Re: [rti4empowerment] RTI queries on only 1 subject at a time: CIC, dated 9th Jan. 2011.

Welcome back Sarabjit Roy after so many days of chill. We have to fight the govt. plans to dilute the RTI Act in the name of Management's regulation.  Please go through the report of NAC meeting in Today's ET (Page 2). Will put up a copy of the same later in the day. --- On Mon, 10/1/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] RTI queries on only 1 subject at a time: CIC, dated 9th Jan. 2011. To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 10 January, 2011, 10:19 PM Dear Bhaskar Let me take up the issue of why 150/250 words. The RTI Act provides that information which cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to citizens. (see proviso to 8.1.j). MPs are only allowed 150 words to ask their questions (see Parliament Rules). Obviously if a MP must limit himself to 150 words citizens cannot be allowed to ask in 151 words ? This aspect is clearly reflected in the objections I filed to DoPT on the draft Rules. My responses were all in public domain well prior to the last date. Can you tell me dear Bhaskar how many other persons placed 150/250 word limit in its correct context like I did. Which is why I SUPPORTED the concept of 250 word limit and suggested it be REDUCED to 150 words. I believe that placing limits will force citizens to focus on exactly what they are seeking, this in turn will help them get information. So this is a people friendly move and must be welcomed. I fail to see the connection between RTI and people getting land in their names. Sarbajit In the service of RTI for citizens only. On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Sarbajit,   We generally talk about misuse and less of use, every act of this nation or any where some of them misuse. But I believe we should not succumb to pressures of reducing power given to us by the act. We all need to thwart efforts by bureaucracy, some ICs, activists who are not rural based etc who have recommended that RTI should have limitation of words and should be for one subject. It is illogical to think that RTI application can be done within 250 words and should have one subject. There may be interpretations of law which learned luminous people do, who have attempted not be in the system of shared power with the people. Legal professional are taking advantage of lack of knowledge of the people and our system does not prefer to give knowledge, so these things will go on but some day it will definitely will change, as democracy is not forcible change but sustained force force for change.   Sarbajit, you saying may correct about legal basis being in the act for limitations but I feel you need to track your mind to oppose this legal basis, if any, for restrictions to applicants, in larger public interest of population who are still striving to get land in to there names.   Any how we have organised a 4 days Mass Awareness Campaign on RTI  to know RTI better, if moderators permit will put on board.   Yours in RTI service, Bhaskar Prabhu Mumabai   On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Bhaskar As I had explained previously, there is a legal basis in the RTI Act for BOTH these matters - ie. 1 subject and 150/250 words. The fact that this basis is tenuous and subject to interpretation is immaterial. What is important is that there has arisen a class of professional blackmailers and touts who are using RTI in a huge way. These are the class of people who are getting information using the act because of a strong corrupt nexus between thjem and the babus/PIOs. Ordinary citizens are denied information, but this professional class calling themselves activists is given all the information and that too free of cost. Advocates have also entered this profession and routinely file RTI requests on behalf of their clients. An ordinary citizen may not be able to draft an RTI in 150 words UNLESS he goes through professional RTI documentation centres like somebody has been advertising on this message thread. Sarbajit On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Vikram,   I am sorry say that Karnataka activists kept very quite when this was amended, the problem is activists keep quite when they are entertained or given priority or are shown that they are given importance and activists forget the long term effect of the "white ant" in this case it was one subject and 150 words, which karnataka has shown the way for others to follow. And any how one of karnataka bureaucrat transferred is in delhi and it will be joyfull success stories that he might be telling to Delhiate bureaucrats how Karnataka Crippled this act by limiting to words.   I do agree doing agitations sometimes don't solve the problem, but there was no sustaionable protests regarding the same in Karnataka pertaining to words limit.   The govt did not even ask the public opinion.   Yours in RTI service Bhaskar Prabhu On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in> wrote: Dear Guptha ji , Both Mr Venkatesh Nayak and sukumar have Certainly Expressed what is Required , In Our State having Already been Imposed this Rule (ofcourse in an Little different form) , The Entire Bureacracy in Upto the Neck to Use this Worst ammendement . There are Cases and Files With me where the answer is the Reply will be more than 150 words hence ammended rule Does not permit . Therefore the Bad , Bad , worst Experience of Karnataka has to Be streched to ensure the ammendements are Not Made . The Reporter of TOI , chennai must Carry on this including Filing Appeals and If possible Other cases in Other forums as derliction of Duty , wrong interpretation etc., N vikramsimha ,Trustee RTI Study center & KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004. --- On Sun, 9/1/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> Subject: [rti4empowerment] RTI queries on only 1 subject at a time: CIC, dated 9th Jan. 2011. To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com Date: Sunday, 9 January, 2011, 3:55 PM FROM TOI, CHENNAI, DATED 9.1.2011. FROM TIMES OF INDIA, CHENNAI, BY JEEVA, REPORTERRTI queries on only 1 subject at a time: CIC,    CHENNAI: Even as the Centre is considering amendments to the Right To Information rules, seeking to restrict RTI applications to one subject at a time and to 250 words, the Central Information Commission (CIC) in New Delhi seems to have gone a step ahead by implementing the draft proposals. To an RTI application filed by this reporter on December 6, 2010, which raised 20 queries seeking details pertaining to follow-up of fines imposed against public authorities, court stay obtained by public information officers against commission's order, disposal of cases and pending final appeals, the CIC chose to reply to only to ten questions. The remaining ten questions, the commission said, were related to a different subject matter' and hence the applicant has to file another RTI application to get the information. "Your queries number 1 to 10 would qualify as one request' for which you have paid the application fee of Rs 10. You may therefore, send separate request and pay fee for your queries number one 11 to 20,'' the reply from the CIC, dated December 30, 2010, said. This reporter had sought to know the average number of appeals received daily and, number of cases in which fines were imposed, number of errant public information officers paid the fine and those who have not paid it, number of cases in which errant public authorities obtained court stay against commission's orders and whether the CIC is included as respondent in such cases. During early last month, department of personnel and training (DoPT), functioning under the Union ministry of personnel and public grievances, released the draft amendments and announced that public can send their views on or before December 27, 2010. While the DoPT has not yet announced the decision on the draft amendments, the CIC's reply, arbitrarily enforcing the draft rules, has agitated RTI activists and groups. "When rules are not yet amended and the amendment is only in the draft stage, the CIC should clarify that under which provisions of law and under what authority it has imposed the one-subject' restriction. In fact, this reply is a standing testimony as to why we oppose the draft amendments tooth and nail," said Venkatesh Nayak, a coordinator of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, a New Delhi-based NGO. A Sukumar, an RTI activist in Chennai, said, "We cannot accept this sort of reply from the CIC, which is supposed to safeguard the Act from being diluted by the bureaucracy. It would only mislead public authorities to discourage RTI applicants instead of encouraging them. This reply only shows that the DoPT should not give effect to the draft amendments.'' jeeva.pugazvendan@timesgroup.com