To:
The Government of India, by
Shri R.K.Girdhar
Under-Secretary/RTI
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block
New Delhi 110011
1) CONFIDENTIAL,
2) SECRET,
3) My Intellectual property,
4) Not to be disclosed to any unauthorised person,
5) Not to be disclosed to any private person whatsoever,
6) Not to be disclosed to Prime Minister or his office,
7) Not to be disclosed to National Advisory Council,
8) Not to be disclosed under Right to Information except to myself,
BY EMAIL:
Date: 26-December-2010
Your Ref: OM dated 10.12.2010 in File No.1/35/2008-IR (draft RTI Rules)
Our Ref: PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-022
Subject Objections and/or Suggestions to the amendments proposed
Sir,
I refer to the above citations and your subject OM. I am caused to submit the following objection(s) and/or suggestion(s) to the same.
This is separate, distinct and without prejudice to other objections I may submit from time to time within the period allowed..
http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf
I OBJECT to certain aspects of the proposed Rules concerning the procedure followed by the Commission while deciding the appeals, for REASONS as listed:
1) For, whereas s/s 27(2) accords priority to prescribing the procedure to be folowed by the Commission, these rules merely list some methods by which the Commission may receive evidence and hear various persons.
2) For no specific "memorandum of appeal" (as distinguished from 'format for appeal") has been prescribed
3) For no memorandum for blind or illiterate persons has been prescribed
4) For no fee for appeal to Commission has been prescribed as is required by the provisions of the Court Fees Act (2nd Schedule)
5) For no declaration has been prescribed that the appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission in the memorandum of appeal.
6) For no rendition has been prescribed to specify (i) the facts at issue or (ii) the questions of law in the memorandum of appeal.
7) For no declaration has been prescribed concerning whether the matter is pending before any court of law or competent tribunal etc. in the memorandum of appeal.
8) For no explanation of grounds along with the legal provisions applicable has been prescribed in the memorandum of appeal.
9) For no reliefs sought has been prescribed in the memorandum of appeal.
10) For advocates, and other legal practitioners must not be allowed in proceedings before the Commission in any capacity whatsoever until the Commission has provisions for legal member(s) in every bench. It may be noted that the qualifications and experience of the Information Commissioners allow for even person without legal background or qualification to be appointed. It would therefore be grossly unfair and discriminatory to the Commissioners if advocates or other legal practitioners are allowed to appear and/or directly address the Commission.
11) For right of hearing to the appellant is mandated by section 19(5) of the Act which mandates the Public Information Officer to prove the denial of information. This clause necessarily requires the appellant to be present to disprove any evidence tendered including by cross examination. I also say that video-conferencing and audio-conferencing be specifically disallowed, as these do not facilitate the evidentiary process when proving of documents is involved..
12) For no period has been prescribed within which the 2nd Appeal to the Commission must be disposed of.
I therefore SUGGEST that the operative portions of the proposed Rules be amended / deleted so as to incorporate all my concerns as stated above
The Government of India, by
Shri R.K.Girdhar
Under-Secretary/RTI
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block
New Delhi 110011
1) CONFIDENTIAL,
2) SECRET,
3) My Intellectual property,
4) Not to be disclosed to any unauthorised person,
5) Not to be disclosed to any private person whatsoever,
6) Not to be disclosed to Prime Minister or his office,
7) Not to be disclosed to National Advisory Council,
8) Not to be disclosed under Right to Information except to myself,
BY EMAIL:
Date: 26-December-2010
Your Ref: OM dated 10.12.2010 in File No.1/35/2008-IR (draft RTI Rules)
Our Ref: PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-022
Subject Objections and/or Suggestions to the amendments proposed
Sir,
I refer to the above citations and your subject OM. I am caused to submit the following objection(s) and/or suggestion(s) to the same.
This is separate, distinct and without prejudice to other objections I may submit from time to time within the period allowed..
http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf
I OBJECT to certain aspects of the proposed Rules concerning the procedure followed by the Commission while deciding the appeals, for REASONS as listed:
1) For, whereas s/s 27(2) accords priority to prescribing the procedure to be folowed by the Commission, these rules merely list some methods by which the Commission may receive evidence and hear various persons.
2) For no specific "memorandum of appeal" (as distinguished from 'format for appeal") has been prescribed
3) For no memorandum for blind or illiterate persons has been prescribed
4) For no fee for appeal to Commission has been prescribed as is required by the provisions of the Court Fees Act (2nd Schedule)
5) For no declaration has been prescribed that the appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission in the memorandum of appeal.
6) For no rendition has been prescribed to specify (i) the facts at issue or (ii) the questions of law in the memorandum of appeal.
7) For no declaration has been prescribed concerning whether the matter is pending before any court of law or competent tribunal etc. in the memorandum of appeal.
8) For no explanation of grounds along with the legal provisions applicable has been prescribed in the memorandum of appeal.
9) For no reliefs sought has been prescribed in the memorandum of appeal.
10) For advocates, and other legal practitioners must not be allowed in proceedings before the Commission in any capacity whatsoever until the Commission has provisions for legal member(s) in every bench. It may be noted that the qualifications and experience of the Information Commissioners allow for even person without legal background or qualification to be appointed. It would therefore be grossly unfair and discriminatory to the Commissioners if advocates or other legal practitioners are allowed to appear and/or directly address the Commission.
11) For right of hearing to the appellant is mandated by section 19(5) of the Act which mandates the Public Information Officer to prove the denial of information. This clause necessarily requires the appellant to be present to disprove any evidence tendered including by cross examination. I also say that video-conferencing and audio-conferencing be specifically disallowed, as these do not facilitate the evidentiary process when proving of documents is involved..
12) For no period has been prescribed within which the 2nd Appeal to the Commission must be disposed of.
I therefore SUGGEST that the operative portions of the proposed Rules be amended / deleted so as to incorporate all my concerns as stated above
Submitted in my individual capacity by
Er. Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
email ID: "sroy.mb@gmail.com"
Chief Patron: "HumJanenge RTI group" mailing list of over 2,500 RTI stakeholders
Website: http://humjanenge.org.in
Mailing List : http://groups.google.com/group/humjanenge/
News Network : http://humjanenge.org.in/news/
CC: to: (for suitable action and direction)
presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
mos-pp@nic.in
secy_mop@nic.in
sarkardk@nic.in
jsata@nic.in
dirrti-dopt@nic.in
diradmn@nic.in
osdrti-dopt@nic.in
usrti-dopt@nic.in
sroy1947@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.