Parliament of India by just issuing an executive order (notification) exempting the Public Authorities without valid ground.  CBI is not an intelligence or security agency but an investigative agency.  --- On Sat, 2/7/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, 2 July, 2011, 9:09 AM Dear Karira 1) almost all the rti_india yahoogroup members are on HumJanenge, so no need to post such messages there. 2) With my long experience of how CIC "reserved" orders are drafted, I can say with considerable force that the reason the Complainant was not present, was because there was "hanky panky" in the final order in favour of a retired judge who is accused in Ghaziabad judges PF scam. Anybody who tracks Shailesh Gandhi's usual orders will vouch for this. What is especially curious in the present case is that the CIC treated a "2nd Appeal" (w/o 1st appeal on record) as Complaint (and thereby invoked its enquiry powers to cut-n-paste from various websites). 3) I think it is high time that this practice of "reserved" orders at CIC be stopped. Sarbajit On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:33 PM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote: Today (01 July 2011), CIC has passed an order while hearing a Complaint from an accused in the Ghaziabad PF scam. In a very long order, CIC has ruled that: 1. The Govt. order on exemption of CBI from RTI is not in consonance with the basic provisions of the RTI Act 2. CIC can hear direct Complaints and there is no need to exhaust 19(1) before approaching the commission 3. The gazette notification on CBIs exemption has only a prospective effect - ie cannot be applied to applications/appeals/complaints already in process. Full order is attached to this post. RTIwanted

--
use ubuntu.com instead of microsoft windows and remain FREE from viruses and trojans
www.openoffice.org
http://www.janhitmanch.org/judicialdelayssolutions.pdf Reforms for the Indian justice system