Re: Reply II: [rti4empowerment] Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts

Thank you,Dr Sharma

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Dr. Jagnarain Sharma" <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 8:06 AM
To: <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>
Cc: <usukulsingh@hotmail.com>; <virender.johar@gmail.com>;
<wilevades@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Reply II: [rti4empowerment] Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle
Syndrome" in the High Courts

> Dear All
> I endorse what Urvi has stated in the message.
> We have to be careful in our behaviour and dealings with
> other members of the group
> Dr JN Sharma
> ADVOCATE/ HUMANRIGHTS ACTIVIST
>
> On 12/3/10, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Despite, all of us claiming ourselves as self proclaimed, self styled RTI
>> Activists, be it High-end, Mid-end, Low-end or Hard Core, Medium Core or
>> Soft
>> Core activism, we, neither together by solidarity, nor by individual
>> excellence,
>> have been able to ensure that every public authority fulfills their
>> obligation
>> under section 4 of RTI act 2005, which should have been with 120 days
>> after
>> enactment of that Act, even after about 5 & 1/2 years after enctment of
>> that
>> Act.
>>
>> We have, just as in any movement it occurs, derelicted in our duty that
>> we
>> enjoined ourselves, by an act of volition & not by compulsion to
>> reaffirm
>> our(every citizen's in any democracy) right to information that is by
>> axiom
>> is
>> inherent , human & fundamental right of every citizen in any democracy,
>> reaffirmed by the Apex Court of India in Raj Narain vs State of U.P> &
>> Peoples
>> Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India & the Unbiversal declaration
>> of
>> Human Rights by the UN.
>>
>> Instead we stray & quarrel over issues that should well be ignored just
>> as a
>> blinkered horse does, in its stride.
>>
>> Unless we ensure that every public authority discloses chirefly the
>> following,
>> RTI will remain elusive as it is today.
>>
>> A. As per section 4(ii) of RTI Act 2005, please inform the powers,
>> duties
>> &
>> responsibilities of the persons working as functionaries of Public
>> Authority.
>>
>>
>> B. As per section 4(iii) of RTI Act 2005, please inform the procedure
>> to
>> be
>> followed by the persons working as functionaries of Public Authority in
>> decision
>> making process, channels of supervision for them in discharge of their
>> duties &
>> decisions by them in that process, their accountability for acts &
>> omissions
>> by
>> them in discharge of their duty as functionaries of Public Authorities.
>>
>> C. In the information about their accountability for acts & omissions
>> by
>> them
>> in discharge of their duties as functionaries of Public Authority, should
>> contain the following information too which is concomitant of the term
>> accountability :
>>
>> 1. The hierarchical functionary/ies who is/are empowered to initiate
>> disciplinary action as per the departmental disciplinary procedure, in
>> case
>> of
>> these functionaries are accused of,
>>
>> a. Violating the Fundamental & Human Rights of Citizens of India e.g.
>> showing disrespect to, use of abusive language, signs of disrespect,
>> discourteous behavior, use of physical force, derision, mockery,
>> innuendos
>> behaving in an accentuated manner e.g. show of anger, contempt, speaking
>> in
>> an
>> inflected voice, demeaning, snide remarks etc.
>>
>>
>> b. Acting ultra vires (beyond allowed empowerment limits) in
>> discharge
>> of
>> their functions & exercise of powers vested with them.
>>
>> c. For selective application of rule, exception in application of
>> rules,
>> disparate application of rules, abuse of authority to favour one to the
>> detriment of another, transgression of authority, trespassing the powers
>> vested
>> with a hierarchical functionary, failure to implement laws rules,
>> favouritism,
>> nepotism in application of laws etc.,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> WEDS
>>
>> Mr Roy,
>> If you are considered a high-end RTI activist,then I will gladly bid
>> goodbye to
>> the RTI groups.BTW,before you pass judgement,I would suggest you ask the
>> people
>> who are on the Group (and VERY REAL people,believe me,L because I have
>> met
>> or
>> spoken telephonically to many of them) as to whether I contribute
>> positively
>> or
>> not.
>> Hardcore doesn't imply licence to kill(with rude words) it implies a deep
>> commitment ,and I think we will have to put to the vote whether your
>> commitment
>> is deeper than that of the the next man/woman.
>> I have witnessed your personal attacks on this Group on people,with
>> specific
>> reference to Mr Rejimon.For a long period in the middle ,I did not come
>> across
>> your posts.You have,however,returned,and you are spewing venom most of
>> the
>> time,
>> I request the moderators of the Groups on which Mr Roy is a member,to
>> take
>> me
>> off those Groups if I also figure in those lists.All except
>> rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com The rest of you,please carry on with your
>> Group
>> of high-enders!
>> Best of luck.
>> Urvi Sukul Singh
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "sroy1947" <sroy1947@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 2:59 PM
>> To: "HumJanenge RTI India Right to Information Act 2005"
>> <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts
>>
>>> Dear Ms Singh
>>>
>>> This is a group for hard=core RTI activists. Quite obviously ladies
>>> with weak constitutions are not up to digesting alot of what is posted
>>> to this group and most of which is quite frankly nausea inducing
>>> concerning the rampant corruption in the Info Commissions and the
>>> judiciary..
>>>
>>> I concur that a group like rti4empowerment@yahoogroups is the only
>>> group which will suit your delicate temperament. The moderator there
>>> is really scraping the bottom of the barrel if he permits posts from
>>> you and RSingh631 etc to his members (somebody else has already shown
>>> that half the member list over there is fake).
>>>
>>> PS: If you read the first post in this thread, you will find that it
>>> was not I who raised this issue/attack but the Law Commission of
>>> India.
>>>
>>> Sarbajit
>>>
>>> Urvi Sukul Singh wrote:
>>>> Mr Roy,
>>>> You suggest action against people making suggestions yet your language
>>>> and
>>>> the tenor of you mails is absolutely unbearable at times.Time someone
>>>> took
>>>> action against you.Most of what one has read over the last few weeks is
>>>> a
>>>> load of rubbish,with you a regular participant.
>>>> I have requested being taken off all groups other than
>>>> rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.Kindly comply.Otherwise,till I get the
>>>> mails,if
>>>> I feel the need I will reply.
>>>> Urvi Sukul Singh
>>>> PS I find this attack on the judiciary very unseemly.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Urvi Sukul Singh <usukulsingh@hotmail.com>
>> To: HumJanenge RTI India Right to Information Act 2005
>> <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>; humjanenge@googlegroups.com;
>> humjanenge@yahoogroups.co.in; rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com; rti4emp
>> yahoo
>> <rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thu, 2 December, 2010 15:24:00
>> Subject: [rti4empowerment] Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in
>> the
>> High Courts
>>
>>
>>
>>
>