Re: [HumJanenge] COURTS AND DISCLOSURES UNDER RTI ACT ON DONATION BY PREZ OFFICE

Mr. Gupta, the president may have donated to some  private parties/institutions therefore it will be not right for her reputation to disclose the donations made. so what if the money is of public. once it comes in the hands of public servants- the servants will use it as they like. who is public to ask for explanation/information about it.   The hon'ble Acting CJ sikri is looking forward to be confirmed. then he is also looking forward to be elevated to SC. then how could we expect him to go against the govt. which is going to do things he wants. I have read some earlier orders of this Hon,ble judge where he did not read the applicable regulations at all and went by the sole advise of the govt. counsel. the petitioner was told do not worry about the statutory regulations. he did not allow to discuss the regulations. The order was written later as per the existing perception about the matter, not based on the statutory regulations, by blatant misuse of the power. the petitioner continues to suffer because of his illegal order and similar thing happened in SC when case was again  decided on perception and advise of govt. counsel. the judgement has affected large number of persons but who cares.  i feel there are some judges who are placed there for govt.  mostly the govt. counsels are elevated to HCs.  lets see what happens on next date.  rgds. beniwal  --- On Sun, 15/7/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> Subject: [HumJanenge] COURTS AND DISCLOSURES UNDER RTI ACT ON DONATION BY PREZ OFFICE To: "RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge Forum People's Right to Information" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com> Date: Sunday, 15 July, 2012, 1:59 PM The bench of acting Chief Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw of Delhi High Court has stayed the decision of single bench on the disclosure of donations made out of Presidents fund. The decision given by Justice Vipin Sanghi on 14th June upholding the CIC's decision was challenged by the President's office. In his decision, Justice Sanghi stated, "Every citizen is entitled to know as to how the money, which is collected by the state from him by exaction has been utilized. Merely because the person making the donation happens to be the President of India is no ground to withhold the said information." Now the double bench has now said, "disclosure of information has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set aside." One may wonder about the reason why the President's Secretariat want to keep the name of the receiver of the donation and the amount when it has been made out of the money paid the citizens. In this context, the conclusion drawn by the larger bench of the DHC that disclosure of information has no relation to any public activity or interest is debatable. Don't know if we are heading towards transprency or secrecy.