These rent-free accommodation, the cost of proper maintenance and upkeep of the Circuit Houses not
underestimating their prime location, and number of workforce - are these parallel to what corporate India offers?
Do they justify the value addition to the system?
Has there been any RTI request ?
Thanks,
p.s. had some personal experiences during my recent india trip
Arun Rai
Best wishes for New Year to everyone.
just to remind again that Humjanenge moderators
are strictly watching to take action for breech of
group regulations from today.
S D Sharma
May be there are more than 30 IAS Officers in Bihar. I do not know in which context "all" was used in Sri Gupta's mail. --- On Sat, 1/1/11, raja bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
|
I hope the rest of the Civil Servants follow the example. All the best to them and our Netas so called Social servants. Wish all A happy and prosperous New year 2011. Bunch-Mumbai --- On Fri, 31/12/10, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
|
On 12/31/10, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote:
> In karnataka it is different , If we ask asset and liability of IAS
> officers , The Ministry officials says this is a third party information and
> this cannot be made public and they are ready bring corruption free ,
> transparent good governance in Karnataka , Even some of the officials went
> and obtained stay order , The other states of india shall follow Bihar
> Model
> India Bachao from clutches of bureucrats corruption
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:11 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>> *NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION***
>>
>> * *
>> * *All the 30 IAS officers have submitted their Assests Details
>> to the Chief Minister, Mr. Nitish Kumar. The details shall be put on the
>> Website. Thus under the leadership of Nitish, Bihar has shown the way to
>> other states.
>>
>>
>
In karnataka it is different , If we ask asset and liability of IAS officers , The Ministry officials says this is a third party information and this cannot be made public and they are ready bring corruption free , transparent good governance in Karnataka , Even some of the officials went and obtained stay order , The other states of india shall follow Bihar ModelIndia Bachao from clutches of bureucrats corruption
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:11 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION
All the 30 IAS officers have submitted their Assests Details to the Chief Minister, Mr. Nitish Kumar. The details shall be put on the Website. Thus under the leadership of Nitish, Bihar has shown the way to other states.
NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION
All the 30 IAS officers have submitted their Assests Details to the Chief Minister, Mr. Nitish Kumar. The details shall be put on the Website. Thus under the leadership of Nitish, Bihar has shown the way to other states.
NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION
On 12/31/10, RTI Movement <rim.chennai@gmail.com> wrote:
> *A NEW LEAF - 2011-*
>
> *IS BEING UNFOLDED UNTO YOU*
>
> *BY LORD GOD*
>
> *WITH PEACE, HAPPINESS & PROSPERITY*
>
> *WRITTEN ON IT.*
>
> *HAPPY NEW YEAR!*
>
>
>
> JOHN LOPEZ/ RIM CHENNAI
>
PDF File from CHRI is attached, reposted due to group's CP rules.
"Dear all,As our office remains closed for a week on account of the winter break I could not email our analysis of the Draft RTI Rules 2010 before the deadline. My apologies for the same. I have attached a pdf version of our preliminary comments sent to the DoPT about what needs to be changed in the proposed Rules. This is for your reference. When the office reopens in January this document will be uploaded on our website.Until then I wish you all a evry happy new year. I hope 2011 turns out to be the very best for transarency at all levels of the administration and all users of the RTI Act.Yours sincerely,Venkatesh NayakProgramme CoordinatorAccess to Information ProgrammeCommonwealth Human Rights Initiative"
I could not but agree with you that "Transparency International" is a most corrupt institution.
best wishes
Sarbajit
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:06 PM, K N Jagadesh kumar <jkgroup999@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear sarbjit RoyThe below statement is 100%"Transparency International the police and judiciary are the most corrupt institutions in this country which in turn is one of the most corrupt in the whole world. "Now"its shame to talk-Crime to express"On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:Hi Dwarakanath /group
I dont know in what context this definition has been uploaded, perhaps it refers to PMK's warnings in Binayak' Sens' discussions
I surmise that PMK is concerned about members like Major Ravi who were similarly jailed for their utterances and now go about posting pro-Maoist comments on various unmoderated blogs and RTI groups purporting to be written to Constitutional Officers. To illustrate such utterances
http://iesmorg.blogspot.com/2010/06/views-of-maj-pm-ravindran.html
"This letter is a deliberate effort in that direction. The only other option available to me is to pray that the naxalites and maoists chose their targets correctly whenever they decide to strike because the other options- approaching the police or the judiciary- is beyond the pale of ordinary mortals in this country. It is pertinent to recall that as per the survey results of Transparency International the police and judiciary are the most corrupt institutions in this country which in turn is one of the most corrupt in the whole world. "
We don't need a police officer like Amitabh Thakur, IPS to see that such statements would otherwise directly fall under definition of sedition you have uploaded except for the fig-leaf of its purportedly being written to a Chief Minister,
Sarbajit
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:
Friends, I reproduce below the definition of 'sedition' under the Indian Penal Code. for information:124-A: Sedition – whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for Life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. [explanation-1- The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity, Explanation 2- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. Explanation 3- Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
--
K N Jagadesh Kumar
9845500932
jkgroup999@gmail.com
friends, I do understand that there are a lot of its and buts in the country as far as honesty or integrity or lawfulness or compliance with laws are concerned. I am a born Indian and will be for ever. But being an Indian, it is my fundamental duty, irrespective of what others do, to abide by the Constitution and strive to improve, educate the masses about their rights, liberties and duty (under Article 51-A). I have to honestly put my effort to bring peace and tranquility to the extent possible. I believe in the mass understanding the law of the country and do their bit to not only abide by it but also take corrective peaceful action wherever it is necessary. The country belongs to all of us and not a private property of any individuals or any political parties. I do not intend or attempt to gain any name, fame or rewards in this venture. If my writings offend any of the groups or anybody else, they have the privilege either to ignore or to block the display of write ups.Regards, dwarakanathdm,nbca
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:Hi Dwarakanath /group
I dont know in what context this definition has been uploaded, perhaps it refers to PMK's warnings in Binayak' Sens' discussions
I surmise that PMK is concerned about members like Major Ravi who were similarly jailed for their utterances and now go about posting pro-Maoist comments on various unmoderated blogs and RTI groups purporting to be written to Constitutional Officers. To illustrate such utterances
http://iesmorg.blogspot.com/2010/06/views-of-maj-pm-ravindran.html
"This letter is a deliberate effort in that direction. The only other option available to me is to pray that the naxalites and maoists chose their targets correctly whenever they decide to strike because the other options- approaching the police or the judiciary- is beyond the pale of ordinary mortals in this country. It is pertinent to recall that as per the survey results of Transparency International the police and judiciary are the most corrupt institutions in this country which in turn is one of the most corrupt in the whole world. "
We don't need a police officer like Amitabh Thakur, IPS to see that such statements would otherwise directly fall under definition of sedition you have uploaded except for the fig-leaf of its purportedly being written to a Chief Minister,
Sarbajit
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:
Friends, I reproduce below the definition of 'sedition' under the Indian Penal Code. for information:124-A: Sedition – whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for Life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. [explanation-1- The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity, Explanation 2- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. Explanation 3- Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
On 12/31/10, Sanjeev Santoshi <sanjscot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear PMK
>
> This is very unexpected news. HJ-google is the most dynamic e-group
> for RTI citizens now have and all credits must go out to you and the
> FORE team for this.
>
> Many of us are curious who PMK really is. Will we ever know ?
>
> Sanjeev
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:03 PM, PMK1504 <humjanenge.owner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear members
>>
>> This RTI google group was conceived only a few months ago to represent the
>> Federation of Online RTI E-groups ("FORE").
>>
>> The concept of a Federation includes the amalgamation of individuals or
>> groups who subscribe to common ideals / goals and a shared vision. In the
>> Federation, the management of the components of the consortium is
>> individually retained.
>>
>> I am pleased to say that the first phase of our Federation has been
>> achieved. We now have 3,000 active members and have successfully achieved
>> our first engagement as a group with the Government over the RTI Rules
>> amendment issue.
>>
>> It is now time for me to step down so that a moderator/owner of another
>> group from the Federation can take over in 2011, and so that I can devote
>> time to my own RTI mailing list which has been badly neglected.
>>
>> PMK
>>
>
--
Malay Dewanji
Hony. General Secretary, LAMP, Kolkata.
and
Hony. Secretary General, AIAVA, New Delhi.
Phone:919830082476
On 12/31/10, Vijay Kapoor <vijay99kapoor@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbajit:
> Sorry. Wont consciously do it again. (I was only trying to disseminate info
> as widely as possible.)
> Regards,Victor
>
> --- On Thu, 12/30/10, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Fw: Rx for "Lost file" excuse by Government
> departments: Public Records Act
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 9:32 PM
>
> Dear Victor
>
> 1) Kindly do not cross-post messages. After 24 hours the group management
> will be terminating members who cross post.
>
> 2) Krishnaraj Rao does not possess a true copy of the PR Act. The "real"
> version can be found here (published by the National Archives u/s 4)
>
> http://nationalarchives.nic.in/writereaddata/html_en_files/html/public_records93.html
>
> 3) Section 9 of the Act in this version (not 10 as he claims) reads as
> follows:
>
>
> "Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of
> section 4 or section 8 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
> which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to ten
> thousand rupees or with both. "
>
> Section 4 deals with taking records out of India without permission
> Section 8 deals with destruction or disposal of records.
> (Rule 9(4) specifies that destruction is to take place by burning /
> shredding in the presence of the records office, "disposal" has not been
> prescribed)
>
> www.sdobishnupur.in/Acts%20and%20Rules/Dictionery/1654.pdf
>
> The case of "lost" records is therefore not covered under this penal clause
> at all.
>
> Furthermore nowhere in the Act is it specified that the offences are
> "cognisable" and that a FIR can be registered or how/who has to register it.
>
> Lastly I may mention, that this scheme of FIR under Public Records Act was
> repeatedly used by a corrupt IC, but on my formal complaint to the CCIC (not
> Mr Habibullah) the corrupt practice of issuing FIRs for cash seems to have
> stopped.
>
>
> THE MORE RTI EGROUPS LIKE OURS ARE ALLOWED TO BE MISUSED BY THE LIKES OF
> KRISHNARAJ RAO, THE MORE THE CORRUPT ICS WILL BE EMBOLDENED TO PERPETUATE
> THEIR CORRUPTION.
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 12/30/10, Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com>
> Subject: [rti4empowerment] "Lost file" excuse? Get FIR against Records
> Officer using these sections of Public Records Act
>
> To: rti-forum-for-instant-information-@googlegroups.com,
> rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, rtikerala@yahoogroups.co.in, "Dr Mohd Naved
> Khan RTIgroup" <mohdnavedkhan@gmail.com>
>
> Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 1:34 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear RTI
> activists,
>
>
>
> Just as we have the Public Information Officer
> (PIO) in every public authority, there is a Records Officer (RO) in almost
> every
> government department who can be fined Rs 10,000 or imprisoned for five
> years if
> documents are lost or tampered.
>
>
>
> FOR CENTRAL GOVT DOCUMENTS, read Sec 10 of "Public Records Act 1993":
> http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords1
>
>
>
>
>
> FOR MAHARASHTRA
> GOVT DOCUMENTS, read Sec 9 of "Maharashtra Act No 4 of 2006":
> http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords3
>
>
>
>
> Quite often, we
> are denied information due to our own ignorance of these laws. No government
> employee can blandly say, "File lost" to an information seeker. There are
> clear-cut laws providing for who is to be held responsible and what is to be
> done in case documents or files are lost, misplaced or stolen. Therefore,
> under
> RTI, "File lost" can only be given as a reason for DELAY in providing
> information, but not as a reason for DENIAL of information.
>
>
>
> If a file is
> lost, there is a clear-cut procedure that the officer designated as "Records
> Officer" has to follow. This may be summarized as "SRF" i.e.
>
> a) SEARCH
>
> b) RECONSTRUCT the file
>
>
> c) Register FIR.
>
>
>
> UNDERSTAND THESE KEY
> SECTIONS OF PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1993:
>
> SECTION 6:
>
> Every
> records creating agency shall nominate one of its officers as records
> officer
> to discharge the functions under this Act.
>
>
>
> Every
> records creating agency may set up such number of record rooms in such
> places
> as it deems fit and shall place each record room under the charge of a
> records
> officer.
>
>
>
> SECTION 8:
>
> The
> records officer shall, in the event of any unauthorised removal,
> destruction,
> defacement or alteration of any public records under his charge,
> forthwith
> take appropriate action for the recovery or restoration of such public
> records.
>
>
>
> The
> records officer shall submit a report in writing to the Director
> General or
> as the case may be, the head of the Archives without any delay on any
> information
> about any unauthorised removal, destruction, defacement or alteration
> of
> any public record under his charge and about the action initiated by
> him
> and shall take action as he may deem necessary, subject to the
> directions,
> if any, given by Director General or, as the case may be, head of the
> Archives.
>
>
>
> The
> records officer may seek assistance from any government officer or any
> other person for the purpose of recovery or restoration of public
> records
> and such officer or person shall render all assistance to the records
> officer.
>
>
>
> SECTION 10: Whoever
> contravenes any of the provisions of section 4 or section 8 shall be
> punishable
> with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine
> which
> may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.
>
>
>
> MAHARASHTRA ACTIVISTS: The corresponding sections of the State Act
> are 5, 7 & 9.
>
>
>
> Exactly how, when and where must public
> records be classified, preserved, withdrawn or destroyed? Study Public
> Records RULES 1997:
> http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords2
>
>
> (These rules apply to Central Govt
> documents, but there must be similar rules for State Govt.)
>
>
>
> Especially read the forms given at the bottom of the Rules,
> particularly Form 8, which enables citizens to enroll as "Research Scholars"
> and study the documents
> at National Archives of India. Many hidden treasures may lie in these
> archives,
> waiting to be discovered by you!
>
>
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Krish
>
> 98215 88114
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __._
>
>
>
>
>
On 12/31/10, rights@rediffmail.com <rights@rediffmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Campaign for Survival and
> Dignity <forestcampaignnews@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:59 PM
> Subject: Statement on the Saxena Committee Report on the Forest Rights Act
> To: forestcampaign@gmail.com
>
>
> Friends,
> The controversial Saxena Committee on the Forest Rights Act has submitted
> its report, which has finally been made public. We know that this report
> will be projected as pro-people and pro-rights. But this report will be
> most useful to those who set it up – a Ministry and a forest
> bureaucracy1that wants more power, while presenting a facade of being
> sensitive and pro-people. Here are some reasons why.Regarding the
> implementation of the Act, the Committee has endorsed what we and others
> have been pointing out for a long time. It points out the problems in rights
> recognition, recommends action against illegal evictions, and calls for
> recognition of community rights, coming to the same conclusions as
> the Council for Social Development report and what the movements
> have been saying. It identifies the forest bureaucracy as a major problem.
> In itself, this is welcome. But when it comes to what should
> be done about these problems, and especially about MoEF
> and the forest bureaucracy, the report falls apart.
> On the Environment Ministry: The Committee's recommendations target
> everyone except the Environment Ministry, the Central agency
> most responsible for policies in violation of the Act. Out of eleven
> pages of findings in chapter 11, MoEF's actions are covered in half a page.
> The most dangerous of these actions (click here to know more) -
> illegal forest diversion for corporate projects; rapidly expanding
> afforestation and "conservation" programs with enormous potential for land
> grabbing and conflict; and the huge sums of money being deployed for this -
> are barely touched in the recommendations. The chapter on development
> projects admits "some clearances" were illegal. But there has not been a
> single case where the Ministry has complied with the law on diversion, and
> the Committee neither recommends cancellation of illegal clearances nor
> justice for those whose rights have been illegally violated. There are no
> recommendations on afforestation, except for vague statements that policies
> should be "reviewed" and should "respect the FRA." Whose job is it to review
> these illegal actions, if not this Committee?
> On Joint Forest Management: The Ministry's current favorite program -
> Joint Forest Management (click here to know more) – is being expanded across
> the country and is a major tool in the Forest Department's efforts to block
> communities from managing forests or exercising rights. It is condemned in
> the first half of chapter 8 of the report and in one part of the
> recommendations; but other parts say it should continue in most areas and
> even that it has "advantages." Then, the "alternative recommendations"
> (signed by half the members of the Committee) condemn it again. Thus
> the Ministry can do pretty much anything on JFM and still claim the
> Committee's endorsement.
> On "redefining forest governance": On this issue – which was said to be
> the Committee's raison d'etre - the report says that the status quo of Joint
> Forest Management and Forest Department supervision should continue in the
> vast majority of forest areas (those where communities do not file formal
> claims for community forest resource rights). The "alternative
> recommendations" say there should be changes, but agree that there is no
> legal requirement for them (they would need "a new statute or amendment of
> existing statutes"). This is the escape clause the forest
> authorities have been looking for. After the structure of the Forest
> Department has been identified as being the single biggest reason for the
> failure to respect the law, when even the Home Secretary has attacked their
> zamindari attitude and abuse of power, the committee legitimises
> the status quo until there is a "new statute or amendment of
> existing statutes". This is a total misreading of the law and a
> backpedaling on the most crucial issue in forest areas today.
> Riddled with other contradictions: On non-timber forest produce,
> crucial to people's livelihoods, the report identifies many problems, but
> then only says free sale should be permitted – while advocating continuation
> of other existing structures, which numerous government reports have
> condemned (the "alternative recommendations" disagree). Satellite imagery
> (currently a major tool for rejections) is endorsed and celebrated as a mode
> for verifying rights in one section, which however also contains one
> sentence admitting it "cannot verify the existence of any right under the
> Act" (p. 66). On whether or not people should be removed from wildlife
> habitats, the report advocates two diametrically opposed views in the same
> paragraph (p. 131), one of which is called "dissenting" - but is in the main
> text. After describing critical tiger habitat notifications as "in violation
> of the Act", once again it only recommends a "review" (p. 217).In sum, the
> report is a mishmash that permits the Environment Ministry to do what it
> pleases, and still to claim the mantle of being pro-people. Indeed, almost
> any point raised in favour of people can be contradicted by citing some
> other part of the report.When the Campaign was invited to join this
> Committee, we declined for precisely this reason. It is not the
> findings of government committees that matter, but whether and how they can
> be used by the powers that be. The nature and constitution of this
> committee, as reflected in its report, lent themselves to precisely such
> manipulation. We can be sure that all the ambiguities and contradictions in
> this report will be exploited to the fullest extent, even as the positive
> points it raises will be quietly discarded except where they serve the
> establishment's interests.The struggle in forest areas is today reaching a
> pitch where the Central government is on the back foot. Whether in Vedanta
> and POSCO, or in the hellholes of Operation Green Hunt, or in the anti-dam
> movements of the Northeast, we see people resisting a brutal machine that
> respects neither law nor life. The forest bureaucracy is one crucial cog in
> that machine. Let us not permit it to clothe itself in the language of
> rights and hide its true face.Campaign for Survival and
> Dignity9873657844, www.forestrightsact.com
> 1 The fiction of a "joint committee" does not require much attention.
> This "joint committee" includes six forest officers, one of whom is
> co-chair, as against one Tribal Ministry representative. Meanwhile, as the
> report itself describes, this "joint committee" was first notified by the
> Environment Ministry alone, which then roped in the Tribal Ministry after
> criticism. In August, the Tribal Minister chose to write to the Environment
> Minister to complain about the Committee's functioning, not to the chair,
> showing who actually controls the Committee. Finally, the report itself
> declares that the Tribal Ministry member "hardly attended the meetings of
> the Committee, nor sent his representative." The "joint committee" fiction
> was just the result of pressure from the Environment Ministry on an
> apathetic and weak Tribal Ministry, in order to escape the charge of
> exceeding its mandate.
>
>
For context, copy of RTI application (I have deleted my Residential address and phone number).
The Central Public Information Officer,
C/o. Secretary,
Deptt. of Personal and Training,
New Delhi.
6.10.2010.
Sub: Information under RTI Act, 2005 – Selection of Chief Information Commissioner.
Respected Sir,
Kindly provide the following information on the selection of Chief Information Commissioner under RTI Act, 2005:
1. Names of the members who attended the meeting of the Selection Committee.
2. Date, time and venue of the meeting.
3. Names of the short-listed candidates considered for the post.
4. Whether the short listing and selection criteria would be made public by putting the same on the Deptt. website or by any other means.
5. Kindly provide a copy of the proceedings/minutes of the Selection Committee Meeting.
B. If some part of the solicited information does not belong to your Department, I request you to transfer that part to the concerned Public Authority u.s. 6(3) of the Act.
C. I am enclosing a postal order for Rs. 10/- numbering 88E 389218 dated 30.9.2010 issued from the Dwarka Post Office.
Yours faithfully,
(Mahendra Kumar Gupta)
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, 30 December, 2010 8:39:33 AM
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC
Dear WEDS
1) The specific point you are making is?
2) In what context ?
Sarbajit
PS: So far none of what you have said can be applied to Mr Gupta's case.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:59 AM, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Dear M.K.Gupta & others,Please read section 4(c&d) of RTI Act 2005.
(c)
publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;
(d)
provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
& remember,PREFACE
Constitution is a living document, an instrument which makes the government system workPremble,WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly
resolved to constitute India into a 1[SOVEREIGN
SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC] and
to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual
and the 2[unity and integrity of the Nation];
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twentysixth
day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT,
ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS
CONSTITUTION.
RTI Act 2005, Section 8(i), ultimate line reads as follows:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
1. From this you would agree that the People of India have installed the Constitution of India & the Government therewithin to themselves & to govern them. Hence, in Democracy, the Government is defined as A GOVERNMENT BY A PEOPLE; OF THE PEOPLE & FOR THE PEOPLE.
2. Hence, the Government & all its functionaries are accountable & answerable to the People of India. Hence, the People of India have a right to question the Government that they have installed within the framework of the Constitution on its acts & omissions. This is otherwise known as the Right to Information.
3. This Right to Information of the People of India is inalienable, axiomatic, fundamental as well as human right . This has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of India as a fundamental right forming a facet of Art. 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Read 6 above.
4. To access, seek, receive & impart information is a Human Right (HR), as per Article 19 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that was adopted by the General Assembly of The United Nations on the 16th December 1966, as cardinal principles of Human Right, embodied in The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 section 2(d) & (f) forming a facet of Art. 21 Part III, Fundamental Right (FR) i.e. Right to life & Liberty, of the Constitution of India.
5. Freedom of Information lies at the root of the rights discourse. Failure of the State to provide access to information or State suppression of information can lead to the most egregious forms of human rights violations. The Right to Information (RTI) is fundamental to the realisation of rights as well as effective democracy, which requires informed participation by all.
Regards,
WEDS
From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, 29 December, 2010 13:23:21
Subject: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC
By filing an RTI, I asked from the DoPT names of short-listed candidates considered for the post of Chief Information Commissioner and whether the short listing and selection criteria would be made public.
On filing the first appeal, Shri Anuradha S. Chagti, Dy. Secy. & First Appellate Authority has informed that no documents are available on these points and an appeal against this order of FAA can be made to the CIC.
It seems that only one name was considered at the time of appointing Shri A N Tiwari as CCIC or the DoPT has taken a decision to appoint the Senior Most IC as CIC and / or only one name was considered.
What next? Views of activists are request whether second appeal is desirable on the two aforesaid issues.
This is very unexpected news. HJ-google is the most dynamic e-group
for RTI citizens now have and all credits must go out to you and the
FORE team for this.
Many of us are curious who PMK really is. Will we ever know ?
Sanjeev
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:03 PM, PMK1504 <humjanenge.owner@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear members
>
> This RTI google group was conceived only a few months ago to represent the
> Federation of Online RTI E-groups ("FORE").
>
> The concept of a Federation includes the amalgamation of individuals or
> groups who subscribe to common ideals / goals and a shared vision. In the
> Federation, the management of the components of the consortium is
> individually retained.
>
> I am pleased to say that the first phase of our Federation has been
> achieved. We now have 3,000 active members and have successfully achieved
> our first engagement as a group with the Government over the RTI Rules
> amendment issue.
>
> It is now time for me to step down so that a moderator/owner of another
> group from the Federation can take over in 2011, and so that I can devote
> time to my own RTI mailing list which has been badly neglected.
>
> PMK
>
A NEW LEAF - 2011-
IS BEING UNFOLDED UNTO YOU
BY LORD GOD
WITH PEACE, HAPPINESS & PROSPERITY
WRITTEN ON IT.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
JOHN LOPEZ/ RIM CHENNAI
Dear Sarbajit: Sorry. Wont consciously do it again. (I was only trying to disseminate info as widely as possible.) Regards, Victor --- On Thu, 12/30/10, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
|
