Saturday, November 13, 2010

[HumJanenge] Re: IMPORTANT SPECIAL NOTICE

Dear fellow RTI stakeholder

With the blessings of so many members [HumJanenge] is all set to be India's premier RTI group, staunchly defending the citizens right to speak freely and obtain information under Right to Information. As we have reached a sizable membership of genuine RTI activists within a very short period, and in the face of considerable provocation from the "vested interests of RTI", it is now proposed to better regulate our group  Please read (and reread) the following carefully, as these regulations shall be enforced very strictly and without discrimination

The HumJanenge group is a proud example of Public Private Partnership. India's most eminent RTI activists and e-group moderators have proposed the list of about 2,500 citizens and RTI user and activists for primary membership of this group. The Government of India will thereafter recommend an equal number of PIOs, First Appellate Authorities, Information Commissioners for membership here with the emphasis on public authorities.with a vast citizenship interface.

In this "marriage" it would be proper for all of us to be on our best behaviour.

1) MESSAGE POSTS

a) Message posts to be directly relevant to RTI or democracy, accountability, transparency, corruption in India . The focus is on RTI in general and not on specific instances of corruption affecting an individual member. The prime focus is on discussion of gray areas of the RTI Act 2005.
b) No abusive language to be used in message posts
c) No "Cross-Posting" (multiple copies of the same message from / to other egroups)
d) All posts in English language only (or with accurate translation)
e) No communal, sexist, racial, casteist etc message posts
f) Fostering  brotherly feeling among RTI activists all over India and organizing concerted action through message posts.
g) Posting of "news" reports on RTI by simply copy-pasting is banned. This is also a copyright violation issue which we (and googlegroups) take seriously. If a news report is important, post your views / concerns with the LINK to the article.
h) Posts to be kept short and focussed. Long scholarly arguments are strongly discouraged.
i) Posts in reply to be trimmed (by deleting the previous post so that only relevant portions which are at issue to be retained).
j) Self publicity or publicity for NGOs (and their programs) is strictly prohibited.
k) Address message posts to the group (and not to individual members)

2) FREQUENCY OF POSTING

a) This group shall strive to limit itself to 300 messages per month. The list owner is empowered to take all steps necessary to achieve this.
b) Of these 150 message are reserved to the list owner and about 10 "guru" members who shall be invited to assist the list owner. The list of "guru" members shall be widely publicised and updated from time to time
c) Other members are allowed to post upto 3 messages per day (24 hours approx) and 10 messages per month.
d) Members are requested to limit / control the frequency of their posts to this list and avoid personality based squabbles on this group.
e) Please try to combine reply posts, and avoid the temptation of replying to posts immediately.

PMK
Posted by at No comments:

RE: [HumJanenge] Indian Institutions need brand building

Pl unsubscribe me.

Harsh Mander

 

From: humjanenge@googlegroups.com [mailto:humjanenge@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of PMK1504
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:12 AM
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Indian Institutions need brand building

 

Dear PVCHR

You are hereby being expelled from this group. Your crimes against the people are as follows:-

a) That you did Cross-Post your message to other groups simultaneously.
b) That your message post is completely irrelevant to this group
c) That you have attempted to contact our members by publishing your contact details including telephone number.
d) That your message post is a thinly disguised puffery for yourself and your organisation,
e) That Lenin is dead (after murdering Trotsky).

PMK

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:03 AM, PVCHR <pvchr@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

As the Winter session of the Parliament began few days back, there is a visible anxiety among many individuals and human rights organizations including PVCHR, who are concerned about the final outcome of the Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010(PTB,2010)for two reasons; one, to what extent the select committee  absorbs the suggestions  and recommendations of the CSOs, and second, how far the legislative deficiencies highlighted  by the honorable members of the Rajya Sabha(Upper House) are considered  in the final draft. PVCHR continues to believe that irrespective of the final shape of PTB, 2010 is a victory for the survivors of torture. India’s highest policy making body has finally, acknowledged that torture exists in India and it should be addressed within a definite legal framework.

PVCHR, while taking up the causes of the victims and survivors will continue to fight against the attitude of the institutions, which are designed and mandated to stop and eliminate torture. It feels that these institutions have been constantly trying to hide torture by ignoring it with a small reference while talking about larger issues of violence.  This intentional and deliberate act by the institutions is to hide their inefficiency and inability to grow to address the increasing challenges generated in the system. India is shamed across the globe on issues of torture the same way it is praised for its democratic tradition and economic growth. The recent case of the Dannish gun runner who is accused of dropping arms in Purulia in 1995 is a case for serious introspection.  The lower court in Denmark, did not allow the extradition of the accused to India on the ground that state prisons in India do not live up to International Human Rights standards, and there was nobody monitoring prison conditions in the country. We are sure; anyone who lives in India will not disagree on that except perhaps the government of India that is trying to bring Niels Holck since 2002, for a prison value addition. What India need to do is to initiate systemic reforms, induced or enforced to create a brand value for its institutions.  Only reforms can create hope for the people inside and outside the country towards our institutions and reverse trust deficit.

As the nation’s freedom space is shrinking and becoming limited to towns and cities, the larger challenge of establishing rule of law across the country becomes larger. PVCHR, at this point of time, is just hoping that the substantial and concrete suggestions provided by various civil society organizations have been sincerely considered to make the present bill more effective to end torture in India.

 http://pvchr.blogspot.com/2010/11/indian-institutions-need-brand-building.html

 

--

Dr. Lenin
Executive Director-PVCHR/JMN
Mobile:+91-9935599333

 

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee or authorised to receive for the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail to pvchr.india@gmail.com and delete the message. Thank you.

 

 

Posted by at No comments:

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
>

Posted by at No comments:

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
>

Posted by at No comments:

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

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

Posted by at No comments:

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

Dear Sarabjit,
 
I request you to consider this:
 
Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one") is an universal legal principle/doctrine holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for 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.

 

By Art. 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. 12 of 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.

 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.

 

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..

 
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
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, 14 November, 2010 0:00:41
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] Re: KU: Ignorant of rules, PIO returns RTI Application - Early Times - 11 Nov. 2010

To: Manoj/WEDS (2 messages in 1)

1) The Delhi High Court (in Sanskrit Schools matter) has held that
establishment / constitution by appropriate govt is not an ingredient
for non-governmental organisations (and KU is an NGO) while examining
2(h) (defn of P/A).

2) KU is admittedly a NGO substatntially financed indirectly by
Central Govt through UGC.

3) It is unclear if the RTI applicant Raman Sharma is a resident of
J&K or not. Hence if the issue of which act the application was made
is in doubt the PIO can certainly pick and choose which Act he would
prefer to reply under.

4)  Nothing turns on "2006". It can be explained as a typographical error.

5) The Karnataka HC is as fully empowered as the Central Govt (DoPT)
is to specify that they will only accept fees by money order. <wink>.
There is no question of "overriding An Act passed by Parliament of
India!" in this. Furthermore the KSIC has upheld this practice thus
"Since the Petitioner has not paid the required fee in the format
prescribed by the Karnataka High Court, the application and the
complaint are not maintainable ". So you know where your remedy to
this lies <ha ha ha>

6) Any High Court can set aside a decision of the CIC / a SIC subject
to maintainability of the Writ Petition.

Sarbajit





On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I hate to differ with you, Sarbajit, the University of Jammu and Kashmir were birfurcated into two seperate Universities by the Act of the State Legislature in 1969. No doubt you are right that it receives substantial financial assistance from the UGC, but then it had be formed by an act of the State Government with control vested with the State.
>
> Maybe you are right about who can apply or could be denied the info under the Central or State Act as the case maybe, but the issue is here is the case of the PIO returning the RTI Application by quoting the wrong act. Before, we proceed further, let us ask if the information is important to the applicant seeking the information.
>
> Were I the applicant and if the info was important to me, I would file a fresh application and send the requisite fee in form of DD Under "RTI, Act, 2006" - repeat "RTI, Act, 2006" as stated by the PIO. I would keep trying till I get the desired information. Later, I would go in for a complain for each application earlier denied.
>
> As far as the issue of the citizenship / place of residence is concerned, let me inform, that even before the State Act came into force in 2009, I could manage to get information from not only the State and Central Public Authorities, but a few local Public Authorities of J&K as well. How I got them is another story.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Manoj Pai
>
>
> --- On Sat, 11/13/10, sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
>> Dear Mr Bhat
>>
>> Kashmir University is substantially financed by the
>> University Grants
>> Commission by Central funds.
>>
>> So does this mean that citizens of India not resident in
>> J&K cannot
>> DIRECTLY apply to Kashmir University under the RTI Act 2005
>> (Central)
>> to seek to know how these funds are being used, and since
>> they are not
>> allowed to use J&K RTI Act 2009 ?
>>
>> Sarbajit
>
>
>
>
>

Posted by at No comments:

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Urgent Notice: Impersonation of Humjanenge owners/moderators

I agree with the suggestion that one should limit the number of posts. Otherwise, I do not have the time to read any.
 
VKS
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Urgent Notice: Impersonation of Humjanenge owners/moderators

You have to restrict number of mails per day. That would permit proper and full justification for attention and study and follow up.

On 13 November 2010 07:33, PMK1504 <humjanenge.owner@gmail.com> wrote:
This group is not a news group but an RTI discussion and activism
group. The soon to be phased out HumJanenge Yahoogroup posts news.

The skewed censorship policy at [HumJanenge-YG] only permits select
persons to post news.

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:05 PM, menvoice <menvoicechandigarh@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have posted some news but not appearing on list?
>
> Regards
>
> On Oct 24, 12:59 am, "vishalkudchadkar" <v_k...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> The email below was brought to our notice. The email has NOT been sent by the owners/moderators of Humjanenge. There is NO plan by us to move to GoogleGroups. The group started by Masterji will remain as a Humjanenge yahoogroup. This is "PMK 1504 <humjanenge.ow...@gmail.com>" email address has been created by someone other than the owners/moderators of Humjanenge yahoogroup in probably an attempt to mislead the members of this group.
>>
>> Please be wary of such emails.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Moderators, HJ
>>
>> Quote



--
Narayan Varma
56B Mittal Tower,
210 Nariman Point
Mumbai 400 021
RTI PCGT helpline 09322882288           
 my cell   09821096052
Posted by at No comments:

Re: [HumJanenge] Prefer jail to apology, ex-minister tells court

Dear Dr. Sharma & other friends:

1.  Please guide as to what are the remedial options available to a citizen if he encounters a corrupt judge?  Can he file a contempt petition?  

2.  Please also guide as to what are the options available to a citizen where member judges have not been appointed for the past six odd months, and the court is non-functional because of lack of quorum.

3.  Could I also implead myself along with Mr. Bhushan?  If so, how should I go about it?

I have written proof of corruption of the then Presiding Member of the State Consumer Commission.  I complained to CJI (no reply), Mr. Moily who whose office forwarded letter to State for dealing with complaint, but no response from state.

Regards,
Victor


--- On Sat, 11/13/10, Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Prefer jail to apology, ex-minister tells court
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: ng.puthoor@gmail.com
Date: Saturday, November 13, 2010, 10:07 AM

Dearest Dr Sharma Sahebji,
                          Let me take to my own case of contempt . It was referred to D B of High Court. The advocate argued the matter before lower court for contempt on a fake document circulated internally in the organisation.!!! See the modus operand of Advocate.
                                       But when hearing of my case of contempt came up  ( In my Absence ) Before Judge it was dismissed. Becaus they all know my modus operandi fighting for the truth. But in all my cases Advocates followed wrong path of subimkteing untruth , Porivisions of law not granting stay, wrong arguments, far a way from reality of the cases and many thin more. It is always taught during the Procedure code to negate first of all  allegations . Whether  right and . wrong. Repsondent does not accept allegation  and like.        Allege the Plaintiff with all types of allegation , malafide intention , abuse of law.  and all.                But I belive that before writing theis negation one should see the case fully.
 
 U have written rightly .
Mr Bhushanji are very well known and before doing any thing one should think/ give thought twice , hundred times to do anything against nthem.
God save us.

 
From: Dr. Jagnarain Sharma <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: ng.puthoor@gmail.com
Sent: Sat, 13 November, 2010 3:16:37 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Prefer jail to apology, ex-minister tells court

Dear Leslie
You have rightly  offered your gratitude  to the steps taken by Mr
Prashant Bhushan and his father, who are fighting corruption in
Judiciary.
        Be sure, the Judges will think  not only twice but ten times
before sentencing the duo.
        I have made complaint against 3 Judges and contempt proceeding
suo motto has been moved by the Hon High court and another judge of
High Court has fined Rs 10000/-, on the feed back of his brother
colleague.
      Also  My hats off to them

        Jai HO
Dr JN Sharma
ADVOCATE/HUMANRIGHT ACTIVIST

On 11/10/10, leslie  almeida <leslie_almeida@rediffmail.com> wrote:
> If someone opens a can or worms, and sticks to his convictions, he prefers
> to go to jail rather than bow down to corruptions my hats off to him, a true
> Mahatma Gandhi in the making.
>
> Jai HO
>
> Leslie Almeida
>
>
> 11 Nov 2010 07:19:10 +0530  wrote
>>Prefer jail to
> apology, ex-minister tells court
>                                                                                                                       
>                                        
>                
>                          
>                SAMANWAYA RAUTRAY
>
>            
>
>                
>                                
>                                
>                                  
>                                                  
>                                                        
>                                                        
>                                                  
>                                                        
>                                                        
>                                                  
>                                                                                                 New Delhi, Nov.
>  10: Former law minister Shanti Bhushan today told the Supreme Court
>  he would rather "go to jail" for contempt of court than say sorry for
> his comment on corruption in the judiciary.
>                                                                                        
>                                                        
>                                                  
>                                                                                                 The statement came
>  at a hearing of a contempt case against his son, activist lawyer
> Prashant Bhushan, whose sweeping remarks about corruption among judges
> in a magazine interview had prompted the charge.
>                                                                                        
>                                                        
>                                                  
>                                                                                                 "A lot of people
> believe there is lot of corruption in the judiciary," Bhushan senior,
> who had impleaded himself in the petition, said. "I would prefer to go
> to jail than say sorry. I will keep repeating it. There is no question
> of any apology," he told the bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir.
>                                                                                        
>                                                        
>                                                  
>                                                                                                 Asked to clarify
> if he  was speaking for his son,  he said: "I am speaking for both."
>                                                                                        
>                                                        
>                                                  
>                                                                                                 In the interview,
> Prashant Bhushan had made adverse comments against Chief  Justice S.H.
> Kapadia, then next in line to be the CJI,  for ignoring potential
> conflict of interest and awarding  mining leases to a company  in which
> he held some  shares.
>                                                                                        
>                                                        
>                                                  
>                                                                                                 On November 6 last
>  year, the court issued contempt notices against the lawyer, who has
> been spearheading a campaign for making the judiciary more transparent
> and accountable.
>                                                                                        
>                                                        
>                                                  
>                                                                                                 The lawyer, who is
>  represented by Ram Jethmalani, chose to stay away from the proceedings.
>  The next hearing is on December 7.
>                                                                                        
>                                                        
>                                                  
>                                                                                                 Earlier, Rajeev
> Dhavan, lawyer for Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal whose magazine
> published the lawyer's remarks, angered the court saying there was "no
> doubt there is corruption in the judiciary".
>                                                                                        
>                                                        
>                                                  
>                                                                                                 "Don't make
> sweeping statements," Justice Kabir snapped.
>                                                                                        
>                                                        
>                                                  
>                                                                                                 "I will say it
> properly if I can," Dhavan retorted.
>                                                                                        
>                                                        
>                                                  
>                                                                                                 "Propriety demands
>  that you do," the judge said.
> --
> When someone shares something of value with you and you benefit
>
>
>        from it,  you  have  a moral  obligation  to  share  it  with
> others.
>
>          " Vande Matharam "
>
>      ng.puthoor@gmail.com
>        Gangadharan Nair N.
>
>
>
> When you realize you've made a mistake, please have the courage
>
>
>  to  admit  it  &  also  take  immediate  remedial  steps  to  correct  it.
>
>


Posted by at No comments:

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: India's Whistleblower Bill - A Comparison with International Best Practice Standards



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mani Shankar Aiyar <msaiyar@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:50 PM
Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] Re: India's Whistleblower Bill - A Comparison with International Best Practice Standards
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com


Dear Vinita,

Please get in touch outside the framework of this network.

Mani

 




Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:17:54 +0530
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: India's Whistleblower Bill - A Comparison with International Best Practice Standards
From: vinita.dsmkh@yahoo.com
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com


Dear Mr Nayak,

You wrote
"> > You will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
> > receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
> > refusal to receive email alerts."

In previous emails to this list you have criticised the practice of sending
unsolicited emails. Yet I find that your organsiation "Commonwealth Human
Rights Initiative" indulges in precisely the same practices.


On Nov 13, 7:31 am, sroy1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Venkatesh
>
> Many thanks for this,  but
>
> 1) The links are not working
> 2) The attachment is not attached.
>
> Rgds
> Sarbajit
>
> On Nov 13, 7:20 am, Venkatesh Nayak <humjanenge.ow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
>
> > In a couple of my earlier despatches I had sent out preliminary analyses of
> > the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the
> > Disclosures Bill, 2010 (Whistleblower Bill). The Government of India tabled
> > this Bill in Parliament in August 2010. The Department-related Standing
> > Committee of Parliament on Personnel, Law and Justice is currently examining
> > the Bill in detail.
>
> > I have attached a study of the Whistleblower Bill in the light of
> > international best practice standards. It is useful to compare the
> > Whistleblower Bill with the provisions of such laws in order to identify all
> > the improvements that can be made. This study compares the Indian
> > Whistleblower Bill with internationally recognised principles on
> > whistleblower protection and similar laws operational in Commonwealth and
> > non-Commonwealth countries.
>
> > Please feel free to circulate this study within your networks. Please send
> > me your comments as they will be very useful for revising the study.
>
> > In order to access the our previous email alerts on RTI and related issues
> > please click on:
>
> > <blocked::http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&
> > view=article&id=65&Itemid=84>http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie...
> > le&id=65&Itemid=84
>
> > You will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
> > receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
> > refusal to receive email alerts.
>
> > With best wishes,
> > Sincerely,
> > Venkatesh Nayak
> > Programme Coordinator
> > Access to Information Programme
> > Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
> > B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
> > New Delhi- 110 017
> > tel: 91-11- 43180215/43180200/ 26864678
> > fax: 91-11- 2686 4688
> > website:www.humanrightsinitiative.org
> > <http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/>
> > alternate email: <mailto:nayak.venkat...@gmail.com<nayak.venkatesh%40gmail.com>
>
> > nayak.venkat...@gmail.com <nayak.venkatesh%40gmail.com>

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)