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 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.
By Art. 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. 12 of 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..
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, 14 November, 2010 0:00:41
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] Re: KU: Ignorant of rules, PIO returns RTI Application - Early Times - 11 Nov. 2010
To: Manoj/WEDS (2 messages in 1)
1) The Delhi High Court (in Sanskrit Schools matter) has held that
establishment / constitution by appropriate govt is not an ingredient
for non-governmental organisations (and KU is an NGO) while examining
2(h) (defn of P/A).
2) KU is admittedly a NGO substatntially financed indirectly by
Central Govt through UGC.
3) It is unclear if the RTI applicant Raman Sharma is a resident of
J&K or not. Hence if the issue of which act the application was made
is in doubt the PIO can certainly pick and choose which Act he would
prefer to reply under.
4) Nothing turns on "2006". It can be explained as a typographical error.
5) The Karnataka HC is as fully empowered as the Central Govt (DoPT)
is to specify that they will only accept fees by money order. <wink>.
There is no question of "overriding An Act passed by Parliament of
India!" in this. Furthermore the KSIC has upheld this practice thus
"Since the Petitioner has not paid the required fee in the format
prescribed by the Karnataka High Court, the application and the
complaint are not maintainable ". So you know where your remedy to
this lies <ha ha ha>
6) Any High Court can set aside a decision of the CIC / a SIC subject
to maintainability of the Writ Petition.
Sarbajit
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I hate to differ with you, Sarbajit, the University of Jammu and Kashmir were birfurcated into two seperate Universities by the Act of the State Legislature in 1969. No doubt you are right that it receives substantial financial assistance from the UGC, but then it had be formed by an act of the State Government with control vested with the State.
>
> Maybe you are right about who can apply or could be denied the info under the Central or State Act as the case maybe, but the issue is here is the case of the PIO returning the RTI Application by quoting the wrong act. Before, we proceed further, let us ask if the information is important to the applicant seeking the information.
>
> Were I the applicant and if the info was important to me, I would file a fresh application and send the requisite fee in form of DD Under "RTI, Act, 2006" - repeat "RTI, Act, 2006" as stated by the PIO. I would keep trying till I get the desired information. Later, I would go in for a complain for each application earlier denied.
>
> As far as the issue of the citizenship / place of residence is concerned, let me inform, that even before the State Act came into force in 2009, I could manage to get information from not only the State and Central Public Authorities, but a few local Public Authorities of J&K as well. How I got them is another story.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Manoj Pai
>
>
> --- On Sat, 11/13/10, sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
>> Dear Mr Bhat
>>
>> Kashmir University is substantially financed by the
>> University Grants
>> Commission by Central funds.
>>
>> So does this mean that citizens of India not resident in
>> J&K cannot
>> DIRECTLY apply to Kashmir University under the RTI Act 2005
>> (Central)
>> to seek to know how these funds are being used, and since
>> they are not
>> allowed to use J&K RTI Act 2009 ?
>>
>> Sarbajit
>
>
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.