Dear Venkatesh
The decision of SC Agrawal is not relevant to this issue
We have 2 POVs in the CIC on this question.
IC(AT) says only information EXCLUSIVELY held by a P/A can be disclosed under section 6. IC (SG) has "respectfully differed" with his interpretation.
As a Moderator I alway guide our members in the most conservative fashion so that they are not eventually disappointed.
The 2 links are
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AT-12042007-01.pdf
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-14072009-17.pdf
As you know I have repeatedly asked for this matter to be resolved by Mr Habibullah - but for reasons best known to him he has evaded deciding the issue.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@...> wrote:
>
> Dear friends,
> I respectfully beg to differ from the interpretation given by Sarbajit to
> the phrase "held by". "Held by" as a phrase indicates physical possession of
> a document by a public authority. This has been made crystal clear by the
> Delhi High Court in the CPIO, Supreme Court v S C Agarwal case. Critics may
> say that the Delhi HC decision has been challenged before the SCI. I do not
> think in this case the SCI is arguing on the definition of the term 'held
> by'. Their problem is about coverage of the RTI Act vis-a-vis the CJI's
> office and other ancillary issues.
>
> If a document is placed in the public domain it does not disappear from the
> possession of the public authority. the hard and soft copies of the document
> continue to be held by that public authority unless they have legitimately
> destroyed it. Similarly the mere fact that something has been placed in the
> public domain does not ensure that it stays there and is easily accessible
> to people. We need to move beyond the bureaucratic perspective of looking
> upon the 'public domain' as a notional sphere to turning it into a
> functional domain. From a functional perspective unless a document is
> accessible in the office of the public authority on demand, immediately or
> in a publicly accessible library or on a noticeboard for all times to come,
> or most importantly on the Internet, it must be treated as information that
> is not available in the public domain.
>
> For example, publishing something in the gazette places information in the
> public domain. But it does not ensure that it stays there and is easily
> accessible to people. Copies of gazette notifications get exhausted. the
> e-gazette database is accessible only on subscription. Unless some
> department has made its gazette notifications openly accessible on its
> website, the information is as good as not being available in the public
> domain. Sarbajit and I have knocked our heads on DDA's doors trying to get
> them to place on their website all their Rules notified in the gazette over
> the years. This is because they are no longer accessible at any place except
> through personal contacts with those who may have saved copies meticulousy.
> This case alone is enough to demonstrate that what is placed in the public
> domain does not necessarily stay there or is easily accessible to everybody.
>
>
> At least one copy of the information placed in the public domain must be
> presumed to be available with the concerned public authority. So what is
> there in the law to prevent any citizen from seeking it under S. 6(1)? And
> where in S 7(1) or S* or S9 does it say that what is proactively disclosed
> under S. 4(1)(b) cannot be provided in response to an application under
> S6(1).
>
> This kind of interpretation unfortunately has found its way in some previous
> decisions of the CIC also. With due respect to the wisdom of the CIC it must
> be said that such interpretations are bad in law and as activists we must
> challenge them before the appropriate authorities at appropriate moments.
>
> The question that Sarbajit needs to ponder over is why has he litigated for
> so long before the CIC for the DDA Rules when according to his own
> definition they are already in the public domain.
> Thanks
> Venkat
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: rti_india@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rti_india@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of sarbajitr
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:42 AM
> To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [rti_india] Re: interpreation of Section 2(f) and 2(J)
>
>
>
>
> Dear Anurag
>
> The query is not very clear.
>
> Circulars are supposed to be proactively disseminated under section 4. Once
> disseminated under section 4, they are in the public domain and no longer
> "held by or under control of" the public authority - and hence cannot be
> provided under section 6 process.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> anurag prasad <yanuragprasad@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello everyone
> >
> > Can anybody interpret section 2(f) and 2(j) . One of the public authority
> resorted to transfer a request under section 6(3) of the Act . The
> receipient public authority ( who received the request under section 6(3) )
> infered that the information is to be provided by the original public
> authortiy and informed the applicant to receive the information from the
> original public authrority. The information was sought by his was circular
> issued by administrative ministry of his organisation and the requester is
> an employee of subordinate office of the same administrative ministry.
> >
> >
> > Anurag
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment