Re: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada Dam

where has the discussion gone? thngs have been blown out of proportion..

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Abhimanyu <who.will.file.rti@gmail.com> wrote:

members plz stop this nonsense

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Dr. Jagnarain Sharma <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All
       It is some thing unusual, a challange to the male society by
the so called Lesbians.
       It is a challange to the social values, a society in which
husband & wife and children live. It is also a challenge to
motherhood,  by Lesbians.
       There would be no more child birth in Lesbian women.
       It is  a challenge to human values, philosophy of  karma
theory of give & take, share love affection.
      As   seema misra wrote:
      Proud to be called a FEMINIST LESBIAN LAWYER.
       She said   Good bye to all those.  She also have no intention
of interacting anymore with obscene men.
        Seema Misra   also dislike many more men.
Is it not hatred to the men hood ?
         May be that  Seema had a bad experience with male society.
         As she is a Hindu(if not converted to other religion), on
every birth, one has to carry   Prarabdh Karma.
         She can can not  circumvent the karma theory of give & take.
         May be that she do not want children.
         But may be when she along with her  lesbian friend get
older, she may need some one to help her in their old age.
         In Indian Society  every  family want male child to run the family.
         But many families have only female child, but they accept
the truth and remain happy till end of  their life and  if they get a
good son in law, they still feel happy.
          I do not know, how other members of this group accept what
Seema Mishra has said. I do not want that  overnight seema may change
her decision, but I want to share only my views and experience, which
I gained by meeting more and more lesbians during my stay in western
countries.
          God may bless Seema Mishra
          Dr JN Sharma




On 11/30/10, Ashok Kumar <imaka@in.com> wrote:
> In today's world where emancipated women are rubbing shoulders with
> "obscene" men, demands for special courtesies/considerations are genuinely
> out of place. The obscene men should be taken headon.  Original message
> From:"sroy 1947"< sroy1947@gmail.com >Date: 30 Nov 10 17:21:42Subject: Re:
> [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada DamTo:
> humjanenge@googlegroups.comLady Macbeth: "OUT damn spot, OUT I say !!Another
> brilliant legal analysis1) That the NCPRI are the biggest F****rs of the RTI
> movement2) That they dumped their load (hereinafter called "wad") intoCIC's
> official email ID.3) That CIC dumped the aforesaid wads (after suitable hand
> manipulations)upon other agencies of Govt.4) That the manipulated wads were
> conveyed in envelopes5) That another name for envelope is condom6) That
> hence I have reason to suspect CIC to be a condom vending machinefor the
> NCPRI.QEDOn Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, seema misrawrote:> Proud to be
> called a FEMINIST LESBIAN LAWYER.>
>   Good bye . have no intention of interacting anymore with obscene men.>
> Seema Misra>Dear humjanenge! Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID
> now!
>

[HumJanenge] Re: Who writes Shailesh Gandhi's orders ?

Thanks for sharing this decision

This is one in a string of absolutely corrupt decisions by Deepak
Sandhu.
It seems power has gone to her head, and she has allowed her office
also
to be corrupted by that gang which openly controls the registries of
IC(SG) and IC(AD) and has converted it into a cash cow for certain
ICs.

Lets have the facts first.

Dr Sehgal and Dr. Sehgal (yes there are 2 of them) have been filing a
series of vexatious RTIs to GMCH Chandigarh where they work. In one of
them they sought to know personal info incl. educational
qualifications etc of
the Director Genetics and other professors of the Department . When
the these
people came to learn about this, they were all well within her legal
rights
(as third parties) to complain / represent against disclosure of
information
to the applicants, and in the strongest possible language.

Unfortunately, IC(Deepak Sandhu), by comments such as those set out
above,
has demonstrated her complete lack of knowledge about RTI Act, her
arrogance/ignorance is unbelievable, and she should be promptly sent
back to
whichever department of the PMO she crawled out of, before she
inflicts such
nonsense on the third party citizens of India whose fundamental rights
to privacy
are being trampled on again.

Sarbajit

On Nov 30, 8:52 pm, PMK1504 <humjanenge.ow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [MODERATORS NOTE: Lets keep this forum clean]
>
> Dear Sarbjit
>
> The same person who wrote this.http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_LS_C_2009_000739_M_45845.pdf
>
> "is required to cleaner mindset of cobwebs so as to allow the light
> cast by this unique legislation to illuminate her thinking"
>
> PMK
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:45 PM, sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2010_002708_10093_M_45...
>
> > "Such inefficient practices are fertile ground for complete wrong
> > doing to go scot free"
>
> > Not to be left behind the morons at PTI have published this story
> > "Delhi Police criticised by CIC for 'absurd' state of affairs
> >http://www.hindustantimes.com/Delhi-Police-criticised-by-CIC-for-absu...
>
> > Shailesh Gandhi has NOT criticised the Delhi Police (which BTW is a
> > 3rd party in the case).

RE: [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada Dam

 

 

 

 

 

 

Print media Publication.

 

Yes I paid bribe to government officers

Author Satyabrata Biswas, a former IAS aspirant, bares his heart about his experience with bureaucrats. He narrates how he felt compelled to bribe those he calls Amichands. His story will find resonance in the hearts of many Indians.

CJ: Author - Satyabrata..

 

 

MY EXPERIENCE WITH AMICHANDS
[Bureaucrats]
 
Around 38 years ago, I too thought of joining I.A.S. (Indian Administrative Service). I appeared for the examination in 1972 – I remember, Retd. Director General of police Kiran Bedi was also in the same batch. Unfortunately I could not get through I.A.S but could have got I.P.S, which I refused while filling the examination forms. There was a column then: "If you are selected for IPS would you accept it? I remember, I wrote "No."
 
Anyway, during my employment days, say 37 years ago, I joined a renowned automobile ancillary industry, in Bombay as Marketing Executive. That time it was Bombay only. My boss was a Maharashtrian gentleman, who taught me marketing strategy. He was our Managing Director, a 100% good man to me and a gem in marketing. Though he is now dead, I still salute him.
 
One day he told me to enquire about the position of our payment with the "Pay and Accounts" department. I went there - enquired and made friends with a senior officer who was 100% honest and promised to look after our payment – I reported the same to my boss. My boss smiled at me and offered me a glass of water – he was in a hurry to attend a meeting somewhere else. He insisted that I join him – not for the meeting but just to accompany him. On the way he told me, "Look Mr. Biswas, please do not misunderstand me, but you had better try to find out a corrupt person and not an honest one.
 
I was puzzled to hear these words from a person I regarded highly as a gem! My boss went to the meeting and I was thinking and trying to find out the meaning of his advice sitting in the car and strolling on the lawn of the company where the meeting was.
 
After he returned from the meeting and we were on our way back, I asked him why I should find a dishonest person instead of an honest one. He then explained to me that an honest person is basically a very nice person (God bless them and their families), but he was obsolete in today's business world. "You know Mr... " I reminded him, "Biswas."
 
He said "Yes – yes, you know Mr.Biswas, your honest official will look into the papers with a magnifying glass and even if a minor mistake is found, he will enlarge it and develop it in the dark room and send the paper back for compliance. He will never – ever release our payment and by the time we get our payment, it would be too late."
 
Look at the dashing but corrupt person – you would find him always smiling – a very happy man, like "Laughing Buddha". Though a corrupt person, he always thought positive. "The moment you transfer the envelope under his table (my boss said) – there will be an electrical vibration – current passing through his body – he gets re-charged. At once he will order for a glass of water for you. And before ordering, he will ask you whether you want normal water or cold water - then again he will ask if you will prefer tea or coffee."
 
"Then he will call for the papers – as usual he will find some mistakes. He will look at you through his thick glasses and assure you, 'Don't worry Sir, sit comfortably' – he would call his subordinates – instruct them to ignore the mistakes and correct the papers and prepare the cheque immediately. After handing over the cheque, you will say 'Thanks' to him and he will reply 'My pleasure – please come again.'"
 
The first time my boss gave me an envelope packed with fresh notes inside and instructed me to give it to some person; I remember I straightway refused to do so. Then my boss gave me another big lecture like Bhagwan Shri Krishna gave to Arjun – I had no choice. I was a family man and just could not leave the job. So I had to surrender to him and picked up the packet and left to meet the corrupt official. I remember, after sending my visiting card, I was waiting. Soon, he called me; I entered his chamber and threw the envelope on his table. I thought, he would get annoyed by my misbehaviour and refuse to take the envelope, like Amitabh Bachchan did in "Deewaar" and say…"Main Aaj Bhi Phenke Hue Paise Nahin Uthata" (even today, I do not pick up money tossed at me).
 
But here, the climax was the reverse - he looked at me – gave me a smile by showing almost all his remaining (20 or so) betel-stained black teeth – then he looked furtively to his left and right and picked up the envelope within the blink of an eye. He again smiled at me – then grabbed my hand and shook it three times, 1- 2- 3 with a purring sound that jarred my ears – it was his expression of happiness.
 
Then he said "Thanks" to me. I felt as if I was honoured by the President of Amichands. I happily left his office with the cheque. I told him before I took his leave "Thanks" one more time. He looked at me, smiled, and said "My pleasure – please come soon"
 
On the way back to my office I bought a bouquet for my boss and handed it over to him telling him that he was a genius. I hope my boss understood what I meant. These Amichands made me 'worldly wise and mature' at quite an early age. They taught me a lot. In return, they have never charged me even a single penny as fee. Look at their generosity. Thanks to the system and thanks to the Amichands. But alas, I could not digest the system. One day, I resigned my job and started my own business venture.

 

 
Author – Satyabrata Biswas, Mumbai……..Email: author.sb@gmail.com




 

---

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:34:41 +0530
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada Dam
From: seemamisra08@gmail.com
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com

 

Re: [HumJanenge] URGENT: volunteers needed for sting operation

To all the concerned citizens who contacted me

The first episode of this 3 part investigative series shall be broadcast around 14 December.

A foreign camera team is reaching India/Delhi on 7.Dec. I have emailed invites to 10 people to confirm if they wish to speak on camera about their experiences with corruption in the Central Information Commission. Please get back to me within 48 hours, so that I can invite somebody else if you can't make it. For this first episode we are contacting people from North India. The crew then moves to Mumbai/Gujarat  and Bangalore/Hyderabad for the 2nd and 3rd episodes.

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Murali Krishnan <rti4citizens@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear friends

I am overwhelmed with the support I have received from Humjanenge group members.
I want to reply personally to everyone but since there are about 200 replies to me I need time to go through everyone's emails and contact them,
Once again I deeply thank everyone who contacted me, I will get in touch.
 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Murali Krishnan <rti4citizens@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear friends
>
> A major news channel (Television) is planning to conduct clandestine
> observations in RTI information commissions, Central IC and also he state
> ICs. This observation is better known as "sting operation".
>
> If anybody in this list has pending any RTI appeal or complaints before
> Central Information Commission or any SIC and is willing to volunteer, email
> me back very urgently. Please take care to reply to me only and not to
> entire list. Very handsome compensation is assured depending on performance.
> If you have any friend also please invite them too.
>

Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Dear Chitta

Here is a link to the complete judgment
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1943088/

You will find from it that Section 15 of the Census Act is a self
contained coda relating to disclosure about information pertaining to
Census process, It absolutely prohibits disclosure of Census Records
as a "right". The only 2 exceptions are in the course of prosecutions
under the Census Act or any other law which makes it an offence under
Census Act.

This fully covers the information from the moment the information is
recorded till such time as Census Act is not repealed or amended.

You may also like to read paras 8 and 9 of the judgment.

Sarbajit

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Chitta Behera <chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Mr.Roy,
> Will you kindly forward me a copy of the portion of the judgement that says,
> "nobody can access Census data through RTI, before, during or after the
> process is completed" ?
> Regards,
> Chitta Behera
>
> ________________________________
> From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
> To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 30 November, 2010 3:35:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information
>
> Dear Chitta
>
> I think that you also are playing fast and loose with the letter of
> the law, twisting and moulding it to your requirement. You are welcome
> to indulge in your little fantasies, but there is nothing like a dose
> of cold reality to shock you back into the real world.
>
> The Punjab HIC's ruling is final , nobody can access Census data
> through RTI, before,
> during or after the process is completed.
>
> Warmly
> Sarbajit
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Chitta Behera
> <chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>> Dear Mr.Roy,
>> What the Court ruled showing the consistence between Section 15 of Census
>> Act 1948 and Section 22 of RTI Act 2005 is perfectly understandable. Let's
>> read carefully the said Section 15, "No person shall have a right to
>> inspect any book, register or record made by a census-officer in the
>> discharge of his duty as such, or any schedule delivered under section 10,
>> and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian Evidence Act,
>> 1872, no entry in any such book, register, record or schedule shall be
>> admissible as evidence in any civil proceeding whatsoever or in any
>> criminal
>> proceeding other than a prosecution under this Act or any other law for
>> any
>> act or omission which constitutes an offence under this Act."
>>
>> The above section debars a person from accessing the personal details
>> disclosed by another person before a Census official during the process of
>> collection of census information. The information so collected is
>> obviously
>> subject to verification and cross verification before it enters into the
>> final Census document. The right to access midway to such raw, unprocessed
>> information and that too such information being in the nature of personal
>> information, is likely to disrupt the census operations altogether.
>> However,
>> once that process is complete and over, any person can access those
>> personal
>> information as documented in the Census Book. Should we not interpret the
>> above Court ruling on consistence between Section 8(1-j) of RTI Act and
>> Section 15 of Census Act in this manner, rather than stretching it beyond
>> the limited and specific brief under which it was pronounced ?
>> Chitta Behera
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
>> To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Mon, 29 November, 2010 7:22:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information
>>
>> Dear Mr Behera
>>
>> You may like to read this
>> http://www.lawetalnews.com/NewsDetail.asp?newsid=2903
>>
>> "The First Bench of Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal and Justice Ranjan
>> Gogoi today upheld an earlier judgement of a single judge of the high
>> court and dismissed Wadhwa's contention. The bench refused to agree
>> with the argument that information obtained pertained to 'leaders of
>> the nation and the information regarding their religion was sought in
>> public interest.' The court held, "the information supplied to the
>> Census Officer cannot be made public in view of the statutory bar
>> imposed by Section 15 of the Census Act which is not inconsistent with
>> Section 22 read with section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act,
>> 2005."
>>
>> Section 15 of the Census Act reads as "No person shall have a right to
>> inspect any book, register or record made by a census-officer in the
>> discharge of his duty as such, or any schedule delivered under section
>> 10, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian
>> Evidence Act, 1872, no entry in any such book, register, record or
>> schedule shall be admissible as evidence in any civil proceeding
>> whatsoever or in any criminal proceeding other than a prosecution
>> under this Act or any other law for any act or omission which
>> constitutes an offence under this Act."
>>
>> Wadhwa had argued that section 15 was in violation of section 22 of
>> the RTI Act and contended that the section could not stand in the way
>> of obtaining information he sought. Section 22 states, "The provisions
>> of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
>> therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other
>> law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by
>> virtue of any law other than this Act."
>>
>> The court based its decision on the reasoning that the provisions of
>> section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 are not inconsistent with
>> provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
>> and both can be read harmoniously. Accordingly, section 22 of the
>> Right to Information Act, 2005 will not come into operation and cannot
>> sustain the pleas as argued by Wadhwa."
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Chitta Behera
>> <chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>> Dear Mr.Roy,
>>> What about Section- 22 of RTI Act 2005, as per which all other laws and
>>> instrumentalities of the State including CPC are to be read, subject to
>>> the
>>> provisions of this Act. It is one thing to say that a child as young as 3
>>> years needs to be represented by a major, but it is altogether a
>>> different
>>> thing to say that he has no right to apply for information under this
>>> Act.
>>> Then what about a college going boy or girl of say 17 and half years old,
>>> who is legally a minor, but very much capable of applying for information
>>> and pleading for his case before any forum. Do you mean to say that
>>> because
>>> of his/her minority in age, he or she should be deprived of his right to
>>> apply directly to a public authority? Section 3 of RTI Act gives right to
>>> every citizen to apply for information under this Act, and a citizen by
>>> definition given in the Constitution is he or she who is born in this
>>> country irrespective of his/her present biological age.
>>> Regards,
>>> Chitta Behera
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
>>> To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC" <rti_india@googlegroups.com>
>>> Sent: Sat, 27 November, 2010 7:55:59 AM
>>> Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information
>>>
>>> Dear Sid (and everyone else who has replied later to this thread)
>>>
>>> 1) IC Shailesh is an idiot.
>>>
>>> 2) IC Shilesh is a 'bhada ka tattoo' (ie mule for hire) who has been
>>> made to wear blinkers so that the only road he can see in front of him
>>> is RTI Act. (and not the whole wide world around him).
>>>
>>> 3) Minors have no right in law to file RTIs or Court cases (or to sue
>>> or be sued) independently. They must always have an adult with them,
>>> as their "next friend" / guardian. Its all there in CPC and other
>>> special / procedural laws..
>>>
>>> 4) Mrs Urvashi Sharma is trying to get cheap publicity to show that
>>> her daughter age 9 (?) or is it 4(?) is the youngest RTI applicant. My
>>> own son has filed a RTI application to a Central Govt regulatory
>>> agency in Jan 2003 !!! (with fee) and they accepted it and gave the
>>> reply (after lot of fighting) in May 2003. He was 2yrs 11 months when
>>> he filed it. Based on this he filed a Writ in SC (at age 3 years) as
>>> petitioner in person - I was his next friend - the Court; listened to
>>> him carefully and dubbed him "learned counsel" (recorded in their
>>> order) and passed an order which eventually caused "Hathaways" a loss
>>> of 600 crore rupees.
>>>
>>> Sarbajit Roy
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 5:59 pm, Sidharth Misra <sidharthb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I have come across a news item where the UP SIC Sh Pankaj has rejected a
>>>> Minor's appeal saying that she is a MINOR.
>>>>
>>>> IC Shailesh says that there's no such bar in the Act.
>>>>
>>>> Who is right ?
>>>>
>>>> If yes then How minor he/she can be ? ? ?
>>>>
>>>> Can any one throw some light on this ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> sidharth
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Dear Mr.Roy,
Will you kindly forward me a copy of the portion of the judgement that says, "nobody can access Census data through RTI, before, during or after the process is completed" ?
Regards,
Chitta Behera

---

From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, 30 November, 2010 3:35:24 AM
Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Dear Chitta

I think that you also are playing fast and loose with the letter of
the law, twisting and moulding it to your requirement. You are welcome
to indulge in your little fantasies, but there is nothing like a dose
of cold reality to shock you back into the real world.

The Punjab HIC's ruling is final , nobody can access Census data
through RTI, before,
during or after the process is completed.

Warmly
Sarbajit

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Chitta Behera
<chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Mr.Roy,
> What the Court ruled showing the consistence between Section 15 of Census
> Act 1948 and Section 22 of RTI Act 2005 is perfectly understandable. Let's
> read carefully the said Section 15,  "No person shall have a right to
> inspect any book, register or record made by a census-officer in the
> discharge of his duty as such, or any schedule delivered under section 10,
> and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian Evidence Act,
> 1872, no entry in any such book, register, record or schedule shall be
> admissible as evidence in any civil proceeding whatsoever or in any criminal
> proceeding other than a prosecution under this Act or any other law for any
> act or omission which constitutes an offence under this Act."
>
> The above section debars a person from accessing the personal details
> disclosed by another person before a Census official during the process of
> collection of census information. The information so collected is obviously
> subject to verification and cross verification before it enters into the
> final Census document. The right to access midway to such raw, unprocessed
> information and that too such information being in the nature of personal
> information, is likely to disrupt the census operations altogether. However,
> once that process is complete and over, any person can access those personal
> information as documented in the Census Book. Should we not interpret the
> above Court ruling on consistence between Section 8(1-j) of RTI Act and
> Section 15 of Census Act in this manner, rather than stretching it beyond
> the limited and specific brief under which it was pronounced ?
> Chitta Behera
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
> To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 29 November, 2010 7:22:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information
>
> Dear Mr Behera
>
> You may like to read this
> http://www.lawetalnews.com/NewsDetail.asp?newsid=2903
>
> "The First Bench of Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal and Justice Ranjan
> Gogoi today upheld an earlier judgement of a single judge of the high
> court and dismissed Wadhwa's contention. The bench refused to agree
> with the argument that information obtained pertained to 'leaders of
> the nation and the information regarding their religion was sought in
> public interest.' The court held, "the information supplied to the
> Census Officer cannot be made public in view of the statutory bar
> imposed by Section 15 of the Census Act which is not inconsistent with
> Section 22 read with section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act,
> 2005."
>
> Section 15 of the Census Act reads as "No person shall have a right to
> inspect any book, register or record made by a census-officer in the
> discharge of his duty as such, or any schedule delivered under section
> 10, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian
> Evidence Act, 1872, no entry in any such book, register, record or
> schedule shall be admissible as evidence in any civil proceeding
> whatsoever or in any criminal proceeding other than a prosecution
> under this Act or any other law for any act or omission which
> constitutes an offence under this Act."
>
> Wadhwa had argued that section 15 was in violation of section 22 of
> the RTI Act and contended that the section could not stand in the way
> of obtaining information he sought. Section 22 states, "The provisions
> of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
> therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other
> law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by
> virtue of any law other than this Act."
>
> The court based its decision on the reasoning that the provisions of
> section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 are not inconsistent with
> provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
> and both can be read harmoniously. Accordingly, section 22 of the
> Right to Information Act, 2005 will not come into operation and cannot
> sustain the pleas as argued by Wadhwa."
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Chitta Behera
> <chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>> Dear Mr.Roy,
>> What about Section- 22 of RTI Act 2005, as per which all other laws and
>> instrumentalities of the State including CPC are to be read, subject to
>> the
>> provisions of this Act. It is one thing to say that a child as young as 3
>> years needs to be represented by a major, but it is altogether a different
>> thing to say that he has no right to apply for information under this Act.
>> Then what about a college going boy or girl of say 17 and half years old,
>> who is legally a minor, but very much capable of applying for information
>> and pleading for his case before any forum. Do you mean to say that
>> because
>> of his/her minority in age, he or she should be deprived of his right to
>> apply directly to a public authority? Section 3 of RTI Act gives right to
>> every citizen to apply for information under this Act, and a citizen by
>> definition given in the Constitution is he or she who is born in this
>> country irrespective of his/her present biological age.
>> Regards,
>> Chitta Behera
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
>> To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC" <rti_india@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Sat, 27 November, 2010 7:55:59 AM
>> Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information
>>
>> Dear Sid (and everyone else who has replied later to this thread)
>>
>> 1) IC Shailesh is an idiot.
>>
>> 2) IC Shilesh is a 'bhada ka tattoo' (ie mule for hire) who has been
>> made to wear blinkers so that the only road he can see in front of him
>> is RTI Act. (and not the whole wide world around him).
>>
>> 3) Minors have no right in law to file RTIs or Court cases (or to sue
>> or be sued) independently. They must always have an adult with them,
>> as their "next friend" / guardian. Its all there in CPC and other
>> special / procedural laws..
>>
>> 4) Mrs Urvashi Sharma is trying to get cheap publicity to show that
>> her daughter age 9 (?) or is it 4(?) is the youngest RTI applicant. My
>> own son has filed a RTI application to a Central Govt regulatory
>> agency in Jan 2003 !!! (with fee) and they accepted it and gave the
>> reply (after lot of fighting) in May 2003. He was 2yrs 11 months when
>> he filed it. Based on this he filed a Writ in SC (at age 3 years) as
>> petitioner in person - I was his next friend - the Court; listened to
>> him carefully and dubbed him "learned counsel" (recorded in their
>> order) and passed an order which eventually caused "Hathaways" a loss
>> of 600 crore rupees.
>>
>> Sarbajit Roy
>>
>> On Nov 27, 5:59 pm, Sidharth Misra <sidharthb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have come across a news item where the UP SIC Sh Pankaj has rejected a
>>> Minor's appeal saying that she is a MINOR.
>>>
>>> IC Shailesh says that there's no such bar in the Act.
>>>
>>> Who is right ?
>>>
>>> If yes then How minor he/she can be ? ? ?
>>>
>>> Can any one throw some light on this ?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> sidharth
>>
>>
>
>

[HumJanenge] Please use an appropriate subject line

Moderators: Please filter out messages that have no relevance to the
topic being discussed.

Members: If you want to talk about a new topic, please start a new
thread with an appropriate subject line.

In response to:
>> [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada Dam
>> by Dr. Jagnarain Sharma

Re: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada Dam

members plz stop this nonsense

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Dr. Jagnarain Sharma <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All
       It is some thing unusual, a challange to the male society by
the so called Lesbians.
       It is a challange to the social values, a society in which
husband & wife and children live. It is also a challenge to
motherhood,  by Lesbians.
       There would be no more child birth in Lesbian women.
       It is  a challenge to human values, philosophy of  karma
theory of give & take, share love affection.
      As   seema misra wrote:
      Proud to be called a FEMINIST LESBIAN LAWYER.
       She said   Good bye to all those.  She also have no intention
of interacting anymore with obscene men.
        Seema Misra   also dislike many more men.
Is it not hatred to the men hood ?
         May be that  Seema had a bad experience with male society.
         As she is a Hindu(if not converted to other religion), on
every birth, one has to carry   Prarabdh Karma.
         She can can not  circumvent the karma theory of give & take.
         May be that she do not want children.
         But may be when she along with her  lesbian friend get
older, she may need some one to help her in their old age.
         In Indian Society  every  family want male child to run the family.
         But many families have only female child, but they accept
the truth and remain happy till end of  their life and  if they get a
good son in law, they still feel happy.
          I do not know, how other members of this group accept what
Seema Mishra has said. I do not want that  overnight seema may change
her decision, but I want to share only my views and experience, which
I gained by meeting more and more lesbians during my stay in western
countries.
          God may bless Seema Mishra
          Dr JN Sharma




On 11/30/10, Ashok Kumar <imaka@in.com> wrote:
> In today's world where emancipated women are rubbing shoulders with
> "obscene" men, demands for special courtesies/considerations are genuinely
> out of place. The obscene men should be taken headon.  Original message
> From:"sroy 1947"< sroy1947@gmail.com >Date: 30 Nov 10 17:21:42Subject: Re:
> [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada DamTo:
> humjanenge@googlegroups.comLady Macbeth: "OUT damn spot, OUT I say !!Another
> brilliant legal analysis1) That the NCPRI are the biggest F****rs of the RTI
> movement2) That they dumped their load (hereinafter called "wad") intoCIC's
> official email ID.3) That CIC dumped the aforesaid wads (after suitable hand
> manipulations)upon other agencies of Govt.4) That the manipulated wads were
> conveyed in envelopes5) That another name for envelope is condom6) That
> hence I have reason to suspect CIC to be a condom vending machinefor the
> NCPRI.QEDOn Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, seema misrawrote:> Proud to be
> called a FEMINIST LESBIAN LAWYER.>
>   Good bye . have no intention of interacting anymore with obscene men.>
> Seema Misra>Dear humjanenge! Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID
> now!
>

Re: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada Dam

Dear All
It is some thing unusual, a challange to the male society by
the so called Lesbians.
It is a challange to the social values, a society in which
husband & wife and children live. It is also a challenge to
motherhood, by Lesbians.
There would be no more child birth in Lesbian women.
It is a challenge to human values, philosophy of karma
theory of give & take, share love affection.
As seema misra wrote:
Proud to be called a FEMINIST LESBIAN LAWYER.
She said Good bye to all those. She also have no intention
of interacting anymore with obscene men.
Seema Misra also dislike many more men.
Is it not hatred to the men hood ?
May be that Seema had a bad experience with male society.
As she is a Hindu(if not converted to other religion), on
every birth, one has to carry Prarabdh Karma.
She can can not circumvent the karma theory of give & take.
May be that she do not want children.
But may be when she along with her lesbian friend get
older, she may need some one to help her in their old age.
In Indian Society every family want male child to run the family.
But many families have only female child, but they accept
the truth and remain happy till end of their life and if they get a
good son in law, they still feel happy.
I do not know, how other members of this group accept what
Seema Mishra has said. I do not want that overnight seema may change
her decision, but I want to share only my views and experience, which
I gained by meeting more and more lesbians during my stay in western
countries.
God may bless Seema Mishra
Dr JN Sharma

On 11/30/10, Ashok Kumar <imaka@in.com> wrote:
> In today's world where emancipated women are rubbing shoulders with
> "obscene" men, demands for special courtesies/considerations are genuinely
> out of place. The obscene men should be taken headon. Original message
> From:"sroy 1947"< sroy1947@gmail.com >Date: 30 Nov 10 17:21:42Subject: Re:
> [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada DamTo:
> humjanenge@googlegroups.comLady Macbeth: "OUT damn spot, OUT I say !!Another
> brilliant legal analysis1) That the NCPRI are the biggest F****rs of the RTI
> movement2) That they dumped their load (hereinafter called "wad") intoCIC's
> official email ID.3) That CIC dumped the aforesaid wads (after suitable hand
> manipulations)upon other agencies of Govt.4) That the manipulated wads were
> conveyed in envelopes5) That another name for envelope is condom6) That
> hence I have reason to suspect CIC to be a condom vending machinefor the
> NCPRI.QEDOn Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, seema misrawrote:> Proud to be
> called a FEMINIST LESBIAN LAWYER.>
> Good bye . have no intention of interacting anymore with obscene men.>
> Seema Misra>Dear humjanenge! Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID
> now!
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Who writes Shailesh Gandhi's orders ?

[MODERATORS NOTE: Lets keep this forum clean]

Dear Sarbjit

The same person who wrote this.
http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_LS_C_2009_000739_M_45845.pdf

"is required to cleaner mindset of cobwebs so as to allow the light
cast by this unique legislation to illuminate her thinking"

PMK

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:45 PM, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2010_002708_10093_M_45831.pdf
>
> "Such inefficient practices are fertile ground for complete wrong
> doing to go scot free"
>
> Not to be left behind the morons at PTI have published this story
> "Delhi Police criticised by CIC for 'absurd' state of affairs
> http://www.hindustantimes.com/Delhi-Police-criticised-by-CIC-for-absurd-state-of-affairs/Article1-632228.aspx
>
> Shailesh Gandhi has NOT criticised the Delhi Police (which BTW is a
> 3rd party in the case).
>

Re: [RTI INDIA] Tsunami for CIC on the way

declare emergency in CIC

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Raminder Singh <ramisingh.bbc@gmail.com> wrote:

rumblings in sensitive agencies, indicate a tsunami is likely to hit the central information commission soon, and section 14(3) will be invoked for the first time..

[RTI INDIA] Tsunami for CIC on the way

rumblings in sensitive agencies, indicate a tsunami is likely to hit the central information commission soon, and section 14(3) will be invoked for the first time..

Re: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada Dam

In today's world where emancipated women are rubbing shoulders with "obscene" men, demands for special courtesies/considerations are genuinely out of place. The obscene men should be taken head-on.

---------- Original message ----------
From:"sroy 1947"< sroy1947@gmail.com >
Date: 30 Nov 10 17:21:42
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada Dam
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com

Lady Macbeth: "OUT damn spot, OUT I say !!

Another brilliant legal analysis

1) That the NCPRI are the biggest F****rs of the RTI movement
2) That they dumped their load (hereinafter called "wad") into
CIC's official email ID.
3) That CIC dumped the aforesaid wads (after suitable hand manipulations)
upon other agencies of Govt.
4) That the manipulated wads were conveyed in envelopes
5) That another name for envelope is condom
6) That hence I have reason to suspect CIC to be a condom vending machine
for the NCPRI.

QED

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, seema misra <seemamisra08@gmail.com> wrote:
> Proud to be called a FEMINIST LESBIAN LAWYER.
> Good bye . have no intention of interacting anymore with obscene men.
> Seema Misra
>

Dear humjanenge! Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID now!

Re: [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada Dam

Lady Macbeth: "OUT damn spot, OUT I say !!

Another brilliant legal analysis

1) That the NCPRI are the biggest F****rs of the RTI movement
2) That they dumped their load (hereinafter called "wad") into
CIC's official email ID.
3) That CIC dumped the aforesaid wads (after suitable hand manipulations)
upon other agencies of Govt.
4) That the manipulated wads were conveyed in envelopes
5) That another name for envelope is condom
6) That hence I have reason to suspect CIC to be a condom vending machine
for the NCPRI.

QED

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, seema misra <seemamisra08@gmail.com> wrote:
> Proud to be called a FEMINIST LESBIAN LAWYER.
> Good bye . have no intention of interacting anymore with obscene men.
> Seema Misra
>

Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

The minor cannot be prosecuted.

To prosecute the PO it requires sanction from the competent authority.
In practice, nothing will happen. As Chitta Behera has explained, if
the applicant conceals the factum of his age (there is no legal requirement
for him to disclose it either) things will sail along very smoothly.

Sarbajit

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@gmail.com> wrote:
> Curious to know what will happen if a Minor applies for information
> and the PIO supplies information to him/her too.
>
> Can the PIO (and the Minor ? ) be prosecuted for doing something NOT
> ALLOWED under the law ?
>
> Regards
>
> Sidharth

Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Dear Chitta

I think that you also are playing fast and loose with the letter of
the law, twisting and moulding it to your requirement. You are welcome
to indulge in your little fantasies, but there is nothing like a dose
of cold reality to shock you back into the real world.

The Punjab HIC's ruling is final , nobody can access Census data
through RTI, before,
during or after the process is completed.

Warmly
Sarbajit

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Chitta Behera
<chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Mr.Roy,
> What the Court ruled showing the consistence between Section 15 of Census
> Act 1948 and Section 22 of RTI Act 2005 is perfectly understandable. Let's
> read carefully the said Section 15, "No person shall have a right to
> inspect any book, register or record made by a census-officer in the
> discharge of his duty as such, or any schedule delivered under section 10,
> and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian Evidence Act,
> 1872, no entry in any such book, register, record or schedule shall be
> admissible as evidence in any civil proceeding whatsoever or in any criminal
> proceeding other than a prosecution under this Act or any other law for any
> act or omission which constitutes an offence under this Act."
>
> The above section debars a person from accessing the personal details
> disclosed by another person before a Census official during the process of
> collection of census information. The information so collected is obviously
> subject to verification and cross verification before it enters into the
> final Census document. The right to access midway to such raw, unprocessed
> information and that too such information being in the nature of personal
> information, is likely to disrupt the census operations altogether. However,
> once that process is complete and over, any person can access those personal
> information as documented in the Census Book. Should we not interpret the
> above Court ruling on consistence between Section 8(1-j) of RTI Act and
> Section 15 of Census Act in this manner, rather than stretching it beyond
> the limited and specific brief under which it was pronounced ?
> Chitta Behera
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
> To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 29 November, 2010 7:22:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information
>
> Dear Mr Behera
>
> You may like to read this
> http://www.lawetalnews.com/NewsDetail.asp?newsid=2903
>
> "The First Bench of Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal and Justice Ranjan
> Gogoi today upheld an earlier judgement of a single judge of the high
> court and dismissed Wadhwa's contention. The bench refused to agree
> with the argument that information obtained pertained to 'leaders of
> the nation and the information regarding their religion was sought in
> public interest.' The court held, "the information supplied to the
> Census Officer cannot be made public in view of the statutory bar
> imposed by Section 15 of the Census Act which is not inconsistent with
> Section 22 read with section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act,
> 2005."
>
> Section 15 of the Census Act reads as "No person shall have a right to
> inspect any book, register or record made by a census-officer in the
> discharge of his duty as such, or any schedule delivered under section
> 10, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian
> Evidence Act, 1872, no entry in any such book, register, record or
> schedule shall be admissible as evidence in any civil proceeding
> whatsoever or in any criminal proceeding other than a prosecution
> under this Act or any other law for any act or omission which
> constitutes an offence under this Act."
>
> Wadhwa had argued that section 15 was in violation of section 22 of
> the RTI Act and contended that the section could not stand in the way
> of obtaining information he sought. Section 22 states, "The provisions
> of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
> therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other
> law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by
> virtue of any law other than this Act."
>
> The court based its decision on the reasoning that the provisions of
> section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 are not inconsistent with
> provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
> and both can be read harmoniously. Accordingly, section 22 of the
> Right to Information Act, 2005 will not come into operation and cannot
> sustain the pleas as argued by Wadhwa."
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Chitta Behera
> <chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>> Dear Mr.Roy,
>> What about Section- 22 of RTI Act 2005, as per which all other laws and
>> instrumentalities of the State including CPC are to be read, subject to
>> the
>> provisions of this Act. It is one thing to say that a child as young as 3
>> years needs to be represented by a major, but it is altogether a different
>> thing to say that he has no right to apply for information under this Act.
>> Then what about a college going boy or girl of say 17 and half years old,
>> who is legally a minor, but very much capable of applying for information
>> and pleading for his case before any forum. Do you mean to say that
>> because
>> of his/her minority in age, he or she should be deprived of his right to
>> apply directly to a public authority? Section 3 of RTI Act gives right to
>> every citizen to apply for information under this Act, and a citizen by
>> definition given in the Constitution is he or she who is born in this
>> country irrespective of his/her present biological age.
>> Regards,
>> Chitta Behera
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
>> To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC" <rti_india@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Sat, 27 November, 2010 7:55:59 AM
>> Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information
>>
>> Dear Sid (and everyone else who has replied later to this thread)
>>
>> 1) IC Shailesh is an idiot.
>>
>> 2) IC Shilesh is a 'bhada ka tattoo' (ie mule for hire) who has been
>> made to wear blinkers so that the only road he can see in front of him
>> is RTI Act. (and not the whole wide world around him).
>>
>> 3) Minors have no right in law to file RTIs or Court cases (or to sue
>> or be sued) independently. They must always have an adult with them,
>> as their "next friend" / guardian. Its all there in CPC and other
>> special / procedural laws..
>>
>> 4) Mrs Urvashi Sharma is trying to get cheap publicity to show that
>> her daughter age 9 (?) or is it 4(?) is the youngest RTI applicant. My
>> own son has filed a RTI application to a Central Govt regulatory
>> agency in Jan 2003 !!! (with fee) and they accepted it and gave the
>> reply (after lot of fighting) in May 2003. He was 2yrs 11 months when
>> he filed it. Based on this he filed a Writ in SC (at age 3 years) as
>> petitioner in person - I was his next friend - the Court; listened to
>> him carefully and dubbed him "learned counsel" (recorded in their
>> order) and passed an order which eventually caused "Hathaways" a loss
>> of 600 crore rupees.
>>
>> Sarbajit Roy
>>
>> On Nov 27, 5:59 pm, Sidharth Misra <sidharthb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have come across a news item where the UP SIC Sh Pankaj has rejected a
>>> Minor's appeal saying that she is a MINOR.
>>>
>>> IC Shailesh says that there's no such bar in the Act.
>>>
>>> Who is right ?
>>>
>>> If yes then How minor he/she can be ? ? ?
>>>
>>> Can any one throw some light on this ?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> sidharth
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Dear Mr.Roy,
What the Court ruled showing the consistence between Section 15 of Census Act 1948 and Section 22 of RTI Act 2005 is perfectly understandable. Let's read carefully the said Section 15,  "No person shall have a right to inspect any book, register or record made by a census-officer in the discharge of his duty as such, or any schedule delivered under section 10, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no entry in any such book, register, record or schedule shall be admissible as evidence in any civil proceeding whatsoever or in any criminal proceeding other than a prosecution under this Act or any other law for any act or omission which constitutes an offence under this Act."

The above section debars a person from accessing the personal details disclosed by another person before a Census official during the process of collection of census information. The information so collected is obviously subject to verification and cross verification before it enters into the final Census document. The right to access midway to such raw, unprocessed information and that too such information being in the nature of personal information, is likely to disrupt the census operations altogether. However, once that process is complete and over, any person can access those personal information as documented in the Census Book. Should we not interpret the above Court ruling on consistence between Section 8(1-j) of RTI Act and Section 15 of Census Act in this manner, rather than stretching it beyond the limited and specific brief under which it was pronounced ?
Chitta Behera

---

From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 29 November, 2010 7:22:20 PM
Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Dear Mr Behera

You may like to read this
http://www.lawetalnews.com/NewsDetail.asp?newsid=2903

"The First Bench of Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal and Justice Ranjan
Gogoi today upheld an earlier judgement of a single judge of the high
court and dismissed Wadhwa's contention. The bench refused to agree
with the argument that information obtained pertained to 'leaders of
the nation and the information regarding their religion was sought in
public interest.' The court held, "the information supplied to the
Census Officer cannot be made public in view of the statutory bar
imposed by Section 15 of the Census Act which is not inconsistent with
Section 22 read with section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act,
2005."

Section 15 of the Census Act reads as "No person shall have a right to
inspect any book, register or record made by a census-officer in the
discharge of his duty as such, or any schedule delivered under section
10, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, no entry in any such book, register, record or
schedule shall be admissible as evidence in any civil proceeding
whatsoever or in any criminal proceeding other than a prosecution
under this Act or any other law for any act or omission which
constitutes an offence under this Act."

Wadhwa had argued that section 15 was in violation of section 22 of
the RTI Act and contended that the section could not stand in the way
of obtaining information he sought. Section 22 states, "The provisions
of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other
law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by
virtue of any law other than this Act."

The court based its decision on the reasoning that the provisions of
section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 are not inconsistent with
provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
and both can be read harmoniously. Accordingly, section 22 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 will not come into operation and cannot
sustain the pleas as argued by Wadhwa."

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Chitta Behera
<chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Mr.Roy,
> What about Section- 22 of RTI Act 2005, as per which all other laws and
> instrumentalities of the State including CPC are to be read, subject to the
> provisions of this Act. It is one thing to say that a child as young as 3
> years needs to be represented by a major, but it is altogether a different
> thing to say that he has no right to apply for information under this Act.
> Then what about a college going boy or girl of say 17 and half years old,
> who is legally a minor, but very much capable of applying for information
> and pleading for his case before any forum. Do you mean to say that because
> of his/her minority in age, he or she should be deprived of his right to
> apply directly to a public authority? Section 3 of RTI Act gives right to
> every citizen to apply for information under this Act, and a citizen by
> definition given in the Constitution is he or she who is born in this
> country irrespective of his/her present biological age.
> Regards,
> Chitta Behera
>
> ________________________________
> From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
> To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC" <rti_india@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Sat, 27 November, 2010 7:55:59 AM
> Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information
>
> Dear Sid (and everyone else who has replied later to this thread)
>
> 1) IC Shailesh is an idiot.
>
> 2) IC Shilesh is a 'bhada ka tattoo' (ie mule for hire) who has been
> made to wear blinkers so that the only road he can see in front of him
> is RTI Act. (and not the whole wide world around him).
>
> 3) Minors have no right in law to file RTIs or Court cases (or to sue
> or be sued) independently. They must always have an adult with them,
> as their "next friend" / guardian. Its all there in CPC and other
> special / procedural laws..
>
> 4) Mrs Urvashi Sharma is trying to get cheap publicity to show that
> her daughter age 9 (?) or is it 4(?) is the youngest RTI applicant. My
> own son has filed a RTI application to a Central Govt regulatory
> agency in Jan 2003 !!! (with fee) and they accepted it and gave the
> reply (after lot of fighting) in May 2003. He was 2yrs 11 months when
> he filed it. Based on this he filed a Writ in SC (at age 3 years) as
> petitioner in person - I was his next friend - the Court; listened to
> him carefully and dubbed him "learned counsel" (recorded in their
> order) and passed an order which eventually caused "Hathaways" a loss
> of 600 crore rupees.
>
> Sarbajit Roy
>
> On Nov 27, 5:59 pm, Sidharth Misra <sidharthb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have come across a news item where the UP SIC Sh Pankaj has rejected a
>> Minor's appeal saying that she is a MINOR.
>>
>> IC Shailesh says that there's no such bar in the Act.
>>
>> Who is right ?
>>
>> If yes then How minor he/she can be ? ? ?
>>
>> Can any one throw some light on this ?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> sidharth
>
>

Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Dear Mr.Roy,
In fact, the RTI Act 2005 has taken care of your concern too i.e. the need for representation of a minor by a major be he/she the parent or any other person. That is why the Act has put the burden of proof on the PIO only i.e. any applicant/appelant be he a major or minor needn't present himself before Appellate authorities to defend his case. And, as you know, most of the Appeal Procedure Rules for Information Commissions exempt the applicants/complainants/appellants from compulsory attendance in any hearing. Additionally he can authorise any person, not necessarily an Advocate, to represent his case before the 1st or 2nd Appellate authority in course of a hearing. Viewd thus, there is no burden or risk as such for a minor to incur if he applies or complains or appeals under the RTI Act. Rather there are positive benefits in store for the minors, should they seek to directly apply or appeal under the RTI Act.

Moreover, a regime change has meanwhile come to stay internationally, where 'rights of children' (such as right to education, health, nutrition, play, entertainment, and good environment etc.) are now given as much primacy as the rights of the adults. And to realise these rights, the children themselves need be made aware and enabled to exercise them. In this context, the children's right to information from the public authorities assumes added significance.   
Chitta Behera

---

From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 29 November, 2010 11:14:45 AM
Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Dear Sunil

Chitta and I are in the middle of a legal discussion.

The citizenship given to minors is an extension of the citizenship
of the father (prime guardian), or in the absence of the father the
mother (next natural guardian).

So a child has a right to travel abroad, but the father must apply for the
child's passport. Only now after a great deal of legal fight has the mother
been given the right to apply for child's passport. A child cannot apply for
his own passport.

In sum, a child/minor has rights, but they must be exercised for him
by an adult.
If you want to know more, enrol in law school.



On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbajit,
>
> I believe every authority / body has limitations.
>
> For example, relevant to the present subject matter:
>
> A Legislature would neither be able to execute a legislation nor hold trials
> & decide cases under nation's laws,
>
> Likewise an Executive or the Judiciary would not be able to legislate.
>
> An Information Commission is an independent quasi-judicial authority. The
> legislature has not provided it with any rule making power, and also it does
> not have any powers to legislate a provision.
>
> An Information Commission derives all its powers from the RTI Act read along
> with all the relevant provisions of the law prevailing in the nation.
>
> Therefore irrespective of whether seeking information by a minor is correct
> or incorrect, justified or unjustified, an Information Commission will need
> the support of a provision in the law, for the time being in force, for
> denying information to a minor.
>
> I would appreciate if you can quote a specific legally valid provision in
> law, which an Information Commission can quote, while denying information to
> a minor under the RTI Act.
>
> (Parallel analogies may have analogous value, but no legal validity).
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Sunil.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:36 PM, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Chitta
>>
>> In addition to my earlier post.
>>
> --
> It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen -
> Aristotle
>

Re: [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada Dam

Proud to be called a FEMINIST LESBIAN LAWYER. 

Good bye . have no intention of interacting anymore with obscene men. 

Seema Misra

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:47 PM, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Rummy

Wrong pudding !
As of now I'm checking this one out
http://www.southasianrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/IWIJ-Report-Shopian-10-Dec-2009.pdf

Just imagine, there I was yesterday complaining about a High Court
judge who was shafting RTI, and here I find his better half cavorting
with "Seema Misra"s in Shopian "manufacturing stories" (when they
could have been downloading them instead from that "talk" website).

BTW: I tend to agree with you, the cadence of the writer's post isn't
feminine. (Or she could be  one of those feminist / lesbian.types the
legal profession has a surplus of ??).

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Raminder Singh
<ramisingh.bbc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbjit
>
> This is one pudding I'd like to eat
> http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2045333_postmistress_faces_74000_theft_charge"
>
> "AN award-winning postmistress has appeared before magistrates accused
> of stealing more than £74,000 from the post office.
> Seema Misra is charged with four counts of false accounting and one of theft
> by employee."
>
> No wonder she  doesnt want to reveal who "she" (?) is,
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Seema Misra <seemamisra08@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Mr Chief Patron ,
>>
>> The proof of the pudding is in the eating . None of your brilliant legal
>> brains have shown their brillance . Only prejudice emerges.
>>
>> We can play 20 questions on my identity . I am under no legal or moral
>> obligation to inform you of whom I am.
>>
>> Pertinent to note , that you obviously think the language used in the
>> email was permissible.
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion on whateveryoumaycall talk . So far your website
>> is much more entertaining.
>>
>> S.Misra
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "sroy 1947" <sroy1947@gmail.com>
>> To: <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada Dam
>>
>>
>> Dear Ms Misra
>>
>> As there are apparently quite a few "Seema Misra"'s in the RTI / NGO
>> space could you provide me some clues to better place you. (SNS ?,
>> Righttofood, Assoc4Advocacy ....)
>>
>> In the phrase "condom of the NCPRI" due you take objection to my usage
>> of "condom", or "NCPRI" or both :-)
>>
>> We have many ladies present, who alternate between reading me on
>> weekdays and visiting  the fiction section of www.astatalk.com on
>> weekends (try it - its much better than stardust - honestly).
>>
>> I can solemnly assure you that we have some of the finest legal brains
>> of India on
>> this board (I am one of them), and before making sweeping
>> generalizations on hatred and human rights concerning them, please try
>> to be more specific.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>> Chief Patron and Software Architect to this forum.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Seema Misra <seemamisra08@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am absolutely horrified with the language used in this email  network.
>>> - "
>>> condom of the NCPRI" .
>>>
>>> I was very happy that I began receiving email from this network ( though
>>> unsolicitied )  , thinking i will get a wide variety of information on
>>> the
>>> types of problems a cross section of people face related to RTI.
>>>
>>> Obviously this network caters to a large section of disgruntled  men ,
>>> with
>>> minimal information on  law , and extreme hatred for anyone who raises of
>>> human rights issues other than their human rights.
>>>
>>> I will now treat this like I do stardust- at least they are honest .
>>>
>>> Seema Misra
>>>
>>>
>>> e-----
>>>
>>> From: Anil Agrawal
>>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 5:15 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC Habibullah's corrupt decision on Narmada
>>> Dam
>>> Why are you agitated? Corruption is a way of life. Get up in the morning
>>> and
>>> read a new scam. Who are involved? Right from Ministers to babus. They
>>> are
>>> looting us. Adarsh scam, papers have been destroyed. What do you make of
>>> it?
>>> Netas and babus are not only saving their skin they want to continue to
>>> cling on to ill gotten flats in Adarsh. NOTHING WILL HAPPEN EITHER IN
>>> CWG,
>>> 2-G SCAM, ADARSH OR ANYTHING ELSE.
>>> Anil
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 3:53 PM, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://humjanenge.org.in/forum/index.php/topic,7.0.html
>>>>
>>>> Appeal No CIC/WB/C/2006/00066
>>>> Dated: 19/4/'06
>>>> Right to Information Act – Section 7(1)
>>>> Name of Applicant: Shri Shekhar Singh, Smt Aruna Roy & others
>>>> Name of Public Authority: Prime Minister's Office
>>>>
>>>> Corrupt Chief Information Commission gives hearing within 48 hours to
>>>> email complaint of NCPRI big guns. Aruna Roy and Shekhar Singh had
>>>> filed a "life or liberty" RTI request to secure copy of a 3 ministers
>>>> report on SSP. They were already in possession of informal copies, but
>>>> Medha Patkar's advocate (another NCPRI big cheese) needed an "official
>>>> copy" to file in Supreme Court immediately.
>>>>
>>>> On coming to know about this life or liberty request,  Prakash
>>>> Kardaley contacts me (being in Delhi) to immediately oppose disclosure
>>>> of this information to his NCPRI compatriots. I promptly email a "3rd
>>>> party" request to PMO, which is acknowledged and is transferred along
>>>> with NCPRI's request to Ministry of Water Resources. Along with NCPRI
>>>> I also receive a 3rd party notice for the CIC hearing. As per RTI Act
>>>> the CPIO cannot release information without intimating the 3rd party
>>>> and giving him opportunity to file appeals.
>>>>
>>>> I and Veeresh Malik (another Hum Janenge moderator) reach the CIC
>>>> venue well in time. We find that neither Aruna Roy nor Shekhar Singh
>>>> are present, instead they have sent Arvind Kejriwal. The moment the
>>>> hearing commences, the CPIO of MoWR informs the CIC that as per
>>>> instructions of his Minister (Saifuddin Soz) he has just handed copies
>>>> of the controversial report (clearly marked as Confidential
>>>> /Top-Secret etc) to Ms Aruna Roy outside the hearing chamber so that
>>>> Prashant Bhushan can file the same in court the next day. I strongly
>>>> protest at this mockery of RTI Act / abuse of RTI process/ denial of
>>>> my 3rd party rights etc, but Habibullah and Ansari have been bought
>>>> off. The completely biased and corrupt order he delivers leaves no
>>>> doubt that he is a puppet.
>>>>
>>>> The order has been deleted from the CIC website by Habibullah. Now
>>>> here is that order, attached so that the public of India can remember
>>>> what a corrupt person Mr Habibullah is, and how he used the CIC like a
>>>> condom for the NCPRI.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

There is no provision for prosecution of any applicant or appellant/complainant in RTI Act 2005, since its Sections 19(5) and 20(1) loudly and clearly put the burden of proof only on the PIO. When there is no provision as such for prosecuting an applicant/appellant/complainant at all, the question of prosecuting a minor doesn't arise.
Regards,
Chitta Behera 

---

From: Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@gmail.com>
To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 29 November, 2010 8:10:54 PM
Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Curious to know what will happen if a Minor applies for information
and the PIO supplies information to him/her too.

Can the PIO (and the Minor ? )  be prosecuted for doing something NOT
ALLOWED under the law ?

Regards

Sidharth

Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Curious to know what will happen if a Minor applies for information
and the PIO supplies information to him/her too.

Can the PIO (and the Minor ? ) be prosecuted for doing something NOT
ALLOWED under the law ?

Regards

Sidharth

[RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Try teaching this kind of voodoo law to a judge like CJ Mukul Mudgal
and see how they respond ! In the case I cited Mr Wadhwa was
apparently a DGP of Police and can be been presumed to know more
law than you.

The Moral: section 22 RTI Act does not repeal any other law. If
there is some glaring contradiction then of course section 22 will
over-ride such other previous law to the extent of the inconsistency.
RTI Act is a general law, there are many special laws (like
Census Act) which deal with info handling and disclosure in their
own ways / domains.

Sarbajit

On Nov 30, 8:22 am, Abhimanyu <who.will.file....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear sarbajit.
> in applying for passport many issues are involved hence a child has no right
> to apply on his own . but in RTI you are only seeking information . how to
> use thast information later on may need help of adults .
>
> but the basic question " do child have right to RTI?? yes he has .
>
> can i 5 year old drive car on roads even if father is sitting next to him
> ??? no no he cannot . so presence of father / gardian cannot give few rights
> to a child .
>
> for every different task RIGHTS are different . you cannot equate one kind
> of situation with other .
>
> for RTI there is only one condition "information seeker MUST be an indian
> citizen". thats all .
>

Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Dear sarbajit.

in applying for passport many issues are involved hence a child has no right to apply on his own . but in RTI you are only seeking information . how to use thast information later on may need help of adults .

 

but the basic question " do child have right to RTI?? yes he has .

 

can i 5 year old drive car on roads  even if father is sitting next to him ??? no no he cannot . so presence of father / gardian cannot give few rights to a child .

 

for every different task RIGHTS are different . you cannot equate one kind of situation with other .

 

for RTI there is only one condition "information seeker MUST be an indian citizen". thats all .

 

 

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:57 AM, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:

If there was any such judgment, I surmise that was to protect the
rights of the unborn child.

Sarbajit

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Didnt the Supreme Court of India rule in 1994-95 that though a minor girl cannot marry, she has full right to be a mother?
>
> Manoj Pai
>
> --- On Mon, 11/29/10, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A boy can impregnate at age 10-11 yrs, a girl can conceive
>> at age 12.
>> Does that mean that marriage should be legal from 12 years
>> ?.
>>
>> Sarbajit

Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information

Dear Mr Behera

You may like to read this
http://www.lawetalnews.com/NewsDetail.asp?newsid=2903

"The First Bench of Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal and Justice Ranjan
Gogoi today upheld an earlier judgement of a single judge of the high
court and dismissed Wadhwa's contention. The bench refused to agree
with the argument that information obtained pertained to 'leaders of
the nation and the information regarding their religion was sought in
public interest.' The court held, "the information supplied to the
Census Officer cannot be made public in view of the statutory bar
imposed by Section 15 of the Census Act which is not inconsistent with
Section 22 read with section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act,
2005."

Section 15 of the Census Act reads as "No person shall have a right to
inspect any book, register or record made by a census-officer in the
discharge of his duty as such, or any schedule delivered under section
10, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, no entry in any such book, register, record or
schedule shall be admissible as evidence in any civil proceeding
whatsoever or in any criminal proceeding other than a prosecution
under this Act or any other law for any act or omission which
constitutes an offence under this Act."

Wadhwa had argued that section 15 was in violation of section 22 of
the RTI Act and contended that the section could not stand in the way
of obtaining information he sought. Section 22 states, "The provisions
of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other
law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by
virtue of any law other than this Act."

The court based its decision on the reasoning that the provisions of
section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 are not inconsistent with
provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
and both can be read harmoniously. Accordingly, section 22 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 will not come into operation and cannot
sustain the pleas as argued by Wadhwa."

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Chitta Behera
<chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Mr.Roy,
> What about Section- 22 of RTI Act 2005, as per which all other laws and
> instrumentalities of the State including CPC are to be read, subject to the
> provisions of this Act. It is one thing to say that a child as young as 3
> years needs to be represented by a major, but it is altogether a different
> thing to say that he has no right to apply for information under this Act.
> Then what about a college going boy or girl of say 17 and half years old,
> who is legally a minor, but very much capable of applying for information
> and pleading for his case before any forum. Do you mean to say that because
> of his/her minority in age, he or she should be deprived of his right to
> apply directly to a public authority? Section 3 of RTI Act gives right to
> every citizen to apply for information under this Act, and a citizen by
> definition given in the Constitution is he or she who is born in this
> country irrespective of his/her present biological age.
> Regards,
> Chitta Behera
>
> ________________________________
> From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
> To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC" <rti_india@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Sat, 27 November, 2010 7:55:59 AM
> Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: A Minor's Right to Information
>
> Dear Sid (and everyone else who has replied later to this thread)
>
> 1) IC Shailesh is an idiot.
>
> 2) IC Shilesh is a 'bhada ka tattoo' (ie mule for hire) who has been
> made to wear blinkers so that the only road he can see in front of him
> is RTI Act. (and not the whole wide world around him).
>
> 3) Minors have no right in law to file RTIs or Court cases (or to sue
> or be sued) independently. They must always have an adult with them,
> as their "next friend" / guardian. Its all there in CPC and other
> special / procedural laws..
>
> 4) Mrs Urvashi Sharma is trying to get cheap publicity to show that
> her daughter age 9 (?) or is it 4(?) is the youngest RTI applicant. My
> own son has filed a RTI application to a Central Govt regulatory
> agency in Jan 2003 !!! (with fee) and they accepted it and gave the
> reply (after lot of fighting) in May 2003. He was 2yrs 11 months when
> he filed it. Based on this he filed a Writ in SC (at age 3 years) as
> petitioner in person - I was his next friend - the Court; listened to
> him carefully and dubbed him "learned counsel" (recorded in their
> order) and passed an order which eventually caused "Hathaways" a loss
> of 600 crore rupees.
>
> Sarbajit Roy
>
> On Nov 27, 5:59 pm, Sidharth Misra <sidharthb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have come across a news item where the UP SIC Sh Pankaj has rejected a
>> Minor's appeal saying that she is a MINOR.
>>
>> IC Shailesh says that there's no such bar in the Act.
>>
>> Who is right ?
>>
>> If yes then How minor he/she can be ? ? ?
>>
>> Can any one throw some light on this ?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> sidharth
>
>