[HumJanenge] NCPRI's suggestions on the RTI Amendment Bill

Dear Bhaskar / Anjali

NB: Please see why the group "rtitrainers" is not taking posts today
and bouncing emails back. (see footnote)

I think the view you circulated is very shortsighted / retrograde, and
ignores the present ground realities.It would be interesting to know
who attended that NCPRI meeting and who called it.

My own view is as follows

1) NCPRI submits that RTI Act urgently needs to be amended to tackle
many grey areas in the Act which are preventing citizens from
accessing information. This may include specifically defining that
political parties and PPPs etc are covered as "public authority".

2) NCPRI hardly thinks that persons who opposed death penalty for
Kasab, or who have consorted with/for foreign devils (in cozy illegal
govt. caucuses) for years have any right to speak on behalf of
citizens of India or on core anti-corruption tools like RTI whch are
used by
anti-corruption activists. Surely we all recall the mandate of May
2002 when so many eminent people came together in Delhi to form the
NCPRI and the objectives consistently listed on the NCPRI website
since 2002, which (see link below) eminent founding activists like
Ms.Maja Daruwalla or S.D. Sharma will doubtless attest to.

http://ncpri.org/blogs/archive-2002-national-campaign-political-reforms-india-ncpri-1704253

Sarbajit

National Campaign for Political Reform in India
www.ncpri.org

National Campaign to Protect RTI in India
http://ncpri.in

On 9/27/13, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Forwarding the suggestion that NCPRI has proposed for RTI Amendment bill.
> Can comment on for any further suggestions.
> Bhaskar
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From:
> Date: Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:33 AM
> Subject: NCPRI's suggestions on the RTI Amendment Bill
> To:
> Cc:
>
> Dear all,
>
> We had an NCPRI meeting yesterday to discuss and evolve NCPRI's suggestions
> to the standing committee on the RTI Amendment bill. At the meeting the
> following position was agreed upon-
>
> 1. The RTI Act should not be amended. This has been the consistent position
> of the NCPRI on the issue. As stated in the CIC order, political parties
> receive extensive benefits from the public exchequer in the form of tax
> exemptions, subsidized land etc. Further, they hold a great deal of
> information that it is in public interest to disclose. Given that the
> current framework governing the transparency of political parties (RP Act,
> IT Act etc.) is very inadequate, it is critical that political parties be
> covered as public authorities under the RTI Act.
>
> 2. There was a discussion regarding the concern expressed by political
> parties about disclosure of information which would harm their competitive
> position. It was felt that although this information is already exempted
> from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(d) but the language is a little
> ambiguous as it states- "the disclosure of which would harm the competitive
> position of third party". Therefore, it was decided that the NCPRI could
> suggest that a clarification can be made by way of rules to state that
> information related to the competitive position of political parties is
> exempted under Section 8(1)(d). In fact we can suggest that this can even
> be done by seeking a clarification from the Central Information Commission
> or the Supreme Court.
>
> If there are any comments/suggestions regarding this broad position,
> please send them as soon as possible so that the representation to the
> Standing Committee can be prepared and circulated in time.
>
> Best wishes and regards,
> Anjali
>
> --
> Yours in service of RTI
>
> Bhaskar Prabhu
> Convenor
> Mahiti Adhikar Manch
> Maharashtra RTI Council
> 9892102424
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Information is a source of learning. But unless it is organized,
> processed, and available to the right people in a format for decision
> making, it is a burden, not a benefit."
>
> William Pollard quotes
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "RTI Trainers Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rtitrainers@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rtitrainers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/rtitrainers?hl=en-GB

On 9/27/13, Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@google.com> wrote:
> Hello sroy.mb@gmail.com,
>
> We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact
> (rtitrainers) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages
> to the group. A few more details on why you weren't able to post:
>
> * You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly.
> * The owner of the group may have removed this group.
> * You may need to join the group before receiving permission to post.
> * This group may not be open to posting.
>
> If you have questions related to this or any other Google Group, visit the
> Help Center at http://groups.google.com/support/.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Google Groups

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HumJanenge+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.