Re: [HumJanenge] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI

My dear Sarbaji Roy, I have checked the facts after writing my mail though I should have done this earlier but since it was a long order and some facts are given in between, I missed. I read them only in the evening. I agree that the Complainant was abesent but in that case, CIC should taken the decision on the material available before it and it has followed this practice. This is quite perfect. On the second aspect, after reserving the decision, I too noticed that the same was announced on the same day i.e. 1st July, 2011, after reserving it. I never noticed such an instance in the past and I can understand your apprehension. In the past, u have yourself claimed that u have drafted orders for Shri Wajahat Habibullah, Ex-CIC in one/ some cases to which he had refuted.  Your claim was for the order on DDA on which Delhi High Court passed order putting some restriction on the CIC and decalring its Management's regulations as null-and void.  I do not know if this is a similar situation or not.  I am also unaware abaout taking feed-backs from the appellant or complainants, who himself is a well conversant of laws or master in law being in the same profession himself is ethical.or unthical. But I believe that if some concrete feed-backs are given by the respondent or complainant and we accept them after due delegence on verifying the facts properly and thereafter issue an speaking order, it may not be unethical and illegal. However, this is a landmark, bold and welcommeable decision in the line of other decisions given by the Hon'ble IC, Shri Shailesh Gandhi. I cann't comment on para 4 of your mail as this fact must be known to the IC but I know that no IC is advocate or in the legal profession also and were bureaucrats earlier (except Mr. Gandhi). They, therefore, can seek the legal advice, or have some some legal person attathced to them or in their staff and CIC has also a legal cell to give them legal opinion. I congratulate u for this healty and fruitful discussion which can bring some reform / change in future. On Mon, 4/7/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 4 July, 2011, 9:44 PM Dear Guptaji As usual you react without checking the facts 1) At page 2 of the order it is clearly mentioned that it was reserved at the hearing held on 01/07/2011. Yet surprisingly "such a detailed and speaking 11 page order" is announced on the same day (same page).. 2) Curiously the Complaint was filed on "05.02.2011". but was only taken up 5 months later by India's most efficient IC who publicly vowed when taking office that within 6 months his pendency would be down to 3 months. So what happened in this case ?? MY ANSWER - IC(SG) (like Anna and Babab) is a puppet for the Govt (NAC version), and all these these CBI cases were "put on ice" till the somewhat delayed DoPT notification on CBCI exemption could be put out after nobbling Vahanvati. Of course all these CBI orders of SG will go to High Court and be stayed. 3) On page 2 it is also mentioned that the Complainant is"absent" 34) It is equally clear that the material IC-SG relied on was NOT placed before him by either the Complainant or the Respondent. In fact, this order was drafted on behalf of the ofenders by IC-SG's old associates (let him deny this publicly) as the legal drafting is well beyoind his usual capacity. So Dear Guptaji, if you must lie so blatantly, please show us a little sense of shame too. Sarbajit On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 3:56 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: Dear Sarab, ,   How u have concluded that this order was first reserved as there is no such indication that the order was reserved?  However, if it was reserved, the same make sense as a detailed and speaking order running into 11 pages cannot the dictated instantly on the same day leaving all other cases.   It has nowhere mentioned in the decision whether the complainant or respondent were present or not during the hearing. Even if the they are not present, CIC has to take decision on the basis on the material available before him.   Section 18 (1) says, " Subject to the provision of this Act, it shall be duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person, ---   (d) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act;"   As per order, complaint was filed on 5.2.2011, it was not the second appeal.  This has come for hearing within 4 months while it takes much more time with some other ICs.   Every accused has a right to fair trial and the RTI Act is applicable to him also.  There are enough safeguards in RTI Act against its misuse in section 8, 9 and 24.    Executive cannot outdo an Act duly passed by the Parliament of India by just issuing an executive order (notification) exempting the Public Authorities without valid ground.  CBI is not an intelligence or security agency but an investigative agency.  --- On Sat, 2/7/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, 2 July, 2011, 9:09 AM Dear Karira 1) almost all the rti_india yahoogroup members are on HumJanenge, so no need to post such messages there. 2) With my long experience of how CIC "reserved" orders are drafted, I can say with considerable force that the reason the Complainant was not present, was because there was "hanky panky" in the final order in favour of a retired judge who is accused in Ghaziabad judges PF scam. Anybody who tracks Shailesh Gandhi's usual orders will vouch for this. What is especially curious in the present case is that the CIC treated a "2nd Appeal" (w/o 1st appeal on record) as Complaint (and thereby invoked its enquiry powers to cut-n-paste from various websites). 3) I think it is high time that this practice of "reserved" orders at CIC be stopped. Sarbajit On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:33 PM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote: Today (01 July 2011), CIC has passed an order while hearing a Complaint from an accused in the Ghaziabad PF scam. In a very long order, CIC has ruled that: 1. The Govt. order on exemption of CBI from RTI is not in consonance with the basic provisions of the RTI Act 2. CIC can hear direct Complaints and there is no need to exhaust 19(1) before approaching the commission 3. The gazette notification on CBIs exemption has only a prospective effect - ie cannot be applied to applications/appeals/complaints already in process. Full order is attached to this post. RTIwanted