Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Indian Information Commission Orders Disclosure of Site Evaluation and Safety Analysis Reports of Nuclear Power Plans in Kudankulam

Dear Sarabjit Ji,

I am a layman as compared to many eminent & knowledgeable members in the group.

But I can certainly sense an intimidating invisible hand in misuse of RTI Act in trying to compromise with an issue of national security & safety.

Such incidents & arm twisting by forces with melafide intentions may be used by groups to cite examples of misuse & try to propose amendments in the law itself.

Such incidents & people should be condemned publically to avoid any such incidents from occurring in the future.

Let the law be not misused by such elements to compromise national security & safety in anyway.

Warm regards,

Rajesh A. Pandey
Thane, Maharashtra.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Sender: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 09:13:41
To: humjanenge<humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Indian Information Commission Orders Disclosure of
Site Evaluation and Safety Analysis Reports of Nuclear Power Plans in Kudankulam

Dear Venkatesh

You are correct that this information may not be given to you. I
sincerely hope that NPCIL challenges this pathetic decision in some
High Court and obtains a stay. In fact I shall be writing to NPCIL
asking them to get a stay on this order.

There is a question of ethics involved here.

1) A 2nd appeal is filed to CIC, it is disposed and a letter is sent
to the Appellant.

2) Then some remote control ensures that Mr. Shailesh Gandhi is
allocated the Department of Atomic Energy.

3) Promptly NCPRI (foreign financed spies) intervenes to reopen this
closed case now that it is with Mr Gandhi,.

4) The appellant is not present but you represent him despite being a
colleague of Mr.Gandhi in NCPRI (which he was the convenor of). I
suspect you were handpicked BECAUSE you know Mr.Gandhi very well.

5) The documents in question have already been classified as "secret".

6) Mr Gandhi repeatedly asks the CPIO WHY these documents are secret
and to "prove" that section 8 is attracted. No opportunity for
entering evidence (as required by the Act) is afforded to the CPIO.
Mr. Gandhi fails to record the repeated requests of the CPIO to get
this aspect clarified from the Department. Since you were present
surely you can confirm this. Sure you will agree that being unable to
reply to a direct question (especially when the CPIO is NOT under OATH
and had not been "summoned" to give evidence on oath) does NOT
constitute PROOF in Law.

18(3)(a) " summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and
compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce
the documents or things;"

NB: A similar Rule (CIC Appeal Procedure Rules )exists for 2nd Appeals
since 2005.

7) So the question I must ask you is NOT "HOW" you ":procured" this
order from your former NCPRI colleague BUT on WHOSE behalf it was
done ??.

Warmly

Sarbajit

On 5/2/12, venkatesh nayak <venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The Central Information Commission in India has recently ordered the Nuclear
> Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) to disclose the Site Evaluation and
> Safety Analysis Reports (minus proprietary information relating to design)
> relating to the twin nuclear power plants that are situated at Kudankulam,
> Tamil Nadu. A copy of the decision is attached.
>
> News reports of this decision are available at:
>
> http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/849098.aspx
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Disclose-reports-on-Kudankulam-plant-safety-CIC/articleshow/12958302.cms
>
> http://www.livemint.com/2012/05/01223117/NPCIL-told-to-publicize-safety.html?atype=tp
>
> In 2010 Dr. S P Udayakumar sought three reports from NPCIL related to the
> two nuclear power plants being built in collaboration with Russia. While
> NPCIL provided the environmental impact assessment report it refused
> disclosure of the site evaluation report and safety analysis report on
> grounds of national security, strategic and scientific nterests[(under
> Section 8(1)(a) of the Indian Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)] and
> commercial confidence and intellectual property claims [under Section
> 8(1)(d)]. The appellate authority within NPCIL upheld the decision of
> refusal. So the matter was taken to the Central Information Commission. The
> Commission decided in favour of disclosure of both reports after permitting
> severance of proprietary information relating to design which may be
> contained in the safety evaluation report. Further, the Commission directed
> NPCIL to place the reports on its website and also make it a practice to
> disclose such reports on its websites in future.
>
> CHRI assisted the appellant in this matter before the Commission as he is in
> faraway Tamil Nadu amidst thousands of villagers protesting against the
> construction of power plants and the State agencies who are aiming to
> complete the construction and installation process soonest. According to
> recent media reports the fuel assembly may be loaded in one of the two
> reactors occur end of May or early June:
> (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article3354761.ece)
>
> The main appeal, supplementary arguments and supporting documents submitted
> to the Commission are attached for your reference. I have also attached a
> compilation (last attachment) of the criminal cases filed by the Tamil Nadu
> Police against thousands of villagers who are protesting against the power
> plants. Many of them have been accused of sedition and waging war against
> the State.
>
> We do not expect disclosure of even an iota of information to be released
> despite the Commission's orders, as NPCIL may challenge this decision before
> a High Court. It is likely to be a long battle. We would be grateful for any
> supportive arguments and examples of best practice regarding disclosure of
> such information that you can provide us for this case.
>
> In order to access our previous email alerts on RTI and related issues
> please click on:
> http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&Itemid=84
> You will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
> receive these email alerts please send an email to this address indicating
> your refusal.
>
> Thanks
>
> Sincerely,
> Venkatesh Nayak
> Programme Coordinator
> Access to Information Programme
> Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
> B-117, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
> New Delhi- 110 017
> Tel: +91-11-43180215/ 43180201
> Fax: +91-26864688
> Skype: venkatesh.nayak@skype.com
> Alternate Email: nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com
> Website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org
>