Dear Rakesh
1) Who is this "Certain Central Information Commissioner" ? At least 5 ICs of the CIC say exactly the same thing in their orders. There is only 1 IC (Shailesh Gandhi) who has "respectfully disagreed" with the others, and even Mr Habibullah found no merit for his (SG's) argument which you advanced as recorded in your order of 30.Aug.2010.
2) It is important to understand what exactly these 5+ ICs are saying when it comes to CENTRAL P/As covered by the DoPT Rules. They say as follows:-
If such a P/A has already disclosed material into the public domain, say u/s 4 process, then the P/A can no longer be said to "hold" the information to provide in RTI through its PIO u/s 6 process. Such information will have to be obtained either from the website or from the PIO at rates which are prescribed (under some other law) elsewhere or as a priced publication etc. u/s 4.
3) Shailesh Gandhi says, "sec 22 over-rides all other previous laws when it comes to info access. The applicant can apply under any law / process / procedure he he wants as per applicant's choice"
4) The other ICs say :"Yes, but only if there is any INCONSISTENCY between the laws. The RTI ACT does not repeal these older laws which continue to operate along with the RTI Act."
Anyway all this has been explained in your Aug.30 CIC order. It would be much better, if you post (if you can) why that order from Mr Habibullah is legally bankrupt.
My personal opinion is as follows:
A) RTI Act is a very stupid and weak info access law. Some other laws are much better when it comes to securing in access. These are precisely the laws which the 'harami' activists and ICs want diluted by being over-ridden by RTI Act. The CPC and High Court Rules being a case in point.
B) Alternative procedures do not preclude a citizen's right to statutory remedy under the RTI Act, say by way of an Appeal or a Complaint, in the event of denial of access to information.
PS: What is the present status of your Escorts Hospital matter, The last I heard the High Court had stayed IC(SG)'s decision ordering IT Dept to give you information ?
http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/SG-14122009-32.pdf
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, "growth" <snehcs2@...> wrote:
>
>
> Protection provided to Corrupt and incompetent Government Officers by
> Certain Central Information Commissioner.
>
> Dear Friends
>
> Certain Central Information Commissioner, had decided that the Right to
> Information Act is not applicable for the information available in the
> other rules. In this two articles are published (their website address
> is given at the end of this article).
>
> n the last of present series , my next article will be legal pleading
> in the CIC.
>
>
>
>
> Above deliberate wrong decisions has resulted in tremendous protection
> to corrupt officers Because provisions of RTI Act, 2005 will not be
> applicable to them as follows.
>
> 1. There will be not any penalty for `false information' /
> `not providing of information'. (section 20 of RTI act,2005 will
> not be applicable.
>
> 2. Free information is not provided ( Section 7(6) for delay in
> information giving & 7(5) for BPL family of RTI act, is applicable- it
> reduce checking of Public officers by vigilant citizen.
>
> 3. Information is provided at extra ordinary high cost verse at
> reasonable cost as per Section 7(5) of RTI act. it reduce checking of
> Public officers by vigilant citizen.
>
> 4. No compensation to Citizen as per Section 19(8) B of RTI act,
> 2005-(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for
> any loss or other detriment suffered;
>
> 5. No third forum appeal like appeal/ complaint l before Central
> Information Commission. It( absence of third forum appeal) increase
> cost of getting information because appeal before High Court/ Supreme
> Court is costly affairs.. In addition Public authority officers has
> vested interest to protect corruption. Therefore, when Public Authority
> are Courts, appeal are completely denied.
>
> 6. CIC can not issue direction under Section 19(8) a of RTI act,
> 2005 to Public Authority to provide the information.
>
> (a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be
> necessary to secure
>
> compliance with the provisions of this Act, including—
>
> (i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular
> form;
>
> (ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public
> Information Officer, as the case may be;
>
> (iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;
>
> (iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the
> maintenance, management and destruction of records;
>
> (v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information
> for its officials;
>
> (vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b)
> of subsection of section 4;
>
>
>
>
>
> 7. Citizen are forced to collect information individually, which
> can be easily provided through proactive disclosure as stated above
> point.
>
> 8. Increasing the exemption. Limiting the information allowable as
> per relevant rules . These are more than exemption given in the Section
> 8/9 of RTI act, 2005. Like Party of ongoing case can't obtain copies
> of the case in the Supreme Court of India Rules. In the absence of
> certified copy, party can not complain about the change of documents
> with the help of Court staff , specially in the light of Contempt law..
>
> 9. As the Central Information Commissioner are unable to understand
> one Act ( RTI Act, 200) properly (as explained in the present as well
> previously two articles), the CIC expect normal Citizen to understand
> thousands of acts/ rules.
>
> Above stapes basically reduce Citizen right information and simple
> words also remove check of Vigilant Citizen on Government.
>
> It is impossible to believe that central Information Commissioner does
> not understand the RTI Act, 2005 properly, specially, when the specific
> above facts brought to their knowledge in appeals/ complaint by the
> citizen. Kindly note these CIC gets Income of top 1% of Indian Citizen
> and assisted by Staff including Legal advisor are unable to understand
> one Act.
>
> Therefore, denial of information is deliberate to protect corruption and
> their share from corrupt officers..
>
> In the last of present series , my next article will be legal
> pleading in the CIC.
>
>
>
> With regards
>
> Rakesh gupta
>
> Certain Central Information Commissioner, think ,
>
> poor has no right to Information. This articles is available on the web.
>
>
> 6770
>
> Poor Man has no fundamental right of information as per Certain Cent
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/6770>
>
>
>
> Even Rich Man (but without proper connection including underworld) has
> no fundamental right of information
>
>
> 6774
>
> Even Rich Man has no right of information as per Certain Central
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/6774>
>
>
>
>
> <https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1RGxIPaXYgOoXFWQTPtuIrpj4ri7Lyh\
> 3CsAuSx-Yyrus>
>
> SCI Rules 1966, Published at web
> (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1CLOOo8dqqsDQyBKK2PAEJrrh7_LBOc\
> bO_5sN0iIXSHg
> <https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1CLOOo8dqqsDQyBKK2PAEJrrh7_LBOc\
> bO_5sN0iIXSHg> )
>
No comments:
Post a Comment