Re: [HumJanenge] SC Judgement on CICs

Dear Shri Vaidya         The retirement age of a Supreme Court Judge is 65 years, and that of High Court Judge is 62 years. As you may be aware, there are large number of vacancies in various High Courts, which very often is touted as the reason for mounting pendancy of Court cases. As one measure to meet the shortfall, a move for raising the retirement age of High Court Judges to 65 years (at par with that of SC Judges) is under active consideration. SC has already made recommendations for this raising of age bar, and matter is under consideration of GOI. In all likelihood, it will be cleared shortly. Once this comes through, retirement age for both SC and HC Judges will become 65 years.       Now coming to your point, linking it with retirement age of 65 years for Information Commissioners, and SC recent Order making it obligatory to (i) appoint SC/HC Judges to SICs and (ii) making it mandatory for 2nd Appeals received at SICs to be heard by a Bench of two ICs, with one member being with Judicial background, things are bound to be extremely difficult. Given the position of retirement being made uniform at 65, no serving High Court Judge or a Supreme Court would like to move to Information Commissions, as they would like to continue at SC/HC itself. Retired Judges would also have crossed the age of 65 years, and their being drafted for SICs as mandated by SC Order, would be out of question. This would throw up situations, where finding a Judge (SC or HC) would be extremely difficult proposition and SIC positions may remain vacant; this effectively have the end result of no hearings being taken for reasons of non-availability of Judges for being appointed as IC. That would sound death knell for RTI.     We should remain prepared to face this eventuality. A SAD THING TO HAPPEN S K NANGIA         --- On Mon, 17/9/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote: From: prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC Judgement on CICs To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 17 September, 2012, 9:23 PM respected girish sir                          I wrote the detail constitutional provisions in my last email to humjanenge and i have also mentioned regarding my online grievances to Hon'ble President of India I wrote specifically to Mr. Sarabjeet Roy requested him to make an enquiry with office of President of India unfortunately for no one is willing to reply me. the age of retirement for SC judges is 65 years and the conditions prescibed by SC is more than required for HC Judge (For HC judge 10 yres judgment says 20 years practise) prasad vaidya 08857993253 viadya --- On Mon, 17/9/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC Judgement on CICs To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 17 September, 2012, 5:03 PM Dear Girish The easiest way to test a bad mathematical model is to feed it bad data. The RTI Act was combination of a law for babudom drafted in conjunction with illiterates (activists). As a result it eventually degenerated into nothingness. The SC order has to be interpreted as something introduced by God to demolish the present increasingly unworkable structure of the RTI Act. There will be the inevitable counter-thrust from babudom as well as Parliament. What will result will either be something workable or something completely unworkable. The chances are with the latter which in turn will engender something even greater than RTI - CHAOS !!! Sarbajit On 9/17/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I am not sure if the order of SC is workable. > > Retirement age of HC judges is slated to be increased from 62 to 65(bill > pending in Parliament), while the retirement age of IC is 65 years. So I am > not how many former HC judges will qualify? Besides, one would want to > continue in HC or later practise as solicitor/advocate, rather than to > become an IC. If the argument is that lot of decisions are being challenged > in courts of law, hence judicial help is required-well, lot of HC cases go > to division benches and SC. Even this decision is likely to be challenged > before larger bench. > > Also, I wonder if a HC judge would want to be an IC-its like HC judge > becoming Sessions judge. I don't foresee too many people agreeing for this > type of job. > > Also FAA having degree in law/experience in law. Take for example Municipal > Corporation in any city. The FAA, is, any superior authority. for example > Ward Officer in the relevant ward. If FAA has to be a legal degree holder, > then by default, he is law officer of the organisation, and all appeal > would lie before him. Imagine the number of appeals to be settled by a > single law officer. What about places where there is no legal person?? In > CIC if JS/Law is to be the FAA, I dont think it will make > any significant difference to non disclosure by CIC. He will continue to > justify not providing information. Currently also they seek help of JS/Law, > who I am not sure is legally qualified. > > Regards. > > Girish Mittal >