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

Dear Mr. Roy,

We all know RTI well as much as you know. Here, question is not that. Here, question is of double standard. A person holding highest position in judiciary must promote RTI rather than supressing. If you (HE, your Balki) is an honest public servant, what is wrong to declare IT return publicly.
You ask my IT return, I will openly show you. I pay my tax regularly, I have my open income (No hidden or black) so I won't object it

On 15 February 2011 16:31, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

This is a technical case, involving 8(1)(j)  Balki is.a third party. He has been sent a 3rd party notice u/s 11 (because PIO intends to disclose info), and he has chosen to object to info disclosure as is his right. He has based his opposition (very correctly) on exemptions specified in section 8(1). Just because you cant understand this "contradiction" does not mean that other members here are of your level.

Hence, kindly stop posting as RTI "activists", but as RTI "experts". This is not a group for activists or activism.

Sarbajit

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:45 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Wow, Kya baat Hai?  Single bench and multiple judges bench of Delhi RTI has ruled that the personal assets comes under the perview of RTI Act. Now matter in pending in Supreme Court.   I heard Hon'ble ex CJI advocating the RTI Act in a conference at Dwarka on 2nd Oct (Birth day of Mahatma Gandhi) at Dwarka in 2006/07.   Where is the contradiction? I m unable to find out.  Can some one help?

--
______________________________
"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