Sarbajit, I would second you in this regard, as with the implementation of these proposed clauses, certain other provisions viz. Section 8(1)(c) to 8(1)(j) would be rendered useless and ipso facto deleted.
This should give our friendly neighborhood haramis a ground to cheer. Ooops did I let the cat out of the bag?
Manoj
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
These are NOT "management matters" but VITAL legal clauses which affect ORDINARY citizens.
There is NOTHING WRONG with adding a mandatory clause requiring the applicant to declare WHY he is seeking the information. As a public spirited RTI user, I would have no hesitation in declaring why I am seeking information. It would surely assist the PIO to provide me more complete information. Who are the people opposing this ??
a) Blackmailers and RTI misusers
b) Proxies and RTI touts (whose number is legion and growing - Like the latest addition to the tribe - Krishnaraj Rao)
c) Journalists
d) RTI "activists".
e) Public servants (past and present) misusing RTI for service matters.
Ordinary citizens have nothing to hide / lose by declaring why they need specific information. To take a specific instance, when I filed an RTI declaring in advance that I needed certain documents to enable me file a contempt petition against an Additional Commissioner of Police, the PIO quickly (72 hours) sent me all the papers (free of cost) laying the blame at a Secretary of a GoNCTD department.
The 250 word limit is all to the good.
The 1 subject "rule" is already contained in the RTI Act
Sarbajit
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.