Re: [rti_india] Re: Fwd: [Indiarti] CIC to approach SC as ICs refuse to work

Friday, May 28, 2010

Re: [rti_india] Re: Fwd: [Indiarti] CIC to approach SC as ICs refuse to work

Law is a law...
Even if it is useless and an ass.

Regarding format or location for information to be suo motu disclosed under Sec 4(1)(b), refer to 4(3), 4(4) and the "Explanation" at the end of Sec 4.

Can't locate anything. That is why I asked.
If no other PA has done complete disclosure as per Sec 4(1)(b) does not mean that Supreme Court should also not do it and on top of it get "Congratulated" for something it has not done.

The less said about CIC's own record on Sec 4(1)(a) and (b), the better.
The only thing they have done (after a RTI application was filed about this) was to fix responsibility amongst various officers in the CIC for implementation of Sec 4.
There has been a long exchange of correspondence with WH on this...till he gave up and went silent.
As per CIC's Sec 4(1)(b), it has only 1 CIC and 4 IC's - including 2 who have already retired.

But cannot give you the link since our friend Manoj will say it is advertising.

RTiwanted

--- On Sat, 5/29/10, sarbajitr <sroy1947@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@yahoo.com>

3) What is the big deal about 4(1)(b) and the so-called 17 manuals.
It is a completely useless clause (diverting focus from real info disclosure) which we had represented to Parliament should be deleted in toto from RTI Act. Furthermore, does the RTI Act say that 4(1)(b) has to be published in any particular format or located at one location for convenience? Seek and you will receive. What is it about SC pertaining to 4(1)(b) that you cannot locate ? Can you give me even a single instance of any public authority whose 4(1)(b) is complete.

4) The CIC is nobody to give certifications to anyone. What is the CIC's own record on 4(1)(b) disclosure ?

e

.