Re: [HumJanenge] SC ORDER ON INFORMATION COMMISSIONS

Gupta sir,  the SC judges have only ensured 100% re-employment to the judges, and nothing else and they have ignored the provision that SC Judges will not plead in indian Courts after retirement. If they decide case on whims, give observations without  reading the  relevant sections of RTI Act, what else can be said. They have not struck down any provision of the RTI Act being unconstitutional. The RTI Act provides for appointment of eminent knowledgeable citizens as IC and not only IAS/IPS. thats the problem. there are plenty knowledgeable citizen available in India. May be you can be appointed.  SC judge will certainly be unsuitable and waste of knowledge/talent  to decide whether reply/information  was given in stipulated 30 days or not?. i am sure a school student will tell correctly. but if we want to create further mess yes then we should have judges as ICs.  just imagine if a poor begger/mali/sweeper comes to commission in second appeal/complaint, how they will be treated by these people, i can well imagine. regds. beniwal      --- On Fri, 14/9/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> Subject: [HumJanenge] SC ORDER ON INFORMATION COMMISSIONS To: "RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge Forum People's Right to Information" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com> Date: Friday, 14 September, 2012, 1:01 PM Supreme Court has yesterday passed a sweeping order about the Information Commissions without given proper time to the Govt. for the transformation from the old system to new.  The new Commissioners with legal knowledge like Justices and Chief Justice cannot be appointed overnight without following some system and till then, the will of the Commission may come to the standstill.  It would have been better if the SC should have given time as the govt. will require time to fill the existing and forthcoming vacancies with the persons of legal background.  Govt. reaction to this decision is not known so far and it may object to the advice given by the Court to the govt. for amending the rules governing the appointment of Information Commissioners.  It will not be a surprise if the govt. apply for the review of this decision terming the same as in interference in its work governing the policy.  It may also say that the decision is erroneous as it implicitly issue direction to the Parliament to amend an Act passed by it. The Apex Court should pay its attention towards this and should grant some time for the smooth transformation from old to new. It may issue directions that till the 50% Commissioners are appointed with possessing legal knowledge, no new Commissioner will be appointed without legal knowledge so that the Info Commissioners with legal background are made available for constituting two members benches. Without this, the order in effect will work to the detriment of the appellant and immediate death of the system of hearing and passing orders on second appeal till an alternative start working.