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

Dear Guptaji,

1) As per DoPT (!!) section 6(3) mandates 1 subject per RTI request.

2)  If an applicant provides reasons / background of why he is applying for info, this does not give the PIO any right to dismiss the request. In any case there are specific Constitutional provisions requiring reasons for seeking info to be mandated and which over-ride 6(2) of the RTI Act. FYI,, 6(2) is actually unconstitutional and it is better that the Act be amended otherwise it would be struck down by some court.

3) So you admit that the RTI "activists" got info out of Govt on 2G, Adarsh etc under false pretences and with misrepresentation.. In any case the scheme of the Act does not allow a PIO to deny / suppress info had the applicants said why they were requesting the info.

Sarbajit

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 10:02 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Dear Mr. Mathur and Sarabjit Roy,   If declaring the reasons for soliciting information is made mandatory, it will implicitly give power to the CPIO to reject the application too on the plea that the reason is not vaild or justified. .   2.    Only wrong does are prone to blackmail and moreover, exposing a wrong deed is not blackmailing from any angle but is eye-openor to others. If there is nothing wrong, are right, no body should be afreid of giving information.    Most of the Journalists are working to further the social causes and protect public interest.  However, there exemption clauses already exits in the Act to stop undesirable information. .. Dear Sarabjit Roy ji, please inform that In which section of the RTI Act, one subject rule is contained?   RTI Activists are whistle blowere fighting the corruption and malafide action/inaction and act of omission and commission. .    If Public Servant seek some information using RTI Act, what is wrong in that?  Without its use, no department give any information easily though that is not confidential, and consign the application for information either to the dustbin or just file.   If the persons who sought details about 2G, Commonwealth, Adarsh Society and so on had declared the purpose of seeking information, do u think he must have got infn easlily.   However, reasons for seeking information can be disclosed on voluntarily basis as Shri Sarabjit Roy has given reason in one of your RTI applications,  I am sure, that he has not given reason in all of his application or in future will give in all.    What is the mechanism to ensure that the infn is being used for the declared purpose or the purpose declared is correct?  A law which cannot be enforced is no law or bad law.   I invite adverse comments to my views from one and all with convincing arguments favouring making mandatory to give reason for seeking infn.   Regs, M K Gupta   M K Gupta