[HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] Re: KU: Ignorant of rules, PIO returns RTI Application - Early Times - 11 Nov. 2010

Dear WEDS

Thanks for starting off by calling me an ignorant idiot.

Your argument is full of holes (FYI: I have over 30 years of
litigative experience in SC as a party-in-person and have never lost a
matter in any judicial forum) but I don't believe that I must educate
every wandering minstrel who believes he has the right to sing in
public streets / railway compartments / Haryana Roadways buses.

If you have something worthwhile to say, say it in a paragraph or 2.
Otherwise don't waste the time of the members here.
(apologies to PMK, but old moderatorship habits die hard)

Sarbajit

On Nov 14, 5:42 am, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist
<wileva...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear Sarabjit,
>
> I request you to consider this:
>
> Ignorantia juris non excusator Ignorantia legis neminem excusat(Latinfor
> "ignoranceof the lawdoes not excuse" or "ignoranceof the lawexcuses no one")is
> an universal legal principle/doctrine holding that a person who is unaware of a
> law may not escape liabilityfor violating that law merely because he or she was
> unaware of its content. However, Ignorentia facti, excusat meaning, ignorance of
> fact is excusable in jurisprudence.
>
> In a Democracy as Government is by A people; for the people & of the people; the
> right to information is inherent right of a people in a democracy inasmuch as
> the accountability of the government to the governed.
>
> This has been reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in its decision in
> Peoples Union for Civil Liberties % Raj Narain Vs State of U.P. that RTI is a
> fundamental right, a facet of Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
>
> This is a judgment law. (Art. 141, 142(1&2) of the Constitution of India) & is
> applicable & enforceable throughout the territory of India.
>
> By Art. 142 (2), The Supreme Court of India is empowered to try contempt of
> itself.
>
> 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. Denial of Information sought by an applicant, by a public authority
> (PA)/public servant (PS) is violation of HR of that citizen & that citizen can
> also file a complaint against that public authority (PA)/public servant (PS)
> with the National Human Rights Commission under The Protection of Human Rights
> Act 1993.
>
>
> The right to information is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human
> Rights and finds international legal protection in Article 19 of the
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that
> 'Everyone shall have the right…to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
> of all kinds, regardless of frontiers'. The right to access information is not
> merely important as an aspect of freedom of expression. It is also a practical
> tool for bringing about the full realisation of all other human rights.
>
> ByArt. 144 of The Constitution of India, All authorities, civil & judicial, in
> the territory of India, shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.
>
>
> Supreme Court of India accepts, cash, IPO, DD & MO as application fee. Read Art.
> 144 above
> Art. 12of the Constitution of India defines state as "In this Part, (Part III
> Fundamental Rights) unless the context otherwise requires, "the State'' includes
> the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of
> each of the States and all local or their authorities within the territory of
> India or under the control of the Government of India. Every Public Authority is
> the state within the meaning of this article.
>
> Art. 13(2)of the Constitution of India prohibits that "The State shall not make
> any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part (Part III
> Fundamental Rights) and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to
> the extent of the contravention, be void.
>
> Art. 13(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) "law"
> includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom
> or usage having in the territory of India the force of law; (b) "laws in force"
> includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in
> the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not
> previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may
> not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.
>
>
> RTI Act 2005, passed by Parliament of India does not restrict the mode of
> payment of application fee.
>
> RTI Act 2005 by its section 22 & 23 provides the Act overiding effect &
> prohibits any court from adjudicating upon any order under this Act. Does it not
> evidence that Parliament has curtailed the powers of vested with courts under
> Art 32 & 226 of the Constitution of India by the constituent power of parliament
> vested with it under Art. 368 of the Constitution?
>
> Further, section 8(j) at the end clarifies, Provided that the information which
> cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to
> any person.. Any Act or law as it is defined in Art. 13(2),(3)(a & b) of the
> Constitution of India, by any Government which is repugnant to any article of
> The Constitution of India is void to the extent of repugnancy.
>
> High Court & Supreme Corts are part of State as defined in Art 12 of the
> Constitution of India. While they have powers to make rules for internal
> administration but, cannot act in inconsistent with the provisions of an Act
> passed by parliament about a fundamental right. Power of parliament
> superintendents over Courts too. Even in all decisions Courts/judges have to
> uphold the Constitution & adhere to Acts passed by Parliament & not behave in a
> whimsical manner repugnant to the constitution of India or Acts passed by
> Parliament. Former CJI KGBs decision in Kannapuram Gandaiah vs. CAO of High
> Court of Hyderabad is one that is repugnant too.
>
> Regards,
> WEDS