Thursday, June 6, 2013

Re: [IAC#RG] CIC judgment WRT political parties and transparency

Agree with both sides of the debate. I do think the order is important because it is a straw put on the camel's back, which can be listed out at some point in future.

On unrelated note, banning smoking in public places is among the most arbitrary, discriminatory things without any foundation in science whatsoever. There is ZERO research proving any effect at all of passive smoke in large/open spaces. Research on passive smoking itself is mostly dubious, though presented with great authority so that people believe it. Smokers are as much citizens of India as non smokers. Worse, it encourages smokers to smoke in closed places which is far worse for all concerned. For example, kids/family at home, coworkers in (private) office, etc. 

Smoking lobbies are among the worst ventilated and humiliatingly un-hygienic for places for the role they play. Such crap deems smokers to be second class citizens deserving of deliberately damaging facilities and social rejection because of who they are. Anti-smoking campaigns are full of white lies for a "good cause". As far as I am concerned, lies are lies. Provide information, hold robust debate. Your hate for smoke should not be licence to misinform people into "independently" coming to same conclusion as you based on your "facts".

One example of a recent anti-smoking white lie was "more people die of lung cancer daily than road accidents" This is absurd to the point of being laughable. The entire number of people dying of lung cancer - smoking or not - in the world would be less than road accidents in Indian metros alone.

Such scare tactics are designed to terrify people into blindly endorsing policies being peddled. When lies are used to push agendas, no matter how "good" the goal seems, my bullshit-o-meter starts ringing. If it is such a bad thing, surely there are actual facts that can be presented to make the point?


Note: I neither endorse smoking nor bans. I do endorse correct information and robust debate leading to a collective decision that includes the well being of all.

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Jagjit Ahuja <> wrote:
Col Kurup is right. It may be taken just as an eye wash .They do not  obey the orders passed by the Parliament - NON SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES  ,who will care for such orders of the CIC

.There are many more such orders /  laws lying in the cold storage.

Brig J S Ahuja

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Col NR Kurup <> wrote:
As I had posted in Twitter the CIC Orders bringing the Political
Parties under RTI is stupid. This orders just cannot be enforced. I
don't think the political parties are duty bound to abide by orders of
CIC. They can just ignore CIC orders and the CIC will not be able to
do anything. Similarly the political parties can just ignore any
application requesting for information.  What can a cityzen do if the
political parties ignore their application and CIC's notice for
hearing as well as his final orders.  Nothing. How can a CIC penalise
any political party under Section 20 RTI Act.  The CIC has no means to
enforece his direction.

Further the CIC isnot a court of records and its orders are not
binding on SIC. Hence above orders of CIC is not binding on SICs of

Stupid orders

Col NR Kurup

On 04/06/2013, pavan nair <> wrote:
> AAP is not part of the order. It will be difficult for the 6 parties to
> wriggle out of this. This is significant and should be welcomed by IAC
> irrespective of who has filed the petition. The next step should be NGOs
> since donors are exempted from income tax under Sec 80G, where applicable.
> Pavan Nair
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Sarbajit Roy <> wrote:
>> Consider this
>> 1) All 3 ICS on that CIC bench are due to retire shortly and this
>> (badly reasoned) order has been given to suit the Govt.
>> 2) This is a collusive effort between parties like AAP, Cong and BJP
>> etc to see that RTI does NOT apply to them. The Delhi High Court will
>> promptly grant the parties an ex-parte stay and for 10 years nothing
>> will result.
>> 3) Subhash Chandra Agrawal (as I have said before and to his face - we
>> discuss these things as we have different approaches) is also an RTI
>> taxi for Prashant Bhushan. Now if AAP can get even 5% votes in Delhi
>> elections they will be alloted a huge piece of land at institutional
>> rates to shut them up.
>> 4) This is exactly the same modus operandi earlier used by Prashant
>> Bhushan (agaon with Agarwal as RTI taxi) to get judiciary taken out of
>> RTI. If they were genuine they should file  caveats in the High Court
>> as well as SC to ward off ex-parte stays.
>> On 6/3/13, pavan nair <> wrote:
>> > Indeed. Why should donors to political parties get tax exemption? Even
>> > if
>> > they do not, they, I mean the political parties should be under RTI. We
>> > also need to consider public funding of elections which would
>> automatically
>> > get them under RTI. Cannot understand why they are are considered
>> > equivalent to public charities and trusts. Pavan Nair
>> >
>> > On 3 Jun 2013 22:44, "Vidyut Kale" <> wrote:
>> >
>> > I am still reading this, but I thought it would be of interest to us.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Post: ""
>> > Exit: ""
>> > Quit: ""
>> > Help:
>> > WWW :
>> >
>> Post: ""
>> Exit: ""
>> Quit: ""
>> Help:
>> WWW :

Post: ""
Exit: ""
Quit: ""

Post: ""
Exit: ""
Quit: ""

Twitter: @Vidyut
Phone: Allergic
Telephone: Forget it.
Mobile phone: Forgot

No comments:

Post a Comment