Re: [HumJanenge] Rules to kill RTI : its too Serious to be ignored

Dear Capt Beniwal

I was banned from posting on the HumJanenge Yahoo group by
late Mr. Prakash Kardaley ("Master-ji") who was being misled
by some persons close to him. Afterwards Masterji privately
apologised to me admitting that he was misled, but for certain
reasons (he was part of NCPRI formation) he could not reinstate
me.

Some members of HJ-Yahoogroups then decided to start RTI_India
yahoogroup instead which has evolved into this group (HumJanenge
Google groups).

The one guiding principle of this group is that nobody who posts
anything rational and directly pertinent to RTI shall be censored
no matter how much the moderators may disagree.

Incidentally, my last post to HJ-YG was to Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
(message no. 7466). Text to which is reproduced below.

INCIDENTALLY: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the
new RTI Rules 2012. They are perfect from citizen's point of
view. Even the doubt I had about Rule 13 has been clarified to
me by my co-moderator Mr. Ashish Kumar.

Sarbajit

Re: A shameful use of RTI

Dear Shailesh,

I thank you for focussing on the very same paragraph of IC Ansari's
order which I had also posted in previous message no. 7443 of HJ. You
have well brought out what was in my mind - viz. that despite the
Appellant's reprehensible motives IC Ansari still favoured the
Appellant. Unfortunately the atmosphere at HJ is so badly vitiated
that if I had made the same statement I would immediately be accused
of doing PR for the CIC - which is too far from the truth.

There are many persons who are misusing RTI and asking all sorts of
personal queries to "fix" persons or to further their businesses. The
truth of these will come out when the exemptions are cited and the 2nd
Appeal decisions are published. I may remind HJ board of the CIC's
NDMC decision where the PIO /AA likewise pleaded that the Appellant
was criminally intimidating them by RTI. I was the one who posted this
decision to HJ forum - but it was drowned out by a certain section of
persons here who are apparently misusing RTI themselves. Persons from
KK take the lead in this field it seems.

I wish to take up a certain case which well illustrates the "modus
operandi" of such persons from. It is sourced from the
indiatogether.org website for which Mr.Kardaley himself contributes,
so I am hopeful that Mr.Kardaley shall allow me to post on this
without censoring me. The link is:-

http://www.indiatogether.org/2005/may/rti-karexpose.htm

The article itself is written by a KK member.

I note the following paragraphs therein:-

"Another interesting case is that of the Basavanagudi National College
Flyover in which S Anand of the Anti-Corruption Forum and Palyam
Suresh, a consultant, had filed a PIL in the High Court seeking
invoking of penalty clause for prolonged delay in completion of the
work. The contractor (a Government of India undertaking) did not
possess the required equipment, was unable to complete the task even
in the extended time period (31st March 2005) and was sub-contracting
the work against the terms of agreement/work order issued. They based
their petition on documents obtained under KRIA.

The Court, however, felt that the petitioners had filed the case in
cahoots with the second-lowest bidder for the project and ordered that
they should pay Rs 10,000 as costs to the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority (KSLSA). Not stymied, Anand then asked for the
break-up of the costs and also asked how the KSLSA was involved in the
case (and what cost it has incurred and how). This has created a
piquant situation as the Chief Justice of the High Court N. K. Sodhi
(before whom the case had come) is the also Chief Patron of the KSLSA.

Anand has also filed applications under KRIA asking for copies of the
mandatory declaration of assets and liabilities and service records of
the Chief Justice and two other judges of the High Court. He is
preparing to file an appeal in this regard as he has received no reply
so far even though the mandatory period of fifteen days is over."

I say that it is this kind of wild activism and misuse of RTI that is
going to cause problems for every ordinary citizen. Every "activist"
who is in "cahoots" or is convinced that the system is unfair, that
Judges are corrupt etc. is going to start jamming up the procedures
for the rest of us by impugning the Judges / ICs itself through
litigation and frivolous complaints. One Mr.Veeresha of Karnataka also
depicted in the link above has already done so by complaining to the
President about IC Ansari and his "competence".

To the best of my knowledge there are no cases stemming from RTIA05 in
Delhi Courts as yet - although the pressure due to slow decisions from
CIC is building up here. Yet it seems that Karnataka HC is littered
with PILs filed by such persons. Can Mr.Anand deny that he has filed a
RTI request under RTIA05 seeking to know how Justice Sodhi was
appointed to SAT Tribunal, and for which he has received a reply also
- will he impugn the CJI now for obtaining Justice Sodhi's consent?

Why does Mr.Anand of KK impugn that CJ of the HC is patron of KLSA?
This is the standard practice in every Superior Court - it is either
the CJ or the 2nd most senior Justice who is the patron for Legal Aid
Services Committee..

I am as ashamed as Shaileshji. I appeal to everyone here to be
responsible in their use of RTI. The first essential of this is to be
judicious in using RTI. I am so very glad to learn that Prakashji does
not use RTI. He is the most responsible of us all - but Sir please
file 1 or 2 to experience it at first hand. I myself have only filed 5
RTI's in 5 years under Delhi RTI ACT, and about 6 (in 8 months) under
RTIA05. Most of my RTIA05 requests were long pent up requests
pertaining to Central Ministries not covered under DRTIA.

It is my humble prayer that sinners must reform. And HJ must take the
lead in this.

Sarbajit

--- In HumJanenge@..., "shailesh Gandhi"
<shailesh2@v...> wrote:
>
> I am ashamed and wish to share my view that from what the IC Mr.
Ansari has stated in his order...





On 8/14/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Roy sir, who banned you from posting clarifications and your views ? .
> please give us your views on the new rules if any of these are against the
> letter and spirit of the RTI Act. rgds. beniwal
>
> --- On Mon, 13/8/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Rules to kill RTI : its too Serious to be ignored
> To: batra_lokesh@yahoo.com, humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, 13 August, 2012, 11:12 PM
>
> Dear Lokesh
>
> I am quite seriously asking you to stop spreading such
> disinformation about these Rules.
>
> You are WRONG on almost every point.
>
> Unfortunately I am banned from posting on HJ-YG otherwise
> I would have clarified these things to you over there.
>
> You, OTH are afraid to discuss these matters in HJ-GG
> because Aruna Roy has warned all card carrying NCPRI
> members not to post on HJ-GG on pain of not receiving
> an annual X-mas card from Sonia-ji
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 8/13/12, lokesh batra <batra_lokesh@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> [Moderator's note: Attached files can be downloaded from
>>
>> Analyses of Amendments to RTI Rules & comments
>> https://www.box.com/s/a3bedc21726599a9b398
>>
>> RTI Rules 2012
>> https://www.box.com/s/2c58b7809a218a9e7bda
>> -vishal]
>>
>> Rules to kill RTI : its too Serious to be ignored
>>
>> May be govt has notposted theNotification on RTI Rules 2012 since
>> Parliment
>> is in session and Section 29 of the RTI Act requires government to place
>> the
>> Notificationin Parliament and get it passed. (Check on that).
>>
>> Having sent you few posts giving my observations after just initial
>> browsing
>> of 2012 RTI Rules.
>>
>> I once again went through and realised that 500 words and PostalFee
>> arerelatively lesser issues viz. "Appeal to Commission".
>>
>> I already said that the 'Presence of Appellant before theCommission has
>> become mandatory if one does not have facilities for Video conferencing
>> or
>> find some one to represent him/herbefor commission in Delhi. We know how
>> many of Aam Aadmi can availthis living across the length and breath of
>> our
>> country. And what about 'Indian Citizens' Abroad'
>>
>> Now Poor 'Aam Aadmi' to Face Tigers from Public Authority
>>
>> Let us compareexisting Rules Viz 2012 Rules 12 and 13 to find out how
>> every
>> change has gone against 'Aam Aadmi' an in favour of 'Public Authority'
>>
>> Existing Rule (7)
>>
>> "7. Personal presence of the appellant or complainant. - (1)The appellant
>> or
>> the complainant, as the case may be, shall in every case be informed of
>> the
>> date of hearing at least seven clear days before that date.
>>
>> (2) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may at his
>> discretion at the time of hearing of the appeal or complaint by the
>> Commission be present
>> in person or through his duly authorized representative or may opt not to
>> be
>> present.
>>
>> (3)Where the Commission is satisfied that the circumstances exist due to
>> which the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, is being
>> prevented from attending the hearing of the Commission, then, the
>> Commission
>> may afford the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, another
>> opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken or take any
>> other appropriate action as it may deem fit.
>>
>> (4) The appellant or the complainant, asthe case may be, may seek the
>> assistance of any person in the process of the appeal while presenting
>> his
>> points and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner."
>>
>> In Rule 12. of RTI Rules 2012 the Appellant has been deprived of option
>> of
>> 'Not to be Present'.
>>
>> If that was not enough, inNew Rule 12 the Provisionfor "Appellant to seek
>> Assistance"has been withdrawn."
>>
>> Earlier during Commission's hearing CPIO and at most First Appellet
>> Authority" (FAA) defending the case.
>>
>> New Rule 13 empowers Public Authorityto authorise any representative
>> (probably itmeans Legal Pandits)or any officer to defend CPIO & FAA.
>>
>> Under RTI Rules 2012 : "Aam Aadmi has been dis-armedto face tigers of
>> Public
>> Authority"
>>
>> This is the easy way Government found to "KILL RTI ACT"
>>
>> To enable you to compare RTI Act viz Existing Rules viz.Proposed Rules
>> (now
>> approved), I am attachinga pdf file consisting of my comprehensive
>> 'Analyses
>> onProposed Amendment to RTI Rules' that I had sentto DoPT in December
>> 2010.
>> To understand the finer points.......you may go through Page 15 onwards
>> covering "Appeal Part". Time permitting you may browse the ealier pages
>> too.
>>
>> Also attached is RTI Rules 2012 notification for ready reference.
>>
>> Government without caring for what People said have Bulldozed their way
>> in
>> framing RTI RULES 2012.
>>
>> Raise your Voice before it is too late (before Parliament clears new
>> Rules)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.)
>> -----------
>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>> From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh@yahoo.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:42 AM
>> Subject: My take : 2012 RTI Rules
>>
>>
>> On the eve of Independence Day; government curtails people's Freedom to
>> Know
>> (Information).
>>
>>
>> 21 months ago, on 10 December 2010 Government seeks Citizens' Comments on
>> "Proposed Amendment to RTI Rules".
>>
>>
>> Thousands of people participated in this process by sending their
>> valuable
>> comments.
>>
>>
>> Within days of receivingPeople's Comments, DoPT informs me thatthe folder
>> containing Peoples' Comments is missing. 21 months later it is still
>> missing.
>>
>>
>> Notwithstanding, Government goes ahead and Secretly promulgate
>> amendmentto
>> RTI Rules and call it "RTI Rules 2012", amounting to diluation of the RTI
>> Act.
>>
>>
>> Asking peoples' Comments whichare thrown intodrain isnothing but a 'Cruel
>> Joke on Indian Citizens'
>>
>>
>> Specific comments are given in post below in trail.
>>
>>
>>
>> One additional point.
>>
>>
>>
>> Under Rule 13 of RTI Rules2012,CPIOare exempted to attend CIC hearing
>> thus
>> diluting the responsibility and accountability of CPIO mentioned in
>> Section
>> 19(5) of the RTI Act, 2005.
>>
>>
>> Jai Hind
>>
>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>> From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh@yahoo.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 9:18 PM
>> Subject: Urgent: 2012 RTI Rules attached
>>
>>
>> Further to my earlier post of today.
>>
>>
>> I am attaching a pdf file on G.Notification on RTI Rules 2012 dated 31
>> July
>> 2012 (not attached)
>>
>>
>> Beside 500 word restriction and postal charges beyond Rs.50/- .
>>
>>
>> Following observation made:
>>
>>
>> (a) If theappeal to CIC has discrepancy.. it will be returned to
>> Appellant
>> for completion and return.
>>
>>
>> (b)First Appeal ismandatory. (My take : What happens to Section 18 about
>> complaints)
>>
>>
>> (c) Option for Appellant not to attend appeal in CIC has been withdrawn.
>>
>>
>> (My take: Either you find some one to represent you or have video
>> facility
>> ... you have to attend 2nd appeal... will it be possible for people
>> living
>> across the country and even abroad? Its a cruel joke on people).
>>
>>
>> If yougo thru RTI Rules mailed in earlier post... you may find more areas
>> of
>> concern.
>>
>>
>> You may recap the sequence by going thru my earlier posts in the trail.
>>
>>
>> Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>> RTI RULES Amended
>>
>>
>>
>> Recall I had issued ALERT on the subject on 15 July 2012 (see my post in
>> trail with few attachments):
>>
>>
>> Remember 18 months ago on 10th December 2010, DoPT had promulgated
>> "Proposed
>> Amendment to RTI Rules" that generated lot of heat. Than there was
>> deafening
>> silence.
>>
>>
>> Till DoPT replied to my recent RTI of 07 June 2012 that file is with PMO
>> since 11 January 2012. On 11 July 2012 I filed an RTI in PMO to know more
>> about it. Rest is history.
>>
>>
>>
>> After I filed an RTI in PMOon 11 July 2012 (where the file was held since
>> 11
>> January 2012 for PM nod)Govt moved fast and promulgated Amendment to RTI
>> Rules. (RTI response from PMO still awaited. Now CPIO will tell me file
>> is
>> back in DoPT.)
>>
>>
>> At this stage I sent my ALERT post: Are we going to get sudden
>> Announcement
>> of "RTI RULES Amended" ?
>>
>>
>> YESIT HAS COME TRUE
>> (Read HT Story of 11 August 2012 below)
>>
>>
>> http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Govt-puts-limits-on-your-right-to-information/Article1-911648.aspx
>>
>>
>> Govt puts limits on your right to information
>>
>>
>> Aloke Tikku, Hindustan Times
>> New Delhi, August 10, 2012
>>
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>>
>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>> From: lokesh batra <batra_lokesh@yahoo.com>
>> To:xxxxxx
>> Cc: xxxx
>> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 7:09 PM
>> Subject: ALERT: What's RTI Rules file doing in PMO?
>>
>>
>> ALERT :What's RTI Rules file doing in PMO?
>>
>>
>> I filed anRTI on 07 June 2012in DOPT to know the status of "Proposed
>> Amendment to RTI Rules" promulgated by DoPTon 10 December 2010.
>>
>>
>> DoPT in response intimated:
>>
>>
>> (a) DoPT File on "Proposed Amendments to RTI Rules" is in PMO since 11
>> January 2012.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>(b) The folder on the subject containing Citizens' Suggestion on
>>>>> "Proposed Amendments to RTI Rules"is missing in DoPT. This was told to
>>>>> me even over a year ago when I went to inspect said file on 18
>>>>> February
>>>>> 2011
>>
>> I have since filed an RTI in PMO on 11 July 2012. (See Attachment PMO RTI
>> (Rules) dt 11 July 2012.
>>
>>
>> LETS BEON ALERT: Are we going to get sudden Announcement of "RTI RULES
>> Amended" ?
>>
>>
>> {Commodore Lokesh. K. Batra (Retd.)}
>> Social & RTI Activist
>> BringChangeNow
>>
>> Phone :0120 – 2538939
>>
>