RE: [IAC++] enlighten us all those who matters

Dear Sarbajit,

Section 4 1 a, has it been implemented in letter and spirit? Can you name any Public Authority that has implemented it and support with evidence? To my knowledge no PA has evolved a time bound road map and shown actual achieved so far. It's 7 years now.

Kris Dev.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sarbajit Roy
Sent: 24/12/2012 10:26:14 am
Subject: Re: [IAC++] enlighten us all those who matters

Dear Naveen

I'm going to speak very directly now.

1) We are ALL (each and every one of us) "small fish".

2) We should think like and operate like a school of small fish - piranhas
- that can rip a body in under a minute.

3) The High Court did not disturb the operative portions of CIC's order
for section 4(1) suo-moto disclosure and neither is it under challenge in
the SC. The court also recorded my concerns about necessity of section 4
disclosure in terms of the Act and several CIC orders. So that much of the
CIC decision is FINAL and binding on all public authorities in Delhi. As
such my judgement is a definitive and powerful ruling on 4(1). (You must
really learn to read the law the way I do).

4) Now what did I achieve with that HC ruling.

Firstly, the arrogant and bizarre CIC Management Regulations were
completely struck down as bad in law. All RTI activists in India have
praised me for this. Mr Habibullah is squarely to blame for these high
handed Regulations.

Secondly, the spotlight was focused on whether single benches of the CIC
are legal. I have always held that they are not. "Single benches" allowed
idiots like Shailesh Gandhi to pass all kinds of illegal and egoistic
orders which came in for severe criticism by the Delhi High Court naming
him personally. The immediate consequence of that was the SC Namit Sharma
decision directing that a retired SC/HC judge had to be the "judicial
member" on every CIC/SC bench. CIC is now functioning in single benches
only under a stay order of the SC in my case.

Thirdly, the State Information Commissions got a powerful signal to behave
themselves from that order - and Namit Sharma has further hammered them.

Fourthly, after the HC struck down the Regulations, DoPT had to amend the
RTI Rules.Now we have a very good set of RTI rules which Humjanenge fought
for and obtained against the combined NCPRI/NAC-Sonia powerful harami
brigade (which includes your NAPM). Aruna Roy was trying her best to screw
the RTI Act by these Rules.

5) The SC has sent me many notices asking me to enter appearance, I am not
doing so because it would pit me against the CIC (and they would lose). In
the larger interest of the RTI movement I have put aside my personal
opinions and am staying out of it to give CIC a clear field on a very poor
cause. If anyone is going to screw the RTI movement it is quislings like
Aruna Roy, Shailesh Gandhi and all the foreign financed NAPM professional
trouble-makers who are intervening in Namit Sharma. Only God can save RTI
now.

Sarbajit


On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Naveen Tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Sarabjit,
>
> Of course I was not privy to the affidavits filed by you, DDA and CIC to
> know the pleadings. I was not aggrieved by the judgement of the high court
> since it was passed on correct reading of law but the tone and tenor of the
> judgement expressed nothing but contempt and that bothered me. Besides, the
> court should have given directions to DDA to comply with the provision of
> law ( 4-1B) within a definite time. The court could also have ruled on the
> effect of non compliance by the authority and who in a PA should be
> ultimately accountable for the same. All this the court was not interested
> in and the sole purpose seemed to have been to cut the CIC to size.
>
> You have not become a party in the supreme court but unless some definite
> ruling on this issue of 4-1(b) is passed the RTI movement will remain a
> movement in the minds of people like you and me. I am a very small fry and
> quite insignificant if compared to a big fish like you.
>
> The CIC is going to lose it in supreme court because it had certainly gone
> beyond its jurisdiction in framing rules without any statutory provision
> authorising it to do so. Which legal counsel worth his salt can advise them
> to file an appeal!
>
> What was the result of your win? Is DDA declaring all data as mandated
> under RTI? Is there any order of any court which fixes the accountability
> of the head of a public authority for non compliance of law? And what
> punishment or penalty it should attract?
>
> to tell you the truth there is hardly a movement in the state. We are very
> happy with the great success stories we read or hear about in the media.
>
> The IAC has already prepared a large burial ground for all civil society
> movements in India and I have also chosen my coffin already.
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> Naveen
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On २४-१२-२०१२, at १२:१७ पूर्वाह्न, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> *
> *
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> Dear Naveen
>
> Thank you for remembering me. Your recollection of that matter is
> considerably at variance with reality so let me update you, also since
> I understand you are with the NAPM who have a small RTI movement in UP
> also.
>
> 1) I did not "lose" along with the CIC. I "won" along with the DDA.
>
> 2) The issues before the Court were
>
> A) If CIC could frame Regulations for RTI.
> I and the DDA said they could not. Both of us submitted our written
> statements to this effect. The CIC had no answer and did not file any
> written submissions.
>
> B) If DDA had an obligation to disclose information suo-moto under section
> 4
> This was my issue, and it was emphatically answered in my favour
>
> C) If CIC could form a committee of enquiry of outsiders u/s 18.
> Both DDA and I said they could not.Both of us submitted our written
> statements to this effect. The CIC had no answer and did not file any
> written submissions.
>
> You can read the detailed judgement on DHC website (WP(C)12714/2009.
> Nothing to show that I "lost".
>
> The matter is now in Supreme Court as a Civil Appeal brought by the
> CIC. Although on "theoretical" grounds I would have preferred to side
> with the DDA and hammer the CIC, on practical grounds seeing the poor
> state of RTI in the country I am not entering appearance in the matter
> to give the hapless CIC a fair shot.
>
> Sarbajit
> National Convenor
> India Against Corruption, Jan Andolan
>
> On 12/23/12, Naveen Tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=nct.lko@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > Dear Sarabjit,
> >
> > Just wanted to know if you are the same person who filed a petition
> against
> > DDA which was eventually lost by you and CIC in the Delhi High Court? Did
> > you file an appeal against that judgement?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Naveen Tewari
> > Lucknow
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On २२-१२-२०१२, at ११:४७ अपराह्न, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=sroy.mb@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Dr Chaturvedi
> >>
> >> You and I are corrupt because we were a part of God (Brahman) and need
> to
> >> be again renewed with God.
> >>
> >> Sarbajit
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi
> >> <drsanjaychaturvedi@gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=drsanjaychaturvedi@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >> You mean that we are corrupt because I and you are corrupt than why I
> and
> >> you are corrupt any vedic answer?
> >> 1/188 Delhi Gate, Agra 9412261575
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> >
> >> Sender: iac-request@lists.riseup.net<http://mc/compose?to=iac-request@lists.riseup.net>
> >> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:31:59
> >> To: iac<iac@lists.riseup.net<http://mc/compose?to=iac@lists.riseup.net>
> >
> >> Reply-To: iac@lists.riseup.net<http://mc/compose?to=iac@lists.riseup.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [IAC++] enlighten us all those who matters
> >>
> >> WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
> >> Post: iac@lists.riseup.net <http://mc/compose?to=iac@lists.riseup.net>
> >> Quit: iac-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net<http://mc/compose?to=iac-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net>
> >> Help: http://help.riseup.net/lists/
> >>
> >>
> >> WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
> >> Post: iac@lists.riseup.net <http://mc/compose?to=iac@lists.riseup.net>
> >> Quit: iac-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net<http://mc/compose?to=iac-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net>
> >> Help: http://help.riseup.net/lists/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
> >> Post: iac@lists.riseup.net <http://mc/compose?to=iac@lists.riseup.net>
> >> Quit: iac-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net<http://mc/compose?to=iac-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net>
> >> Help: http://help.riseup.net/lists/
> >
>
> WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
> Post: iac@lists.riseup.net <http://mc/compose?to=iac@lists.riseup.net>
> Quit: iac-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net<http://mc/compose?to=iac-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net>
> Help: http://help.riseup.net/lists/
>
>
>
> WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
> Post: iac@lists.riseup.net <http://mc/compose?to=iac@lists.riseup.net>
> Quit: iac-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net<http://mc/compose?to=iac-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net>
> Help: http://help.riseup.net/lists/
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
> Post: iac@lists.riseup.net <http://mc/compose?to=iac@lists.riseup.net>
> Quit: iac-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net<http://mc/compose?to=iac-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net>
> Help: http://help.riseup.net/lists/
>
> WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
> Post: iac@lists.riseup.net
> Quit: iac-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net
> Help: http://help.riseup.net/lists/
>
>