Dear All,
This thread places the moderators in a dilema. I can only request (again) the concerned participants to be restrained and factual.
As far as Mr Sharma's post is concerned, it is relevant to the
topic and relies on a decision of the CIC. The purpose of this
group IS to discuss CIC decisions.
The "allegation" against Venkatesh was not made, at least from the order, by Mr Sharma but by the CPIO therein who by his careful choice of punctuation (commas) imputes that Venkatesh is Anti Nation person but not necessarily a naxal or terrorist (thank god for small mercies).
As Venkatesh is a member with full posting privileges here it is always open for him to reply and contradict the CIC decision / allegations therein if he so chooses.
The allegation against the "head of CHRI" is uncalled for and moderators will not allow such imputations / inuendo if repeated.
Finally, as far as I recall in the Brig Ujwal Dasgupta case, it was Shekhar Singh of NCPRI who regularly assisted the "tratiors / spies" in Tihar and not Venkatesh who only assisted them at the beginning.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@...> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
> Is this a RTI group or name to be changed to "RTIallegation group".
> Bhaskar
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:15 PM, S.D. Sharma <anonsharma@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr. Ashish Kumar,
> >
> > I say again is certainly time for all the ant-national person like
> > Venktesh Nayak of CHRI and other NCPRI also to be expeled from
> > the forum.
> >
> > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SS-08122009-04.pdf
> > Venkatesh Nayak vresus Home Affairs
> >
> > In this recent order IC Susma Singh admonshes Nayak
> > "*In passing, I may also observe that the plea advanced by the
> > appellant that the Manual under reference is mandated to be disclosed
> > u/s 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act is based on gross misunderstanding and
> > misappreciation of the provisions of RTI Act*. By no stretch of
> > imagination, can it be conceived that this Act would permit disclosure of
> > any information which may adversely impact on India's security
> > concerns. The provisions of clause (a) of section 8 (1) bears testimony to
> > the security concerns of the law makers. Hence, this plea is
> > misconceived and needs to be discarded."
> >
> > Nayak had asked for the top secret and confidential security manual
> > which contained military plans, vulenarabilities and capabilities of
> > systems,
> > intelligence activities, nuclear programs, cryptology etc.
> >
> > The CPIO had object to giving info because "may, indirectly, reveal the
> > security policy/strategy of the Govt. and if the same falls into the hands
> > of Anti Nation persons,
> > like naxals and other terrorists group, it may compromise the security of
> > India."
> >
> > IC Susma singh fully upheld the view of CPIO. But just think if this matter
> > had been assigned to Shailesh Gandhi he would have given all the
> > information
> > to his NCPRI partner. Previously also this Venkatesh is helping spies and
> > traitors lodged in Tihar jail who had compromised Indian Armys secrets with
> > pen drives and cryptology. Head of CHRI is daughter of a famous Indian
> > general
> > against whom many allegations of spying for Pakistan had surface
> > regulalrly.
> >
> > S D Sharma
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:53 PM, 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