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

Dear Mr. Roy,

 

My unqualified appologies to you if quoting that legal doctrine has offended you as it was not intended to annoy you. I intended to reply to PIO HCK as such & sought your views on that.

 

Being a gentleman I never argue  to win a point but, express my perception on a subject for others to comment upon. I do this exercise only to augment my knowledge  while respecting others views. I always subscribe to the principle dissent is the sign of progress & anything that is said to be best done can be done better.

 

Please do not bear any  ill will nor I have any intention of it.

 

With warm regards,

 

WEDS 

---

From: Nicholas Santiago <nick.santiargo@yahoo.co.uk>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, 14 November, 2010 8:59:32
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] Re: KU: Ignorant of rules, PIO returns RTI Application - Early Times - 11 Nov. 2010

Thanks Sarbajit for saying what I wanted to say.

You must read this
www.corruptionindrdo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Udupi-Court-CAO-RTI-Act-XXIII.pdf

Our friend has evidently got you confused with some petty judicial
officer to lecture you the same way.

Nick

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 8:48 AM, sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>