RE: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act

 

Dear Sri Sarbajit,

 

Thanks. Rules of the Bombay High Court seem to concern Petitions filed in the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. High Court’s power to frame Rules for its own business are contained in Article 225 of the Constitution. That has nothing to do with RTI Act.

 

It is correct that I retired long ago (1988) and there may be laws or their interpretation of which I may not be aware. That is why I wished to have latest information from you.  

 

Thanking you again and with regards,

                         KN

 

 

 

 

 

From the Desk of :

Justice Kamleshwar Nath

Retd.	:	Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ), Vice Chairman – C.A.T ( Allahabad ), Judge – High Court ( Lucknow & Allahabad )
Address	:	`Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, Lucknow : 226 020. Uttar Pradesh, India
Phone(s)	:	+91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459. Mobile : +91-9415010746

 

---

From: humjanenge@googlegroups.com [mailto:humjanenge@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:47 AM
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act

 

Sir

I was commenting on behalf of public spirited citizens who use RTI for the greater good.

Probably the Constitution of India has changed or its interpretation/caselaw by the High Courts since your tenure.
I commend to your notice recent High Court Rules regulating petitions for citizens to enforce their Fundamental Rights through the Courts such as those for Bombay High Court framed in 2010

extracts

"5. In the petition to be filed under Clause (e) of Rule 4, the petitioner shall disclose :-

(a) petitioner's name, complete postal and E-mail address, phone number, proof regarding personal identification, occupation and annual income, PAN number and National Unique Identity Card, if any and registration under the Act."
:
(d) the nature and extent of the personal interest, if any, of the petitioner(s).
(e) details regarding any civil, criminal or revenue litigation, involving the petitioner or any of the petitioners,
:
7(a) annexe to the petition an affidavit stating that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique reason in filing...

(b) file an affidavit undertaking to pay costs as ordered by the Court, if it is ultimately held that the petition is frivolous or has been filed for extraneous considerations or that it lacks bona fides.?

Most High Courts have similar rules nowadays

warmly
Sarbajit Roy

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sri Sarbajit Roy,

 

Your mail mentions that ‘there are specific Constitutional provisions requiring reasons for seeking info to be mandated and which over-ride 6(2) of the RTI Act’. I shall be grateful if you could communicate those Constitutional provisions to me. On the contrary my understanding is that right to information is a Fundamental Right for which no reason need be given and which cannot be abrogated by enactment.

 

Regards,

   KN