Can some one explain in simple language without using legal words and jargon, what the SC order/judgement means to a common person. thanks. rgds.
From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18
I always "Act", never "React".
RTIwanted
From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18
Dear Roy,
When your mail was addressed to Shri Jam, why this was sent to all other members?
It should have been sent to him directly. He (Jam) has behaved in a dignified manner by not reacting to your mail so far.
From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 12:19 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18
Dear MK
Since my email was addressed to Jam, it is better that he comments.
I have no illusions about my own popularity in this group.
Sarbajit
On Dec 13, 9:08 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Sarab,
>
> I understand that you have no right to comment like this on the capability of a person and should not discourage any aspirant like this.
>
> This job will be done by the Selection Committee for ICs. The integrity, sincerity and bonafides also count and members have no doubt about these virtues in Jam. I Do not know about their views on you.
>
> Whether I am wrong or right can be decided on the reactions of the members on my aforesaid comments.
>
> ________________________________
> From: sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:08 PM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18
>
> Dear Mr Jam
>
> I am given to understand that you have applied for post of Central
> Information Commissioner.
> The applicants are expected to be persons of eminence in fields like
> law. If you cannot answer your own question, then I suggest you
> withdraw from the field <wink> <wink>
>
> PS: The SC has answered your query. The CIC sits in section 18 to levy
> penalty u/s 20.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Dec 13, 9:15 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.
>
> > The full judgment is attached.
>
> > The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?
>
> > Beats me completely.
>
> > RTIwanted.
>
> > Commission cannot order disclosure of information while heairng complaint under Sec 18.pdf
> > 231KViewDownload
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 12:19 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18
Dear MK
Since my email was addressed to Jam, it is better that he comments.
I have no illusions about my own popularity in this group.
Sarbajit
On Dec 13, 9:08 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Sarab,
>
> I understand that you have no right to comment like this on the capability of a person and should not discourage any aspirant like this.
>
> This job will be done by the Selection Committee for ICs. The integrity, sincerity and bonafides also count and members have no doubt about these virtues in Jam. I Do not know about their views on you.
>
> Whether I am wrong or right can be decided on the reactions of the members on my aforesaid comments.
>
> ________________________________
> From: sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:08 PM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18
>
> Dear Mr Jam
>
> I am given to understand that you have applied for post of Central
> Information Commissioner.
> The applicants are expected to be persons of eminence in fields like
> law. If you cannot answer your own question, then I suggest you
> withdraw from the field <wink> <wink>
>
> PS: The SC has answered your query. The CIC sits in section 18 to levy
> penalty u/s 20.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Dec 13, 9:15 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.
>
> > The full judgment is attached.
>
> > The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?
>
> > Beats me completely.
>
> > RTIwanted.
>
> > Commission cannot order disclosure of information while heairng complaint under Sec 18.pdf
> > 231KViewDownload
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.