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

Dear Sarbajit Roy,

Let me first ask from you the reason of your keenness that RTI applicants must give reason for seeking information.

 

---

From: Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: Rina Mahindra <rina17@gmail.com>; sudhakar hegde <sudhakarhegde733@gmail.com>; Dhyan - <dhyan40@hotmail.com>; yogi5050@gmail.com; surisureshsuri23 <surisureshsuri23@yahoo.com>; samkrupadass <samkrupadass@yahoo.co.in>; gladsraghu@gmail.com; lalita_c <lalita_c@indiatimes.com>
Sent: Sat, 26 February, 2011 5:16:56 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act

Friends, From what I can understand ( I am subject to correction) the provision of Art 225 refers to pre-constitutional-.   But does the amendment apply to post-constitutional maaters.???  Regards, dwarakanathdm, nbca, bangalore

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

Sir

Art 225 actually clarifies that the pre-Constitutional powers of the
EXISTING High Courts (incl. their powers to frame their rules) are
henceforth (26 Jan 1950) subject to the Constitution and any laws made
under the Constitution (which includes RTI Act).

You are correct Sir that the rules I referred to concern enforcement
of Fundamental Rights which now includes the Right to Information. My
point was that if a High Court can lawfully restrict citizens from
filing Writs by demanding all kinds of personal information and
reasons for filing writs, then by analogy the State can do so too when
it comes to giving effect to a particular right AT THE APPELLATE STAGE
(since the application stage faces a legal bar in the RTI Act)

Sarbajit

On 2/25/11, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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