Dear Sarbajit,
1) I disagree with your contention. The reasoning is given below.
2) Agreed.
3) Partially agreed, reasons follow.
4) Quote
"shall" is "not always imperative but may be consistent with an exercise of discretion
Unquote
The word shall almost always follows with the subject to conditions laid down in that particular section, if ALL of those conditions are in the affirmative then the word "shall" means mandatory and if ANY of those conditions are in the negative then the word "shall" does not mean mandatory.
Quote:
Thus it may be construed to mean "may" when no right to anyone depends upon its imperative use; when no advantage is lost; when no right is destroyed, when no benefit is sacrificed, either to the public or to any individual by giving it that construction."
Unquote
If the appropriate records are not computerized then advantage is lost as well as benefit is sacrificed, and I am sure we all know the advantages and benefits of computerization.
5) As you rightly said that all the sections of an Act as wells all the Acts have to be read along with together, for a just and fair interpretation.
Hence if the mandate under section 4(1)(a) of computerization of records subject to the conditions laid down therein is overruled or inconsistent with the IT Act, I would appreciate if you can share those inconsistencies (relevant sections, sub-sections of the IT Act) with the forum.
6) :)
7) See point No. 5
8) I partially agree:
Agree:
Quote: (Excerpt from section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act)
computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;
Unquote
Quote:
ignore all 3rd party rights and give tonnes of exempted information
Unquote
That is precisely why section 4(1)(a) has mandated computerization of records and uploading it through a network all over the country on different systems and not on the INTERNET, so the PA has the records computerized to facilitate access to information but may disseminate severed information in accordance with section 10 and in compliance with section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.
Disagree:
Quote:
on a CD at Rs. 50
Unquote
There is nothing wrong in seeking information (or for that matter anything) in an easy, convenient and economical way, we all do that for quite a few things all the time.
Warm Regards,
Sunil.
In simple 'aam-aadmi' bhasha
1) The RTI Act does not make it compulsory for Govt to computerise records. The reasoning is given below.
2) Section 3 confers the "right to information" on citizens as subject to the provisions of the Act.
3) Section 4(1)(a) does not confer any right to information either to citizens or the public. As far as "rights" or "entitlements" of the citizens / public is concerned it makes absolutely no difference to them if 4(1)(a) is in the Act or not. For instance the citizens cannot complain to CIC only if a P/A has "failed" to comply with 4(1)(a). It is when such "failure" to maintain records results in harm like incomplete / misleading information being provided to a citizen that a complaint lies.
4) Since no right / entitlement is conferred to citizens / public by 4(1)(a), the citizens has no locus / cause of action to demand that P/A's records be computerised - and neither will any superior court give directions to the executive to do so in Writ jurisdiction for it is very well settled (declared SC case law binding u/a 141) that "shall" is "not always imperative but may be consistent with an exercise of discretion. Thus it may be construed to mean "may" when no right to anyone depends upon its imperative use; when no advantage is lost; when no right is destroyed, when no benefit is sacrificed, either to the public or to any individual by giving it that construction."
5) The entire regime of "computerisation" of records into the electronic form is regulated NOT by the RTI Act but by the Information Technology Act. Many terms used in the RTI Act touching on computerization and electronic records are not defined in RTI Act but in the IT Act.
7) Laws cannot be read in isolation, either internally (ie. cherry picking a phrase or 2 from a certain "favourable" clause) or externally (other laws). The Constitutional position is that all laws in force are presumed to be equal and consistent with each other. The occasional "inconsistency" between laws is presumed to be in favour of the later enactment (till case law decides the issue). Non-obstante clauses like sec 22 do not repeal other laws. The standard to establish inconsistency is very high and not as simple as the stupid little RTI activists (and an IC) think.
8) In short, P/As (like CIC) cannot be compelled in law to digitise their records, ignore all 3rd party rights and give tonnes of exempted information to Mr Shekhar Singh on a CD at Rs. 50 simply because Mr Habibullah (like Mr Singh) has financial relationships with US intelligence agencies and/or their front organisations with vast appetites for ELINT.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com , Manoj Pai <manojpai@...> wrote:
>
> May I request our learned friends, to come down to earth and speak in simple language, to enable our lesser informed "citizen" / "aam admami" friends lurking in our group, who are getting confused with the flame war.
>
--
It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen - Aristotle
No comments:
Post a Comment