[HumJanenge] Re: COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-003

Dear Dwarkanath

As our mutual friend Mr Sant Mathur would say, the discussion is long
on rhetoric and short on substance. In other words what we describe as
"NGOspeak".

1) I have laid out legal reasons why an OM cannot be used to solicit
objections/suggestions from the PUBLIC on draft RTI rules.

2) I have laid out legal argument that there is no requirement in law
for the Govt to publish THESE rules in draft or to invite / consider
objections received from PUBLIC.

3) I am strongly in favour of a statutory PUBLIC NOTICE process to
invite objections / suggestions from citizens, and that the objections
received be considered within a statutory framework.

Kindly note the capitalised words above, and cite me any SPECIFIC
section of law or SC judgment which cuts my argument.

Just FYI, I have appeared before many HC judges on similar objns/
suggsn filed under various Acts, and invariably I am asked to show
where seeking objections, consideration of objections is mandatory.
NGOspeak does not cut any ice with judges unless the case has been
rigged..

Sarbajit

On Dec 20, 6:18 pm, Dwarakanath <dwarakanat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mr Sarabjit Royji & friends, Rti act is a special law born out of the SC
> decision on the Bennet Coleman case. When a Law is enacted, notice is
> compulsory to find out how it is affecting the rights of the individual,
> with an intention to see that the fundamental as well statutory rights are
> not contravened. The right to information act was born as a finding that
> the fundamental rights of the citizens were not protected properly as a
> result of which the citizens were in a most inconvnient situation and
> suffered. The right to education is also an enforceable right. If these
> rules were to be notified and published and some persons object that they
> cannot send their children to School for want of help in the field or at
> home or work place or for want of economic support, will the government
> exempt such people from the purview of right to education. It would be a
> loss of face, if such objections were filed, because it was not only the
> duty of the Government but also the principles laid down in Part IV of the
> constitution. Similarly, if any body objects against a rule or notification
> of rti, what would be their objection. The objects of the rti act is to
> entitle the citizens to obtain all the information which their government is
> from time to time working on or planning to work on. It is not ab
> objection to say that such and such political party had promised as a
> election manifesto such and such things and whether the said party has
> implemented those promises, what is the stage, when are they going to be
> fulfilled, who are all going to be benefited by the implementation of the
> political manifesto!. As far as rti is concerned, there are only two
> parties, one side the citizens either collectively or independently and on
> the other side only the GOVERNMENT and its arms, or agencies or wings or
> whatever u call. Since the Government is calling for
> suggestions/objections, no citizen can file an objection saying that they do
> not want the rti act or that this law contravenes their fundamental or
> statutory rights in any form . Assuming even that a few individuals
> personal data are requsted under the rti Act, it does not remain as a
> personal data of such person, because it has been submitted or obtained as a
> result of a legal requirement and remains in a Public Domain. Denial of
> information available in the govenment is neither the policy of the
> government nor the object of the rti act. Therefore the only possibility or
> affected people would be the Government itself & its arms which cannot file
> any objection or suggestion on its working. Regards.
> dwarakanathdm,nbca,bangalore
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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*: 20-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-0000-003
> > 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
>
> > 1) I *OBJECT* that comments have been solicited by on these draft RTI
> > Rules.
>
> > 2) I say that I have been informed by senior officers of your Department
> > that there is no legal requirement to either publicise or seek / consider
> > comments / objections / suggestions on Rules under RTI ACT proposed to be
> > notified.
>
> > 3) That I have further come to know that this exercise has been done to
> > satisfy an assurance given by Prime Minister to Chairperson UPA that the
> > massively foreign financed private persons nominated to the
> > extra-Constitutional body described by me as *National Advisory Council *be
> > enabled to tamper with these Rules as lobbyists for Foreign Intelligence
> > networks.
>
> > 4) That I am further given to understand that when the various RTI Rules
> > were notified in 2005 during Mr Tiwari's Secretaryship at MoP, it was
> > legally clarified that there was no requirement to publicise rules in draft
> > or seek views of affected persons. It is noteworthy that the RTI Rules are
> > not required to be published previous to their coming into force, and
> > thereby attracting the mischief of the General Clauses Act in this behalf.
>
> > 5) I therefore *SUGGEST* and *REQUIRE* that the publication, soliciting,
> > and consideration of comments *FROM THE PUBLIC* on these draft Rules be
> > halted immediately. Failing which I shall be constrained to take steps under
> > the Official Secrets Act against the officer involved
>
> > Submitted in my individual capacity by
>
> > Er. Sarbajit Roy
> > B-59 Defence Colony
> > New Delhi 110024
> > Tel : 09311448069
> > email ID: "sroy...@gmail.com<http://h/mv7gcp5g79li/?v=b&cs=wh&to=sroy...@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)
> > presidentofin...@rb.nic.in<http://h/mv7gcp5g79li/?v=b&cs=wh&to=presidentofin...@rb.nic.in>
> > mos...@nic.in <http://h/mv7gcp5g79li/?v=b&cs=wh&to=mos...@nic.in>
> > secy_...@nic.in <http://h/mv7gcp5g79li/?v=b&cs=wh&to=secy_...@nic.in>
> > sarka...@nic.in <http://h/mv7gcp5g79li/?v=b&cs=wh&to=sarka...@nic.in>
> > js...@nic.in <http://h/mv7gcp5g79li/?v=b&cs=wh&to=js...@nic.in>
> > dirrti-d...@nic.in<http://h/mv7gcp5g79li/?v=b&cs=wh&to=dirrti-d...@nic.in>
> > dira...@nic.in <http://h/mv7gcp5g79li/?v=b&cs=wh&to=dira...@nic.in>
> > osdrti-d...@nic.in<http://h/mv7gcp5g79li/?v=b&cs=wh&to=osdrti-d...@nic.in>
> > usrti-d...@nic.in <http://h/mv7gcp5g79li/?v=b&cs=wh&to=usrti-d...@nic.in>
> > sroy1...@gmail.com<http://h/mv7gcp5g79li/?v=b&cs=wh&to=sroy1...@gmail.com>