Re: [HumJanenge] Ex-CJI Balakrishnan opposes release of his tax returns under RTI

dear all
Less said the better
Dr.JN Sharma

On 2/17/11, Govind... Hoping for better <hopegovind@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree,
>
> This is due to corrupt judiciary. You will find repeatation of such incident
> many times
>
> On 17 February 2011 11:48, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr Govind, I think I have not mae my question very clear. The time
>> limit allowed, as is proposed by Law minister were to be 3 years, going to
>> be, once the Argumens are heard and judgement is reserved, the only
>> question
>> that remains is to apply mind and dictate the judgement and get
>> confirmation
>> from the other bench brothers. Should this process of delivering the
>> judgement after the arguments are heard and reserved, take nearly 4 years.
>> Normally I have seen judgements are delivered after reserving in a very
>> short time say about a month or so. But if your experience shows it takes
>> about 3 years (proposed) to deliver judgement - after reserving it (after
>> the hearing), I would be enlighted to that extent, Regards. dwarakanath,
>> nbca
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Govind... Hoping for better <
>> hopegovind@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There is no such limit but recently Law Minister Veerappa Moily has
>>> announced that Union Government is going to introduce such a system where
>>> the maximum time limit to clear a case will be 3 years
>>>
>>> Let's hope for the better
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 February 2011 23:55, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Friends, thee is one serious doubt , whether a case reserved for
>>>> Judgement in a Supreme Court can take nearly FOUR YEARS FOR delivering
>>>> judgement and that too two days before retirement after a lapse of four
>>>> years the judgement comes out. Could we call it as justice delayed is
>>>> justice denied or can anybody knows what is the maximum time taken to
>>>> delivery a judgement after reserving for judgement in supreme Court.
>>>> Regards.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Govind... Hoping for better <
>>>> hopegovind@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes to all 3 points
>>>>>
>>>>> But, you cannot threat expulsion. Everyone has right to keep their
>>>>> view.
>>>>> this is a common platform of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16 February 2011 11:25, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lets get some common facts straight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) FACT #1: ex-CJI "Balki" is one in a long line of corrupt CJIs.
>>>>>> Today
>>>>>> the only qualification to be a SC judge or CJI, or CJ of a High Court,
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> CCIC or SCIC or IC is that you are a corrupt person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please vote YES or NO to this. (No discussion will be tolerated -
>>>>>> instant expulsion)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) FACT #2, Even dishonest / corrupt persons are not united /
>>>>>> monolithic. They have their own factions, political affiliations,
>>>>>> groupings.
>>>>>> They pay homage to different power centres, are on the payrolls of
>>>>>> different
>>>>>> mafias. All factions are leaking information about the other factions
>>>>>> via
>>>>>> the media and activist groups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please Vote YES or NO to this. (No discussion will be tolerated -
>>>>>> instant expulsion)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) FACT #3, Controversy on Balki's IT returns under RTI is a serious
>>>>>> LEGAL issue. Balki is a loyal soldier, he will sacrifice himself for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> larger cause of Nehru-Gandhi mafia. He has damaged RTI enough when he
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> CJI. His present assigned task (for which he was given NHRC lollipop)
>>>>>> is to
>>>>>> ensure that nobody can ask for Sonia Gandhi's, (or Wajahat
>>>>>> Habibullah's) IT
>>>>>> and WealthTax returns in RTI. It was very funny seeing Mr.H defending
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> proposition on all media channels last night --> That is why Mr
>>>>>> Habibullah
>>>>>> was given his own lollipop to suck on (off ?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please Vote YES or NO to this. (No discussion will be tolerated -
>>>>>> instant expulsion)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sarbajit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Govind... Hoping for better <
>>>>>> hopegovind@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Dwarkanathji,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any information pertaining to third part can be provided only after
>>>>>>> consent of the concerned party.
>>>>>>> Here, information related to Balakrishnan is definitely of public
>>>>>>> interest in nature. I oppose S Roy's view that all public servant has
>>>>>>> something to hide. I have come across through such people even at
>>>>>>> IAS/ IPS
>>>>>>> level who has nothing to hide.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Balakrishnan held a highly reputed position, independence from
>>>>>>> executive and legislature. When our constitution made, this feature
>>>>>>> added to
>>>>>>> ensure that there should be check on legislature and on executive if
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> are going against of constitution and against of public or negative
>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>> nation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yesterday I watched news and read his useless and not acceptable
>>>>>>> reason that the IT return has his PAN card no and bank account no.
>>>>>>> which can
>>>>>>> be misused. I think he is behaving like as a child. The basic reason
>>>>>>> is,
>>>>>>> instead of RTI, if you bribe Income Tax people, they will easily
>>>>>>> reveal his
>>>>>>> details and he definitely knows this. Second, If you go to Income Tax
>>>>>>> India
>>>>>>> website and enter any person's name and date of Birth you can easily
>>>>>>> get PAN
>>>>>>> card no. Bank account no. also we can get by bribing Bank people even
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> simple peon by paying Rs. 50 to 100.
>>>>>>> Third, if he has concern about his PAN Card and bank details, he
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> direct Income Tax CPIO to hide these two details and provide
>>>>>>> information.
>>>>>>> The CPIO doesn't need to give copy of Saral for, the CPIO can simple
>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>> what income he has declared, what deduction and exemption he has
>>>>>>> sought and
>>>>>>> what is the final amount of Tax he has paid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is simply misleading people and looting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15 February 2011 23:52, Dwarakanath
>>>>>>> <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mr.Govind & Mr MK, In my opinion ( I am open for correction, if I
>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>> proved wrong)
>>>>>>>> "If a Return is filed as a statutory requirement and is available in
>>>>>>>> a public Office and if that return is not marked as a "Confidential
>>>>>>>> Communication" it is generally treated as a information belonging to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Public Office, even though filed by a citizen.. Also, if the
>>>>>>>> Legislators
>>>>>>>> are entitled to access the informatin the Public must be entitled
>>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>>> Second para of section 8(1) (j) and Setion 11(1) to 11(4) are
>>>>>>>> relevant to
>>>>>>>> the issued under dicussion. Under section 11(1) the CPIO or SPO
>>>>>>>> has to
>>>>>>>> chech whether the information provided by the Third Party (Balki in
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> case) has been 'marked' ( treated as "Confidential), Only in that
>>>>>>>> case,
>>>>>>>> notice inviting objection of the third party can be issued , if
>>>>>>>> there is no
>>>>>>>> such marking of confidential, the Information Officer is not bound
>>>>>>>> to ask
>>>>>>>> the objection of the third party and can take his own decisions."
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> dwarakanathdm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Govind... Hoping for better <
>>>>>>>> hopegovind@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reference:
>>>>>>>>> http://epaper.indianexpress.com/IE/IEH/2011/02/15/ArticleHtmls/15_02_2011_001_046.shtml?Mode=1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Print edition: Front page, Today's Indian Express
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear friends,
>>>>>>>>> When he was in power, he never allowed RTI to be implemented in our
>>>>>>>>> supreme Court. I always used to doubt his intention. If you are
>>>>>>>>> free, clean
>>>>>>>>> handed why do you need to worry.
>>>>>>>>> He was one of the most corrupt CJIs and harmed our democracy a lot.
>>>>>>>>> Therefore he never allowed RTI to be implemented in judiciary.
>>>>>>>>> Do we still say we are living in a democratic country?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Govind
>>>>>>>>> ______________________________
>>>>>>>>> *"The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad
>>>>>>>>> people,
>>>>>>>>> But because of the silence of good people!"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --Napoleon*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Govind*- 9960704146
>>>>>>>>> URL: http://www.wix.com/hopegovind/homepage
>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://simplygovind.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ______________________________
>>>>>>> *"The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people,
>>>>>>> But because of the silence of good people!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Napoleon*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Govind*- 9960704146
>>>>>>> URL: http://www.wix.com/hopegovind/homepage
>>>>>>> Blog: http://simplygovind.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ______________________________
>>>>> *"The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people,
>>>>> But because of the silence of good people!"
>>>>>
>>>>> --Napoleon*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Govind*- 9960704146
>>>>> URL: http://www.wix.com/hopegovind/homepage
>>>>> Blog: http://simplygovind.blogspot.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ______________________________
>>> *"The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people,
>>> But because of the silence of good people!"
>>>
>>> --Napoleon*
>>>
>>> *Govind*- 9960704146
>>> URL: http://www.wix.com/hopegovind/homepage
>>> Blog: http://simplygovind.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ______________________________
> *"The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people,
> But because of the silence of good people!"
>
> --Napoleon*
>
> *Govind*- 9960704146
> URL: http://www.wix.com/hopegovind/homepage
> Blog: http://simplygovind.blogspot.com
>