Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [rti_india] My Article on Ms Arundhati Roy in today's Pioneer

Dear Harsh

From the records, you are not a member of this group It appears that
messages from this group are reaching you from a forwarding facility
associated with [rti4empowerment] @yahoogroups from which you have
also previously attempted to unsubscribe, and from which facility
emails may be seamlessly posted to this group in addition. As you are
caught up in some sort of private war between moderators of 2 other
mailing lists you may request them to unsubscribe you. The previous
correspondence is appended below for your reference

PMK

"Dear Shri Mander,

You are not in the mailing list of yahoo groups rti4ngo and rti4empowerment,
initiated by me. Therefore I can not help in unsubscribing.

Group rti_india is managed by Shri Sarbjit Roy He is being requested to do
the needful. You can also unsubscribe by sending email to
rti_india-unsubscribe@...
With best wishes,

Dhirendra Krishna

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Harsh Mander <manderharsh@...>wrote:

> dear dhirendraji,
> i have been trying desperately to unsubscribe. do please rndure, i will be
> grateful.
> warm regards,
> harsh mander
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dhirendra Krishna" <
> Dhirendra.rti@...>
> To: <rti_india@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re:"You may also note that public servants are
> prohibited from joining / postin
>
>
> Dear Shri Roy,
>
> It is a matter of interpretation, Sir.
>
> You and I, as moderators of RTI related groups are not the competent
> authority to interpret the provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules and Govt. of
> India decisions there-under. We can only decide on the objectives of the
> Internet group and act as a moderator.
>
> RTI Act is a law passed by the Parliament and Government is required to
> implement it. If an Internet group is a "movement" to voice citizen's
> concern about its non implementation, I believe that it is not an activity
> to embarrass or excite dissatisfaction against the Government. As a matter
> of fact, most of the RTI applications demand public records that may
> embarrass Government. If you carefully look at the preamble of RTI Act, the
> enactment is for transparency of information for holding Government
> accountable to the governed. It is further stated therein that transparency
> of information is vital for containing corruption. If we believe in
> paramountcy of the democratic ideal, public servants should be aware of the
> deep anguish of the citizens on issues arising from lack of transparency.
>
> RTI Act intends to usher in transparent and accountable public
> administration. In my humble opinion ( and also in the opinion of
> Administrative Reforms Commission on RTI implementation) every public
> servant should be aware of RTI Act, so that they can fulfill the
> obligations
> of public authority in letter and spirit. At the nascent stage of
> implementation of RTI Act, there are controversies and some of these
> debatable issues are aired in the Internet group. Every *good* public
> servant should not only be aware of citizen's concern about unsatisfactory
> implementation of RTI Act and issues revealed by use of RTI Act by
> citizens.
> If membership of Internet groups enables Government servants to become
> aware
> of these issues, it is in public interest for them to remain as Member of
> such group.
>
> Let us leave it to the Government to give their decisions under CCS
> (Conduct) Rules; it is not for the moderator on groups to decide one way
> or
> the other. If the Government ever decides to ban membership of RTI related
> Internet groups for Government employees, there are adequate grounds for
> public interest litigation against it. This could be an interesting debate
> before the Supreme Court !
>
> For the present, none of the RTI related groups have been banned under CCS
> (Conduct) Rules. It is not for moderators (like you and me) to dissuade
> public servant from Membership.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Dhirendra Krishna IA&AS (Retired)
> Moderator,
> Yahoo groups rti4ngo and rti4empwerment.
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:31 AM, sroy1947 <sroy1947@...> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Dear Mr Krishna
>>
>> Many thanks for the Govt decision (of Finance Ministry). It supports our
>> view that direct participation of Govt servants in SPECIALISED "political"
>> internet groups such as ours is restricted. It is always open to any Govt
>> to
>> ban a group or clarify that a groups ex-facie falls within the mischief of
>> Rule 5, but such action cannot be an exhaustive compendium.
>>
>> The ilustrative explanation to the old rule holds political movement to
>> include "any movement or activities tending directly or indirectly to
>> excite
>> disaffection against, or to embarrass, the
>> Government as by law established" .. I think our groups fall squarely
>> within such definition.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> --- In rti_india@... <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, Dhirendra
>> Krishna <Dhirendra.rti@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Shri Sarbajit,
>> >
>> > This has been clarified in Government of India Decision number 1, given
>> > below.
>> >
>> > In my humble opinion, if a Government servant participates in an >
>> internet
>> > discussion group, it does not amount to "taking part in politics or
>> > election" OR "assisting political movement or activity." Each officer is
>> > required to judge for himself (or herself) whether participation in
>> internet
>> > group dealing with citizen's right to information is a violation of Rule
>> 5
>> > of CCS (Conduct) Rule- depending on activities and content of each >
>> group.
>> If
>> > he/she has any doubts, his/her superior can be consulted.
>> >
>> > Several organisations have been specifically banned by the Government
>> > under Rule 5 as per various Government decision under Rule 5; none of >
>> the
>> > internet discussion groups have been banned. As such there is no bar on
>> > Government servants membership of any internet group. Your or my opinion
>> > does not matter; it is for the Government of India to frame conduct >
>> rules
>> > for the Government servants.
>> >
>> >
>> > Dhirendra Krishna
>> >
>>
>> ....................................................................................................................................................
>> >
>> > Government of India Decisions
>> >
>> > (1) Participation of Government servants in political activities
>> >
>> > Doubts have been raised recently as to the scope of Rule 23 (i) of the
>> > Government Servants Conduct Rules (now Rule 5) which lays down that no
>> > Government servant shall take part in, subscribe in aid of, or assist in
>> any
>> > way, any political movement in India or relating to Indian affairs.
>> > According to the Explanation (not in the new rule) to that clause, the
>> > expression "political movement" includes any movement or activities
>> tending
>> > directly or indirectly to excite disaffection against, or to embarrass,
>> the
>> > Government as by law established or to promote feelings of hatred of
>> enemity
>> > between classes of His Majesty's subjects or disturb the public peace.
>> This
>> > explanation is only illustrative and is not intended in any sense, to be
>> an
>> > exhaustive definition of "political movement". Whether or not the aims
>> and
>> > activities of any organization are political is a question of fact which
>> has
>> > to be decided on the merits of each case. It is, in the opinion of
>> > Government, necessary, however, that the Government servants under the
>> > Ministry of Finance etc. should be warned that –
>> >
>> > (a) it is the duty of the Government servant who wishes to join, or take
>> > part in the activities of any association or organization positively to
>> > satisfy himself that its aim and activities are not of such a nature as
>> are
>> > likely to be objectionable under Rule 23 of the Government Servants'
>> Conduct
>> > Rules (now rule 5); and
>> >
>> > (b) the responsibility for the consequences of his decision and action
>> must
>> > rest squarely on his shoulders and that a plea of ignorance or
>> misconception
>> > as to Government's attitude towards the association or organization >
>> would
>> > not be tenable.
>> >
>> > It should also be impressed on them that, in cases where the slightest
>> doubt
>> > exists as to whether participation in the activities of an association >
>> or
>> > orgaisation involves as infringement of Rule 23 (now Rule 5), the
>> Government
>> > servant would be well advised to consult his official superiors.
>> >
>> > [MHA OM No. 25/44/49-Ests (A), dated 17.09.1949]
>> >
>> > "Government of India Decisions
>> >
>> > (1) Participation of Government servants in political activities
>> >
>> > Doubts have been raised recently as to the scope of Rule 23 (i) of the
>> > Government Servants Conduct Rules (now Rule 5) which lays down that no
>> > Government servant shall take part in, subscribe in aid of, or assist in
>> any
>> > way, any political movement in India or relating to Indian affairs.
>> > According to the Explanation (not in the new rule) to that clause, the
>> > expression "political movement" includes any movement or activities
>> tending
>> > directly or indirectly to excite disaffection against, or to embarrass,
>> the
>> > Government as by law established or to promote feelings of hatred of
>> enemity
>> > between classes of His Majesty's subjects or disturb the public peace.
>> This
>> > explanation is only illustrative and is not intended in any sense, to be
>> an
>> > exhaustive definition of "political movement". Whether or not the aims
>> and
>> > activities of any organization are political is a question of fact which
>> has
>> > to be decided on the merits of each case. It is, in the opinion of
>> > Government, necessary, however, that the Government servants under the
>> > Ministry of Finance etc. should be warned that –
>> >
>> > (a) it is the duty of the Government servant who wishes to join, or take
>> > part in the activities of any association or organization positively to
>> > satisfy himself that its aim and activities are not of such a nature as
>> are
>> > likely to be objectionable under Rule 23 of the Government Servants'
>> Conduct
>> > Rules (now rule 5); and
>> >
>> > (b) the responsibility for the consequences of his decision and action
>> must
>> > rest squarely on his shoulders and that a plea of ignorance or
>> misconception
>> > as to Government's attitude towards the association or organization >
>> would
>> > not be tenable.
>> >
>> > It should also be impressed on them that, in cases where the slightest
>> doubt
>> > exists as to whether participation in the activities of an association >
>> or
>> > orgaisation involves as infringement of Rule 23 (now Rule 5), the
>> Government
>> > servant would be well advised to consult his official superiors.
>> >
>> > [MHA OM No. 25/44/49-Ests (A), dated 17.09.1949]"
>> >
>>
>> ............................................................................................................................................................
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:34 AM, sroy1947 <sroy1947@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Many Thanks
>> > >
>> > > Gov servants are restricted from OPENLY associating with groups such >
>> > as
>> > > "RTI_India" , "RTI4ngo" (of which Mr Krishna is Moderator) etc which
>> are
>> > > listed in "Politics" category of Yahoo groups. As Moderators it is our
>> duty
>> > > to facilitate participation of ALL citizens in RTI processes - and
>> anonymous
>> > > participation is one of the methods open to us.
>> > >
>> > > Sarbajit
>> > > "

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Harsh <manderharsh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kindly immediately remove my name from this group as well. I find many of
> the exchanges on it distasteful and disrespectful.
>
> I have repeatedly asked for my name to be removed, but it does not happen.
> Please ensure.
>
> Regards
>
> Harsh Mander
>
>
>
> From: humjanenge@googlegroups.com [mailto:humjanenge@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Raminder Singh
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 10:27 PM
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [rti_india] My Article on Ms Arundhati Roy in
> today's Pioneer
>
>
>
> Hello Mr Bhushan
>
> Sorry to have to say this, but what is utterly absurd and ridiculous is when
> people like you who are expected to be speaking out for Arundhati Roy keep
> silent in public groups.
>
> An IPS officer Mr Amitabh Thakur has published an article in the Daily
> Pioneer calling for charges of sedition to be framed against her. As an IPS
> officer Mr Thakur can be presumed to know something about the law - Indian
> Penal Code. Mr Thakur's article is the subject of this thread. Another IPS
> officer (Mr Sharma) has publicly supported your client's statement about the
> integrity of J+K to India. When persons like you keep silent, then you have
> no moral right to demand that this group be wound up. Incidentally how did
> you join this group?
>
> Raminder
>
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Prashant Bhushan <prashantbhush@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> This is an utterly absurd and ridiculous group judging from this exchange of
> emails. It should be wound up immediately. At least immediately remove me
> from this group.
>
> Prashant Bhushan
>
>