"Thus it may be construed to mean "may" when no right to anyone depends upon its imperative use" Shall / May ==> "Black's legal dictionary" Conversely SHALL also does not mean compulsory.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PNQgVoT2_aQC&pg=PA1081
http://books.google.com/books?id=9sKzQ8BqaswC&pg=PA387
"Whenever a statute declares that a thing "shall" be done, that natural and proper meaning is that a peremptory mandate is enjoined. But where the thing has reference to (a) the time or formality of completing any public act, not being a step in a litigation, or accusation; or (b) the time or formality of creating an executed contract whereof the benefit has been, or but for their own act might be, received by individuals or private companies or private corporations, the enactment will generally be regarded as merely directory, unless there be words making the thing done void if not done in accordance with the prescribed requirements (see Stroud's Judicial Dictionary Of Words And Phrases 6th Edn). The word "shall" is also defined as "has a duty to; more broadly, is required to" (see Black's Law Dictionary 7th Edn.). According to Words, Phrases & Maxims – Legally & Judicially Defined by Anandan Krishnan at p 625 the word "shall":
In common parlance, a term which, it is said, has always a compulsory meaning, and in its common and ordinary usage, unless accompanied by qualifying words which show a contrary intent, always refers to the future; but it may be used in the sense of `must' of which is a synonym. As used in statutes, the word is generally mandatory; although it is not always imperative but may be consistent with an exercise of discretion. Thus it may be construed to mean `may' when no right or benefit to any one depends on 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; or when it is absolutely necessary to prevent irreparable mischief, or to construe a direction so that it shall not interfere with mental branches of government; and it also means `may' when used by a legislature in a grant of authority to a Court. (Ame Cyc) The word `shall' in its ordinary signification is mandatory though there may be considerations which would influence the Court in holding that the intention of the legislature was to give a discretion. "
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CB0QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwordsphrasesmaxims.com%2Farticles%2FSim%2520Kim%2520Fatt%2520v%2520Dato'%2520Fu%2520Ah%2520Kiow%2520%26%2520Ors%2520%255B2009%255D%2520MLJU%25200003.doc&ei=LJUxTPeNNMyIkAXOzPWCBA&usg=AFQjCNFF6JDj0umxrR7jfCFrKguBsfBkIg
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarbajit,
>
> 1. Quote: "If it is STORED in a computer it must be given only as a print
> out" Unquote.
>
> In that case can you ENLIGHTEN our forum, on how an information, which is in
> the form of a few hours video, stored on a PA's computer, may be provided to
> an applicant under the RTI.
>
> 2. With reference to the interpretation of word "shall" in an Act, (whether
> mandatory or discretionary)
>
> 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
>
> Can you please share with our forum the reference source, which establishes
> this precedent (SC / HC judgment, some provision in the law etc).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sunil.
>
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:53 PM, sarbajitr <sroy1947@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Re Pt #1
> >
> > "2(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible
> > under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority
> > and includes the right to—
> > (d) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video
> > cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through PRINTOUTS WHERE SUCH
> > INFORMATION IS STORED IN A COMPUTER OR IN ANY OTHER DEVICE;"
> >
> > If the information is in the form of a diskette you can get a diskette, if
> > it is in the form of a video-casette you can get a video-cassette. If it is
> > STORED in a COMPUTER it must be given
> > only as a printout. Converting from one form to another - such as
> > video-casette to DVD will disproportionately divert the resources ..<wink>
> >
> > re Pt # 2
> > Since there are over 1,000 (low guess) such SC decisions you may
> > contact competent counsel. May vs Shall is the bread and butter
> > of SC.
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> >
> > --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, Sunil Ahya
> > <sunilahya@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Sarbajit,
> > >
> > > 1. With reference to point no. 6 of your contention:
> > >
> > > Quote:
> > > The RTI Law is clear .. if the info is already in the electronic form,
> > the
> > > PIO is allowed to provide PRINTOUTS (not photocopies) of the info at Rs.2
> > > per page instead of a CD at RS.50.
> > > Unquote
> > >
> > > Can you please quote and share with us the relevant section including
> > > sub-section of the RTI Act supporting your above quoted inferred
> > contention.
> > >
> > > 2. With reference to our earlier discussions on the subject matter of
> > > interpretation and implication of the use of word "SHALL" (mandatory /
> > > voluntary / discretionary) in an Act, can you please share with us the
> > link
> > > or attach a soft copy of the decision of Supreme Court wherein this
> > > particular question of law is decided.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Sunil.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:03 PM, sarbajitr <sroy1947@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Karira
> > > >
> > > > 1) Mine is the oldest pending RTI Act case in the World!
> > > >
> > > > 2) The case is all about section 4 disclosure.
> > > >
> > > > 3) I am representing the citizens of India when this matter
> > > > reaches the SC when CIC goes in for SLP.
> > > >
> > > > 4) What I decide is good enough to be disclosed to the citizens of
> > India
> > > > u/s 4(1)(a) shall be conclusively confirmed by the SC.
> > > >
> > > > 5) As a citizen I demand instant and complete access to all information
> > > > published by the public authorities u/s 4(1)b, 4(1)c.
> > > > Computerisation of records is only a process to facilitate my access to
> > > > such information free of cost or to any other information I apply for
> > to be
> > > > provided to me against payment. There is no court in India which would
> > > > seriously disagree with me on this point.
> > > >
> > > > 6) BTW, you did not read IC(SM) properly while praising his views.
> > > > He said "The objective behind Section 4(1)(a) of the Right to
> > Information
> > > > (RTI) Act is to encourage public authorities to computerise their
> > operations
> > > > and activities as much as possible so that the public can access any
> > > > information easily through internet; surely the intention is not to
> > multiply
> > > > paperwork by photocopying reams of data even if it is available
> > digitally."
> > > >
> > > > You will note he uses the following words
> > > > The OBJECTIVE ... is to ENCOURAGE ...computerise AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
> > ...
> > > > the PUBLIC ... ACCESS any information through INTERNET ... IF it is
> > > > available digitally.
> > > >
> > > > The RTI Law is clear .. if the info is already in the electronic form,
> > the
> > > > PIO is allowed to provide PRINTOUTS (not photocopies) of the info at
> > Rs.2
> > > > per page instead of a CD at RS.50.
> > > >
> > > > Sarbajit
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com><rti_india%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>, C K Jam
> >
> > > > <rtiwanted@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr Sarbajit,
> > > > >
> > > > > You, as a moderator can always decide whether it was conclusive or
> > > > not...depending on which side of the bed you got out from in the
> > > > morning....just like the 180 degree turn of Ex super Babu IC SM !
> > > > >
> > > > > For me, it was (and still is) inconclusive.
> > > > >
> > > > > RTIwanted
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen -
> > > Aristotle
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen -
> Aristotle
>
No comments:
Post a Comment