Dear Karira
Your post spreads several important misconceptions which require to be rebutted in the public domain
1) The letter of CJI to PM is in the context of preservation of judicial independence which is a basic (inalienable) feature of the Constitution after the Keshavananda Bharti case.
2) Assuming without admitting that the Right to Information is a Fundamental Right, Article 12 reserves the possibility that RTI does not include the Supreme Court or the High Courts. If pressed to the wall the SC may simply pass a Judgment restricting RTI to State bodies of Government, Parliament, Legislatures, local and other authorities under the control of the State.
"12. In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State'' includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India."
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 ?
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, C K Jam <rtiwanted@...> wrote:
>
> Not so Mr Sarbajit.
>
> O or o, apparently the CJI himself does not think so.
>
> Read the attached letter he wrote to the PM.
> (Here he goes about in a circle to get his office exempted and tries to justify it by implying that a "competent athority" cannot be a "public authority")
>
> And then just before his retirement he said:
> http://expressbuzz.com/nation/did-not-seek-immunity-from-rti-retiring-cji/172729.html
>
> (Mind you that was just a day after that submission by Mr Kamat in the CIC)
>
> Also saw some other post regarding SC having implmented PIO/RTI Rules from Day 1.
> However, the SC has still not suo motu disclosed information under Sec 4(1)(b) - even nearly 5 years later. But Mr Kamat was able to wrangle "Congratulations" from the CIC WH on "implementing RTI" in the SC. God only knows on what grounds.
>
> CIC/WB/A/2010/00014 dated 18 March 2010
>
> “In fact, both parties deserve congratulations, appellant for having
> agitated the subject thereby registering public interest in a matter
> of vital importance to the successful implementation of the
> mandate of the RTI Act 2005, and the Registry of Supreme Court
> of India for having taken a lead in an action in which many public
> authorities are still far from perfect.â€
>
> Can any member point me to the full disclosure of the 17 items in Sec 4(1)(b) by the SC on its website ?
>
> RTIwanted
No comments:
Post a Comment