Yes, I am prepared to help.
vijay
vijay
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:20:54 -0700
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: The People's fight against the pliable Attorney General - Ghulam Vahanvati
> From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
> To: HumJanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/AG-okayed-CBI-exemption-from-RTI-purview/articleshow/8958872.cms
>
> "AG okayed CBI exemption from RTI purview
> TNN | Jun 23, 2011, 07.06am IST
>
> HYDERABAD: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was exempted from
> the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act on the sole
> recommendation of attorney general Goolam Vahanvati.
>
> The RTI exemption for the CBI announced by the central government on
> June 9 was in contradiction with suggestions made by the law ministry
> and also department of personnel and training (DoPT), the nodal agency
> for RTI implementation.
>
> This was unearthed by a Hyderabad-based RTI activist, C J Karira, on
> Wednesday after he went through the files at the DoPT office in North
> Block, New Delhi. Karira was allowed to inspect the documents after he
> filed an RTI application seeking permission for the same. His
> contention was that "transparent functioning" of CBI was crucial given
> that it was probing the country's biggest scams.
>
> The activist took 50 minutes to go through the documents and was also
> allowed to make copies of pages that he felt were important. Karira
> found documents revealing DoPT's denial to give CBI exemption from RTI
> on the grounds that it did not deal either with 'intelligence' or
> 'security' issues — the only two conditions that can make a government
> department RTI-proof.
>
> "The response of the law ministry carried the suggestion that while
> the agency could be exempted from RTI, it should be answerable to
> queries on matters of administration, personnel, budget, etc," said
> Karira, quoting from the files he scanned on Wednesday.
>
> However, the only document at DoPT that strongly recommended CBI's
> exemption from RTI was an 11-page report by attorney general
> Vahanvati, a copy of which was taken by the activist and is in
> possession of TOI. According to the AG's report, intelligence agencies
> are RTI proof because the information they gather is crucial to the
> nation's security.
>
> The report states: "While the main purpose of intelligence gathering
> and assessment is the prevention and occurrence of activities which
> could endanger the security of the country, it cannot be restricted
> only to gathering of intelligence prior to the happening of an event,
> but should extend to post-event intelligence gathered, which falls
> under investigation." It was soon after receiving this report that the
> government granted CBI the RTI ACT exemption.
>
> CBI, too, used Section 24 of the RTI Act for the exemption, which
> states that "nothing contained in the act shall apply to the
> intelligence and security organizations established by the central
> government"."
>
> On Jun 22, 11:26 pm, sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To:
> > 1) HumJanenge/GoogleGroups
> > 2) RTI_India
> > 3) RTIINDIA.ORG
> > 4) RTIACT2005/GoogleGroups
> >
> > Dear Group / Forum Members
> >
> > All of us are stakeholders in the RTI process, either as clients or servers.
> >
> > Today I ("stoy1947") and Mr C.J.Karira ("rtiwanted") inspected the files at
> > DoPT pertaining to exemption of CBI and 2 other Intelligence Agencies from
> > RTI Act. What we read SHOCKED us. We have already placed the AG's legal
> > opinion in public domain in public interest.
> >
> > 1) Contrary to the belief that it was the "babus" of DoPT who wanted the CBI
> > out of the RTI net, we found that the Babudom has consistently opposed this
> > demand to the extent of recording that the CBI could not strictly be
> > considered to be either an "intelligence" or "security" organisation
> > established by Central Govt to fall within section 24. This was endorsed by
> > the opinion of the Ld. Solictor General Mr Gopal Subramaniam on this point
> > (and others).
> >
> > 2) Till as late as 2 months ago, the CBI itself did not seriously press for
> > exemption under the RTI Act. So the question is what changed ? Could it be a
> > string of recent legally bankrupt decisions against CBI by India's first
> > "private sector" Information Commissioner, who is also considered in certain
> > circles to be a fixer par excellence. Is it a coincidence that almost all
> > these cases have a very strong Mumbai connection with the information sought
> > concerning corruption worth thousands of crores of rupees or involves a
> > usual group of NGO RTI activists this IC was in bed with earlier.
> >
> > 3) Is it a coincidence that the Ld AG (who is also from Mumbai) overturned
> > the deeply reasoned opinion of the nations next most senior (and highly
> > respected) Law Officer and gave a patently political, expedient and legally
> > bizarre opinion to somehow get the CBI out of the RTI net till such time as
> > these NGO 'haraamis" can get the CBI amalgamated into the Lokpal apparatus.
> >
> > 4) On behalf of the members of this group, I feel we must say that ENOUGH
> > IS ENOUGH. It is now time for a CITIZENS WAR against lackeys like Mr
> > Vahanvati. I say that we should fight such toadies on their own home turf
> > (the Supreme Court) so that he can explain the GLARING INCONISTENCIES and
> > the INCONVENIENT FACTS ON FILE WHICH HE EVADED OR GLOSSED OVER IN HIS
> > BLINKERED AND SELF-SERVING OPINION..
> >
> > 5) It is bizarre that a primarily CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE agency like the CBI
> > which inquires AFTER THE FACT can be equated with organistions like the RAW
> > or the IB or the NatGrid which gather and analyse INTELLIGENCE BEFORE THE
> > FACT.
> >
> > 6) The moderators of the above mentioned groups / forum have decided to seek
> > the views of our members - RUNNING INTO ALMOST 3 LAKH REGISTERED
> > STAKEHOLDERS on wheter THIS kind of corruption must we tolerated. We don't
> > want your mere moral support,, We need your sweat, toil, tears etc. We need
> > active participants in this WAR against HIGH-LEVEL bootlickers and
> > collaborators.
> >
> > SO please email me OFFLIST at "sroy1...@gmail.com". We really want to know
> > what you think and if you are prepared to help us.
> >
> > Sarbajit
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: The People's fight against the pliable Attorney General - Ghulam Vahanvati
> From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
> To: HumJanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/AG-okayed-CBI-exemption-from-RTI-purview/articleshow/8958872.cms
>
> "AG okayed CBI exemption from RTI purview
> TNN | Jun 23, 2011, 07.06am IST
>
> HYDERABAD: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was exempted from
> the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act on the sole
> recommendation of attorney general Goolam Vahanvati.
>
> The RTI exemption for the CBI announced by the central government on
> June 9 was in contradiction with suggestions made by the law ministry
> and also department of personnel and training (DoPT), the nodal agency
> for RTI implementation.
>
> This was unearthed by a Hyderabad-based RTI activist, C J Karira, on
> Wednesday after he went through the files at the DoPT office in North
> Block, New Delhi. Karira was allowed to inspect the documents after he
> filed an RTI application seeking permission for the same. His
> contention was that "transparent functioning" of CBI was crucial given
> that it was probing the country's biggest scams.
>
> The activist took 50 minutes to go through the documents and was also
> allowed to make copies of pages that he felt were important. Karira
> found documents revealing DoPT's denial to give CBI exemption from RTI
> on the grounds that it did not deal either with 'intelligence' or
> 'security' issues — the only two conditions that can make a government
> department RTI-proof.
>
> "The response of the law ministry carried the suggestion that while
> the agency could be exempted from RTI, it should be answerable to
> queries on matters of administration, personnel, budget, etc," said
> Karira, quoting from the files he scanned on Wednesday.
>
> However, the only document at DoPT that strongly recommended CBI's
> exemption from RTI was an 11-page report by attorney general
> Vahanvati, a copy of which was taken by the activist and is in
> possession of TOI. According to the AG's report, intelligence agencies
> are RTI proof because the information they gather is crucial to the
> nation's security.
>
> The report states: "While the main purpose of intelligence gathering
> and assessment is the prevention and occurrence of activities which
> could endanger the security of the country, it cannot be restricted
> only to gathering of intelligence prior to the happening of an event,
> but should extend to post-event intelligence gathered, which falls
> under investigation." It was soon after receiving this report that the
> government granted CBI the RTI ACT exemption.
>
> CBI, too, used Section 24 of the RTI Act for the exemption, which
> states that "nothing contained in the act shall apply to the
> intelligence and security organizations established by the central
> government"."
>
> On Jun 22, 11:26 pm, sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To:
> > 1) HumJanenge/GoogleGroups
> > 2) RTI_India
> > 3) RTIINDIA.ORG
> > 4) RTIACT2005/GoogleGroups
> >
> > Dear Group / Forum Members
> >
> > All of us are stakeholders in the RTI process, either as clients or servers.
> >
> > Today I ("stoy1947") and Mr C.J.Karira ("rtiwanted") inspected the files at
> > DoPT pertaining to exemption of CBI and 2 other Intelligence Agencies from
> > RTI Act. What we read SHOCKED us. We have already placed the AG's legal
> > opinion in public domain in public interest.
> >
> > 1) Contrary to the belief that it was the "babus" of DoPT who wanted the CBI
> > out of the RTI net, we found that the Babudom has consistently opposed this
> > demand to the extent of recording that the CBI could not strictly be
> > considered to be either an "intelligence" or "security" organisation
> > established by Central Govt to fall within section 24. This was endorsed by
> > the opinion of the Ld. Solictor General Mr Gopal Subramaniam on this point
> > (and others).
> >
> > 2) Till as late as 2 months ago, the CBI itself did not seriously press for
> > exemption under the RTI Act. So the question is what changed ? Could it be a
> > string of recent legally bankrupt decisions against CBI by India's first
> > "private sector" Information Commissioner, who is also considered in certain
> > circles to be a fixer par excellence. Is it a coincidence that almost all
> > these cases have a very strong Mumbai connection with the information sought
> > concerning corruption worth thousands of crores of rupees or involves a
> > usual group of NGO RTI activists this IC was in bed with earlier.
> >
> > 3) Is it a coincidence that the Ld AG (who is also from Mumbai) overturned
> > the deeply reasoned opinion of the nations next most senior (and highly
> > respected) Law Officer and gave a patently political, expedient and legally
> > bizarre opinion to somehow get the CBI out of the RTI net till such time as
> > these NGO 'haraamis" can get the CBI amalgamated into the Lokpal apparatus.
> >
> > 4) On behalf of the members of this group, I feel we must say that ENOUGH
> > IS ENOUGH. It is now time for a CITIZENS WAR against lackeys like Mr
> > Vahanvati. I say that we should fight such toadies on their own home turf
> > (the Supreme Court) so that he can explain the GLARING INCONISTENCIES and
> > the INCONVENIENT FACTS ON FILE WHICH HE EVADED OR GLOSSED OVER IN HIS
> > BLINKERED AND SELF-SERVING OPINION..
> >
> > 5) It is bizarre that a primarily CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE agency like the CBI
> > which inquires AFTER THE FACT can be equated with organistions like the RAW
> > or the IB or the NatGrid which gather and analyse INTELLIGENCE BEFORE THE
> > FACT.
> >
> > 6) The moderators of the above mentioned groups / forum have decided to seek
> > the views of our members - RUNNING INTO ALMOST 3 LAKH REGISTERED
> > STAKEHOLDERS on wheter THIS kind of corruption must we tolerated. We don't
> > want your mere moral support,, We need your sweat, toil, tears etc. We need
> > active participants in this WAR against HIGH-LEVEL bootlickers and
> > collaborators.
> >
> > SO please email me OFFLIST at "sroy1...@gmail.com". We really want to know
> > what you think and if you are prepared to help us.
> >
> > Sarbajit
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.