Re: [HumJanenge] Sec 22 of RTI Act, 2005 about its overriding effect on other laws

Section 22 provides the over-riding of any "other law for the time
being in force".

Oct 12 is the more favourable date for RTI users not 21 June 2005 since more
laws will come into its scope to be over-ridden.

Obviously a law which came into force on 15 Oct 2005 will not be
over-ridden by RTI Act. These are standard / routine non-obtsante clauses
contained in many laws and nothing great should be read into them as
foolish RTI activists are wont to..

On 10/1/12, Surendera M. Bhanot <bhanot1952@gmail.com> wrote:
> *
> *
> Section 22 is as good represent the overriding effect as it was on 12
> October 2005. Its sentence formation does not say that it represent only
> one day i.e., 12 October 2005, why not 21 June 2005 or any other day.
>
> It is as relevant today as it was the act was enacted and as on it was came
> into force. Section 22 will remain relevant in its present form as long the
> RTI Act stays.
>
> Even the in para 77 of the WP(C) 210 of 2012 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
> explained the relevancy of Section 22 of the RTI Act even today. Para 77 of
> the Judgement is reproduced below:
>
> *77.* Let us now examine some other pre-requisites of vital significance in
> the functioning of the Commission. In terms of Section 22 of this Act, the
> provisions of the Act are to be given effect to, 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. This Act is, therefore, to prevail
> over the specified Acts and even instruments. The same, however, is only to
> the extent of any inconsistency between the two. Thus, where the provisions
> of any other law can be applied harmoniously, without any conflict, the
> question of repugnancy would not arise.
>
>
> Section 22 is also reproduced below:
> *
>
> Act to have overriding effect*
> Section 22. 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.
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If there is any portion of a preexisting law as on 12 Oct 2005 which
>> is inconsistent with providing information under RTI Act, then the
>> said law will not stand in the way of the applicant getting his
>> information.
>>
>> NB: It has to be first established that the applicant is otherwise
>> entitled to get info under RTI.
>>
>> On 9/30/12, NAVIN PANDYA <navinpandya1954@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello Friends,
>> >
>> > How the subject section is to be interpreted and applied?
>> >
>> > Registrar of Mumbai has refused to accept the above section.
>> >
>> > Kindly post your views immediately in public interest.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Navin Pandya
>> >
>> > --
>> > "CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF
>> THE
>> > SOCIETY."
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *GREETINGS AND WARM REGARDS
>
> Surendera M. Bhanot*
> - Coordinator, *RTIFED <http://www.rtifed.com/>*, Punjab Chandigarh
> - President, *RTI Help & Assistance* <http://www.rtihelp.in%20> Forum
> Chandigarh
> - Life Member, *Chandigarh Consumers Association*
> - Youth for Human Rights International - *YHRI
> <http://yhrisouthasia.ning.com/group/leadershipinyouth>*- South Asia
> - Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
> - Member, *SPACE <http://www.thespace.org.in>*- Society for Promotion and
> Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
> *No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
> Mob: 919-888-810-811
> PHONE: 91-172-5000970
> FAX: 91-172-5000970*
> *Mail Me* <bhanot1952@gmail.com>
>