Re: [rti_india] Re: SUPREME COURT IMPOSED ONE LAKH PENALTY ON CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AKM NAYAK AND THE SAME IS PAID BY GOVT. ACCOUNT

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Re: [rti_india] Re: SUPREME COURT IMPOSED ONE LAKH PENALTY ON CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AKM NAYAK AND THE SAME IS PAID BY GOVT. ACCOUNT

Dear Bhaskar

I see you have blindly agreed with Shailesh, as usual.

Shailesh had asked

"Besides it appears to be contrary to the Supreme Court's
pronouncement at para 18 in the CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay case
quoted above where it had held,

""Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act
will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law for the time in force. Therefore the
provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the
bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations."
Surely the rules of the Court cannot be treated differently."

Surely Shailesh, as a former IC at CIC, should understand why the
rules of the Supreme Court or High Court are treated in a different
way to the rules/bye-laws of examining bodies - for purposes of
information disclosure. Perhaps this will help him to refresh his
memory.

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/990634/

Sarbajit

On 5/9/15, Bhaskar Prabhu mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com [rti_india]
<rti_india@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> I agree with Shailesh, courts are behaving in rude way with the RTI.
> Bhaskar
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 9:15 AM, shailesh gandhi <shaileshgan@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It is my belief that in the instant case we should be in agreement with
>> the stand taken by the SIC rather than that of the Supreme Court. By
>> rejoicing every time a Court castigates a Commission for trying to
>> increase
>> the cause of transparency we are becoming party to a gradual weakening of
>> the RTI Act by interpretation. Attaching a paper i have written on the
>> Supreme Court rulings on RTI, and quoting my analysis of the case in
>> reference below:
>>
>> *JUDGMENT 13:* Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal
>> (Civil)....../2013 CC 1853/2013; Karnataka Information Commissioner vs.
>> PIO
>> (HC); GS Singhvi & HL Gokhale 18 January 2013;
>>
>>
>>
>> *About the case:* A RTI applicant requested the Karnataka High Court for
>> certified
>> copies of some information/documents regarding guidelines and rules
>> pertaining to scrutiny and classification of writ petitions and the
>> procedure followed by the Karnataka High Court in respect of Writ
>> Petition
>> Nos.26657 of 2004 and 17935 of 2006. The PIO refused the information on
>> the
>> grounds that the applicant should seek the information under the
>> Karnataka High Court rules. When the matter went to the State Information
>> Commission it disagreed with the PIO and ordered the information to be
>> provided under the RTI Act.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Commission's order was challenged by the PIO in the Karnataka High
>> Court which named the applicant as a respondent in the case and quashed
>> the
>> Commission's order.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Commission challenged this order before the Supreme Court and the
>> petition was filed by an Information Commissioner. The Court took offense
>> to the petition being filed by an Information Commissioner and said that
>> the Commission and Commissioner have no *locus standi* and were wasting
>> public money by challenging the order. In a harsh snub it imposed a cost
>> of
>> Rs. 100000 on the Commission.
>>
>>
>>
>> *My analysis of the judgement:* It is worth mentioning that the Supreme
>> Court itself had accepted the Chief Information Commissioner (Manipur) as
>> the petitioner in Civil Appeal no. 10727. Many High Courts name the
>> Commission as party in many petitions challenging their decision. The
>> important matter of Section 22 which gives an overriding effect to the
>> RTI
>> Act, was not addressed at all. This harsh snub by the Supreme Court has
>> silenced the Information Commissions into not questioning the Courts, but
>> becoming intellectually subservient to them.
>>
>>
>>
>> *ii) Section 22* states that *"the provisions of this RTI Act shall have
>> effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the
>> Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force
>> or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the
>> RTI
>> Act"*. In other words, where there is any inconsistency in a law as
>> regards furnishing of information, such law shall be superseded by the
>> RTI
>> Act. Insertion of a non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act was
>> to
>> safeguard the citizens' fundamental right to information from convoluted
>> interpretations of other laws and rules adopted by public authorities to
>> deny information. This section simplifies the process of implementing the
>> right to information both for citizens as well as the PIO. Citizens may
>> seek to enforce their fundamental right to information by invoking the
>> provisions of the RTI Act if they desire to. By its order in the case of
>> the Karnataka Commission, the Supreme Court, without addressing the
>> provision of Section 22, sanctified and legitimized denial of information
>> under Right to Information, if any public authority claims there are any
>> other rules for giving information. This ruling has neutralised Section
>> 22
>> of the RTI Act without any proper reasoning or discussion.
>>
>> Besides it appears to be contrary to the Supreme Court's pronouncement at
>> para 18 in the CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay case quoted above where it
>> had
>> held, ""*Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said
>> Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
>> contained in any other law for the time in force. Therefore the
>> provisions
>> of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of
>> the examining bodies in regard to examinations." *Surely the rules of the
>> Court cannot be treated differently.
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:19 AM, RUDRAPPA S KUMAR <
>> rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Friends ,
>>>
>>> Chief Information commissioner AKM Nayak violated the supreme court
>>> order
>>> and paid the penalty of Rs. 1 Laksh imposed against him from the govt.
>>> account
>>> For details see the article and the Govt. not initiated any action
>>> against him to recover the Rupees one Lakh from his salary and the
>>> Govt.
>>> fails to take appropriate legal action for mis appopriation of public
>>> money
>>> and the mater is brought to the notice of Governor and demanded to
>>> remove
>>> him from chief information commissioner post , But neither the govt. nor
>>> the governor initiated any action .He is continuing and enjoying the
>>> position
>>>
>>>
>>> With regards
>>>
>>> A R S KUMAR , BE LLB MA Journalism MA Human Rights
>>>
>>> High Court Advocate & RTI Activist
>>>
>>> Swamy Vivekananda RTI Janajagruthi Mission
>>>
>>> Bangalore
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Love
>> shailesh
>> All my emails are in Public domain.
>> Tel: 91 22 26001003; 8976240798
>> Mera Bharat Mahaan..
>> Nahi Hai,
>> Per Yeh Dosh Mera Hai.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> In service of RTI
>
> Bhaskar Prabhu
> *Convenor*
> Mahiti Adhikar Manch &
> Maharashtra RTI Council
> *Co-Convenor*
> National Campaign for People's Right to Information.
> *Core Member* - Police Reforms Watch.
> 9892102424
>
> "Democracy" is not a spectator sport..!
> Participate in "Democracy" to enjoy the sport..!
>