Dear Umapathiji
(I am much younger than you, so don't deserve to be called sir).
In any case I think it is disgraceful that the CIC is targeting and threatening senior citizens, notwithstanding the reverse.
1) The CIC notice has 2 components - a notice about alleged contempt of court, and about IPC offences.
2) The CIC can initiate prosecution itself on the IPC issues. So you would be very well advised to address these properly in your reply.
3) The CIC's notice on contempt is optional. If they proceeded against you for contempt to the High Court, you would get a formal opportunity to respond to the Court's notice (ie. if the Court actually took cognisance of your alleged contempt in the first place - the Court would first proceed ex-parte to ask CICI how CC Act is invoked in the first place).
4) By replying to CIC (self drafted) and making so many admissions that they are a Court / Judge etc - you have cooked your own goose. I strongly advise you to withdraw your reply and reply afresh. As I have told you, Tiwari-ji is not your provocation, your provocation is the Central Information Commission as body, which does not have norms or a "code of conduct" on how individual ICs show comport themselves and behave with parties. Use the newspaper reports about CIC going to SC against the Delhi High Court's order on illegalities of benches as your cause of action to withdraw your reply and file a new one. Send a strong message to Mr Habibullah - Contemnor heal thy own rotten "body" first before casting stones at others.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, umapathi s <umi_sbs@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarbajit sir, Thanks for your suggestions and summary of my replies. yes, I
> think I missed out some important points while replying and also  in context of
> IPC 499. I was aware that CIC was trying to exert pressure to tender apology
> since no grounds was availalbe to them for proceeding under Contempt of Courts
> Act. But, refusal to reply to the CIC's notice , as advised by you, may not be
> apporpriate since if the matter was brought before the Hon'ble High Court, this
> would weaken my position.
>
>
> You have, sir, correclty analysed that the CIC's notice is only afterthought.
> this is clear  if we look at the chronoloy of the events leading to the issue of
> show cause notice. Now, i feel withdrawing the replies may not be suitable.
> Since the Ball is in CIC's court now, let them initiate  the steps based on
> which furhter stragey can be planned. I am ready to fight for justice till end.
>
>
> Thanks for your constructive suggestions.
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: sarbajit roy <mail.sarbajitroy@...>
> To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 1 September, 2010 9:35:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Another Major Threat to RTI Applicants- "Notice of
> CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BY C
>
> Â
> Dear Satishji
>
> Umi's reply is very poorly drafted from the legal point of view and
> also tactically speaking.
> No doubt it is very emotionally satisfying (at this point in time) for
> Umapathi - and
> RTI activists all over the country. However, the consequences to the
> RTI movement
> are grave should the CIC decide to pursue the matter.
>
> My brief comments.
>
> 1) Umi has fallen into CIC's trap by responding in detail to this notice. He
> ought to have occupied the high moral ground instead of coming down to
> CIC's level.
>
> 2) Umi is playing the game on CIC's terms, whereas he should have
> refused to reply to teh contempt issue considering that he had already
> moved a Constitutional authority (Prez) on the same issue for grievance
> redressal.
>
> 3) He ought to have pointed out that the CIC notice was clearly an
> intimidatory device devised to pressurise him to withdraw his complaints.
>
> 4) He ought not to have tried to reach "the Law" to CIC's Legal Officer.
>
> 5) He ought to have cited a few exemptions to IPC-499 (defamation).
>
> 6) He ought to have asked the CIC to go F*** themselves considering
> the CIC minutes of meeting of 17-Aug-2010, which clearly reveal that
> CIC's cause of action was during the hearing and Umi's subsequent
> complaint to Prez, and that the contempt on the subsequent yahoogroup
> posting was an afterthought and trumped up..
>
> Umi should seriously consider withdrawing his reply, and submitting a
> new one on the lines indicated.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 9/1/10, Satish Kumar Kapoor <kapoorsatish@...> wrote:
> > Dear Sh Umapathi,
> >
> > Very well drafted reply, wish you success.
> >
> > S.K.Kapoor
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: umapathi s <umi_sbs@...>
> > To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:09:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Another Major Threat to RTI Applicants- "Notice
> > of
> > CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BY C
> >
> >
> > Dear Members , regarding the subject of contempt notice, I have submitted a
> > detailed reply to the Commission today by speed post and e-mail. I express
> > my
> > sincere thanks to many members of this Group who exchanged their views
> > (both
> > positive and negative)on the subject.Reading my detailed reply which is
> > reproduced below would clarify many of the issues on the subject. if membes
> > want
> > ,the thread can be closed.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment