Dear Ashish
1) The "new" moderation policy is not the cause
for the reduction in postings to the group. The
fact is that the RTI scene is dead / dull /
exhausted.
2) Insofar as Venkatesh's plagiarism is concerned,
I think you may have gotten hold of the wrong
end of the stick. The one thing that the NCPRI does
not want at the present time is amendments to the
RTI Act. The Delhi High Court judgment has altered
the game in favour of Act amendment. For how long
can Mr Habibullah continue to stand in contempt
of the judgement by functioning in Benches ?
Prospective SLPs and single judge decisions from
other High Courts where CIC was not a contesting
party do not allow him to continue his willful
disobedience to Delhi HC's directions at all. Now
hat the Court has decided that 12(4) does not give
him the power, Mr Habibullah should publicly state
which other clause of RTI Act gives him powers.
3) I actually think that the opinion circulated by
Mr Akash Deep was drafted by the NCPRI gang. It is
legally weak, for instance the case law is full of
cherry picking - L Chandra Kumar (1997) is actually
very damaging to CIC's cause. The 2 single HC
decisions are not relevant - but actually work against
the CIC too. Venkatesh has reached an absurd conclusion
when he states that the Delhi HC decision is "per incuram"
on "benches". This is similar to his previous claim that
the HC decision was only "obiter", which was subsequently
propogated by Mr Habibullah and Shailesh Gandhi in the
CIC meeting and loudly rejected by all the other
Commissioners present.
4) It would be very very unwise if the CIC now embarks
on SLP adventurism in the SC to enable Mr Habibullah to
wriggle out of a tight corner. In the HC they had to face
DDA, in the SC they will have to face me. It is far far
better that the RTI Act be amended or the DoPT be
persuaded to amend the Rules.
5) Insofar as Plagiarism is concerned, the NCPRI
is notorious for stealing other peoples works,
RTI is now an additional tool to steal the labours of
others). I shall post on this with examples when I
get some time.
6) I now agree that the RTI Act contains provisions
to allow the competent authority to fix fees for
appeals also.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, ashish kr1965 <ashishkr1965@...> wrote:
>
> Dear group moderators
>
> I am pleased that the new moderation policy is
> evidently quite successful in arresting the menace of
> frivolous postings to the group.
>
> Another development is that the NCPRI members
> here now appear reluctant to post on a public frequency
> where their puerile logic and "ngo-speak" will
> be exposed by the many RTI "experts" here.
>
> For instance Mr Venkatesh Naik is now posting
> on Hum Janenge. Of his 2 recent posts, the first
> on the DDA HC decision is plagiarized from the
> private legal opinion A.K.Chakravarthy of the C.I.C
> put up to the Information Commissioners for
> their fortnightly meeting. Somehow NCPRI has
> obtained a copy of this (Gandhi-giri :-)) and Mr Naik
> has the gall to palm off this work as his own
> research (right down to the case law). The second post
> of Mr Naik's claims that there is no basis in RTI Act 2005 for the
> competent authority to prescribe fees for 2nd appeals.
> This betrays a complete disregard (or perhaps ignorance)
> for the letter of the law, and I am strongly inclined
> towards seconding Sharma's suggestion to expel
> NCPRI (and other NGOs) from this group so that our
> group members are not deceived..
>
> Ashish
>
No comments:
Post a Comment