Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC ORDER ON INFORMATION COMMISSIONS

Dear friend, I perhaps may be not welcome directly to make a posting to your website.  I am taking a chance on that in the interest of justice:

I am of the opinion that the language used in para 8 of this particular judgement is more a directive character as well as from a future date to be decided.  The Court has not made an order which needs to be translated into the respective constitutional provisions or a Statute.  The SC knows its responsibilities and I have observed it in many judgements.  The Chief of the Supreme Court or certain benches of the supreme Court normally take note of any mandates for interference in the legislative process and contraventions of division of power.   IN such cases case, the said authorities or bench do direct that the Courts cannot legislate.  However, the doctrine of checks and balances, estoppels, arbtiraryness and contravention of fundamental rights
enables them to issue suitable directions in either rectifying the situation or cancelling the proceedure adopted by the State.  Therefore, if the judiciary has issued a directiveto the State that a Law has to be enacted only in a particular style or direct the State to adopt a particular stype of enactment of law, both of which are against or contravening the tenets of the constitution or/and the fundamental rights , the chances of contravention of constitutional provisions arise.   In the instant case such an eventuality does not appear to have been arisen but only a directive or ideal in which the law should be, is for the consideration of the parliament/legislators to examine and enact as the case may be. Regards dwarakathdm

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:58 PM, prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:

Respected Sir

                  With reference to the judgment of Supreme Court on appointment of Information Commissioner is itself unconstitutional on the following grounds:-

Please read the par no. 8 of the order and direction  of the Judgment as under-

"8. The Information Commissions at the respective levels shall henceforth work in Benches of two members each. One of them being a 'judicial member', while the other an 'expert member'. The judicial member should be a person possessing a degree in law, having a judicially trained mind and experience in performing judicial functions. A law

officer or a lawyer may also be eligible provided he is a person who has practiced law at least for a period of twenty years as on the date of the advertisement. Such lawyer should also have experience in social work. We are of the considered view that the competent authority should prefer a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court for appointment as Information Commissioners. Chief Information Commissioner at the Centre or State level shall only be a person who is or has been a Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court of India"

Please read the qualification for the post of High Court Judge which is prescribed by the Constitution of India as under:-

Article217(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and—

(a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or

(b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court 3*** or of two or more such Courts in succession; 4***

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause—

1[(a) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India, there shall be included any period, after he has held any judicial office, during which the person has been an advocate of a High Court or has held the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law;]

2[(aa)] in computing the period during which a person has been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period during which the person 3[has held judicial office or the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law] after he became an advocate;

(b) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India or been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period before the commencement of this Constitution during which he has held judicial office in any area which was comprised before the fifteenth day of August, 1947, within India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935, or has been an advocate of any High Court in any such area, as the case may be.

4[(3) If any question arises as to the age of a Judge of a High Court, the question shall be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the decision of the President shall be final.]

Appointment of District judges and qualification required for appointment of District Judge under the Constitution of India is as under

Article233(2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.

1) That as per Constitution of India Article 226 R/W Article 227 all subordinate Courts and Tribunals and all commissions including information commission is under the Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court and subordinate to the High Court. If this is correct position of law explained in L. Chandrakumar Vs Union of India AIR 1997 SC1125 then the judgment of such commission must under scrutiny before the High Court .A person who is eligible to appointed as District Judge if he is appointed so his judgment and order is also have scrutiny before the High Court. Therefore I surprised when Hon'ble ask the Government to appoint a person who has practiced as an Advocate for not less than 20 years to be appointed as information Commissioner. the person who has practice as Advocate for not less than 10 years is eligible to be appointed as High Court Judge but the same person is not eligible to be appointed for the post of Information Commissioner although post is lower post than a High Court judge whose orders can be set aside by a High Court Judge. The post of information Commissioner is equivalent to the post of District Judge or single Bench High Court at the max.

Supreme Court has clearly transgressed the power of legislative authority which is not permitted by the Constitution which is creator of it.(Supreme Court has got existence from the Constitution of India)

If the Court compels to appoint the retired Chief justice of High Court or Retired Supreme Court many State Governments will not find such person for appointment and for lack of eligible person the post will be vacant. The effect will be that there will be huge pendency in each and every commission and peoples will wait for getting orders and information which they requested. The delay may be more than 10 years and which will frustrate the object of the Right To information Act 2005 itself.

 I feel that order of Supreme court especially para. 8 is unconstitutional and without  authority and without jurisdiction

 

Re: [HumJanenge] SC Judgement on CICs

Dear Shri Vaidya         The retirement age of a Supreme Court Judge is 65 years, and that of High Court Judge is 62 years. As you may be aware, there are large number of vacancies in various High Courts, which very often is touted as the reason for mounting pendancy of Court cases. As one measure to meet the shortfall, a move for raising the retirement age of High Court Judges to 65 years (at par with that of SC Judges) is under active consideration. SC has already made recommendations for this raising of age bar, and matter is under consideration of GOI. In all likelihood, it will be cleared shortly. Once this comes through, retirement age for both SC and HC Judges will become 65 years.       Now coming to your point, linking it with retirement age of 65 years for Information Commissioners, and SC recent Order making it obligatory to (i) appoint SC/HC Judges to SICs and (ii) making it mandatory for 2nd Appeals received at SICs to be heard by a Bench of two ICs, with one member being with Judicial background, things are bound to be extremely difficult. Given the position of retirement being made uniform at 65, no serving High Court Judge or a Supreme Court would like to move to Information Commissions, as they would like to continue at SC/HC itself. Retired Judges would also have crossed the age of 65 years, and their being drafted for SICs as mandated by SC Order, would be out of question. This would throw up situations, where finding a Judge (SC or HC) would be extremely difficult proposition and SIC positions may remain vacant; this effectively have the end result of no hearings being taken for reasons of non-availability of Judges for being appointed as IC. That would sound death knell for RTI.     We should remain prepared to face this eventuality. A SAD THING TO HAPPEN S K NANGIA         --- On Mon, 17/9/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote: From: prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC Judgement on CICs To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 17 September, 2012, 9:23 PM respected girish sir                          I wrote the detail constitutional provisions in my last email to humjanenge and i have also mentioned regarding my online grievances to Hon'ble President of India I wrote specifically to Mr. Sarabjeet Roy requested him to make an enquiry with office of President of India unfortunately for no one is willing to reply me. the age of retirement for SC judges is 65 years and the conditions prescibed by SC is more than required for HC Judge (For HC judge 10 yres judgment says 20 years practise) prasad vaidya 08857993253 viadya --- On Mon, 17/9/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC Judgement on CICs To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 17 September, 2012, 5:03 PM Dear Girish The easiest way to test a bad mathematical model is to feed it bad data. The RTI Act was combination of a law for babudom drafted in conjunction with illiterates (activists). As a result it eventually degenerated into nothingness. The SC order has to be interpreted as something introduced by God to demolish the present increasingly unworkable structure of the RTI Act. There will be the inevitable counter-thrust from babudom as well as Parliament. What will result will either be something workable or something completely unworkable. The chances are with the latter which in turn will engender something even greater than RTI - CHAOS !!! Sarbajit On 9/17/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I am not sure if the order of SC is workable. > > Retirement age of HC judges is slated to be increased from 62 to 65(bill > pending in Parliament), while the retirement age of IC is 65 years. So I am > not how many former HC judges will qualify? Besides, one would want to > continue in HC or later practise as solicitor/advocate, rather than to > become an IC. If the argument is that lot of decisions are being challenged > in courts of law, hence judicial help is required-well, lot of HC cases go > to division benches and SC. Even this decision is likely to be challenged > before larger bench. > > Also, I wonder if a HC judge would want to be an IC-its like HC judge > becoming Sessions judge. I don't foresee too many people agreeing for this > type of job. > > Also FAA having degree in law/experience in law. Take for example Municipal > Corporation in any city. The FAA, is, any superior authority. for example > Ward Officer in the relevant ward. If FAA has to be a legal degree holder, > then by default, he is law officer of the organisation, and all appeal > would lie before him. Imagine the number of appeals to be settled by a > single law officer. What about places where there is no legal person?? In > CIC if JS/Law is to be the FAA, I dont think it will make > any significant difference to non disclosure by CIC. He will continue to > justify not providing information. Currently also they seek help of JS/Law, > who I am not sure is legally qualified. > > Regards. > > Girish Mittal >

Re: [HumJanenge] SC Judgement on CICs

what govt. babus could not get directly they have got through the SC(govt. judges). Killed the RTI Act. --- On Mon, 17/9/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote: From: prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC Judgement on CICs To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 17 September, 2012, 9:23 PM respected girish sir                          I wrote the detail constitutional provisions in my last email to humjanenge and i have also mentioned regarding my online grievances to Hon'ble President of India I wrote specifically to Mr. Sarabjeet Roy requested him to make an enquiry with office of President of India unfortunately for no one is willing to reply me. the age of retirement for SC judges is 65 years and the conditions prescibed by SC is more than required for HC Judge (For HC judge 10 yres judgment says 20 years practise) prasad vaidya 08857993253 viadya --- On Mon, 17/9/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC Judgement on CICs To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 17 September, 2012, 5:03 PM Dear Girish The easiest way to test a bad mathematical model is to feed it bad data. The RTI Act was combination of a law for babudom drafted in conjunction with illiterates (activists). As a result it eventually degenerated into nothingness. The SC order has to be interpreted as something introduced by God to demolish the present increasingly unworkable structure of the RTI Act. There will be the inevitable counter-thrust from babudom as well as Parliament. What will result will either be something workable or something completely unworkable. The chances are with the latter which in turn will engender something even greater than RTI - CHAOS !!! Sarbajit On 9/17/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I am not sure if the order of SC is workable. > > Retirement age of HC judges is slated to be increased from 62 to 65(bill > pending in Parliament), while the retirement age of IC is 65 years. So I am > not how many former HC judges will qualify? Besides, one would want to > continue in HC or later practise as solicitor/advocate, rather than to > become an IC. If the argument is that lot of decisions are being challenged > in courts of law, hence judicial help is required-well, lot of HC cases go > to division benches and SC. Even this decision is likely to be challenged > before larger bench. > > Also, I wonder if a HC judge would want to be an IC-its like HC judge > becoming Sessions judge. I don't foresee too many people agreeing for this > type of job. > > Also FAA having degree in law/experience in law. Take for example Municipal > Corporation in any city. The FAA, is, any superior authority. for example > Ward Officer in the relevant ward. If FAA has to be a legal degree holder, > then by default, he is law officer of the organisation, and all appeal > would lie before him. Imagine the number of appeals to be settled by a > single law officer. What about places where there is no legal person?? In > CIC if JS/Law is to be the FAA, I dont think it will make > any significant difference to non disclosure by CIC. He will continue to > justify not providing information. Currently also they seek help of JS/Law, > who I am not sure is legally qualified. > > Regards. > > Girish Mittal >

Re: [HumJanenge] Pratibha Patil to return 155 artifacts to Rashtrapati Bhavan by 15 June 2013, reveals RTI reply

she has taken the artifacts for keeping permanently. if no list of items given now then she might return 155 item in number may be toys purchased from weekly market. no body will know after one year what item she took home. god bless her.    --- On Tue, 18/9/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Pratibha Patil to return 155 artifacts to Rashtrapati Bhavan by 15 June 2013, reveals RTI reply To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Tuesday, 18 September, 2012, 12:03 AM The author is Vinita Deshmukh Her email ID is mentioned at the foot of the article "vinitapune@gmail.com" I think she is no longer on this list due to ideological differences. On 9/17/12, kiran shaheen <kiranshaheen@gmail.com> wrote: > Great. is initiative ki tarif ke liye mere paas shabd nahi hain. > If I wish to write on this, I would like to talk to you. Please share your > contact number. if u do not wantto share it publicly then send iot me at > kiranshaheen@gmail.com > Solidarity, > Kiran > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:04 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > >> Pratibha Patil to return 155 artifacts to Rashtrapati Bhavan by 15 June >> 2013, reveals RTI reply >> >>    - >>       - irst to comment >>    - + >> COMMENT<http://www.moneylife.in/article/pratibha-patil-to-return-155-artifacts-to-rashtrapati-bhavan-by-15-june-2013-reveals-rti-reply/28508.html#postcomment> >> >> VINITA DESHMUKH <http://www.moneylife.in/author/vinita-deshmukh.html> | >> 17/09/2012 >> 07:36 AM | >> <http://www.moneylife.in/article/pratibha-patil-to-return-155-artifacts-to-rashtrapati-bhavan-by-15-june-2013-reveals-rti-reply/28508.html#> >> *To a RTI query by this writer asking about the list of gift items loaned >> specifically to Pratibha Patil along with the evaluated price of each >> item, Rashtrapati Bhavan says information not necessary as it is a >> 'temporary' arrangement* >> >> The Rashtrapati Bhavan has officially admitted through a RTI (Right to >> Information) reply to this writer that "An MoU was signed on 15th June >> 2012 >> between Rashtrapati Bhavan and the Vidya Bharti Shaikshnik Mandal, >> Amravati, for display of 155 artifacts/mementos on a purely temporary >> basis, which in any case, cease to be operative with effect from 15th >> June >> 2013 and all the artifacts presently on loan shall be returned to the >> Rashtrapati Bhavan Museum thereafter" but refuses to divulge detailed >> information on the list of artifacts transferred to Ms Patil's museum. >> >> The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the President's >> Secretariat takes this 'temporary' arrangement as an excuse to not >> provide the list of artifacts given to Ms Patil to display it in her >> museum >> in her hometown, Amravati, along with their individual costs and >> countries >> that they were gifted from. >> >> The RTI application filed by me on 3 August 2012, specifically asked the >> PIO of the President's Secretariat, "List of gift items loaned >> specifically >> to Ms Pratibha Patil along with the evaluated price of each item; from >> which country did each gift item come from; what was the purpose of her >> visit when she received each of the gift item." The reply is "do not >> arise >> in view of the answer at (3) above" (which is she would be returning >> artifacts by 15 June 2013 as the agreement would cease by then. >> >> The RTI reply interestingly suggests that it was President Abdul Kalam >> who >> started the trend of moving out gifts received in the capacity of being >> President of India. The CPIO Saurabh Vjay states in his reply dated 6 >> September 2012, "No such requests have been made by any former President >> of >> India. It is, however, stated that in the past, 36 artifacts were handed >> over during the Presidency of Dr APJ Abdul Kalam for being displayed in >> the >> Brahmos Centre, New Delhi." This reply came to the writer's query under >> RTI >> seeking "copies of official requests made by Presidents of India for >> loaning of gifts from 1990 onwards. Provide copies of all such >> correspondence within the President of India office as well as between >> President of India office and the relevant district/city authority where >> the President of India may have resided or the place where she/he wants >> to >> display the loanedgift items, form 1990 onwards." >> >> The RTI reply also states that "no such rules and regulations are >> available for loaning ofgift items received by the President of India. >> This >> was in reply to my query, "Copies of Rules/GRs/amendments/correspondence >> for rules and amended rules regarding gift articles and souvenirs which >> are >> received by Presidents of India from other countries and within the >> country; Copy of rules and regulations for 'loaning' official gifts >> received by President of India to presidents on their retirement or >> loaned to any other organisation." >> >> To the query, "How many gift items in total does the 'Tosha Khana' of the >> President's office have at the moment and what is the total amount in >> value?" CPIO Saurabh Vijay states in his reply that "as per our records >> there are about 2,500 gifts in 'Tosha Khana' of the President's >> Secretariat >> and as regards the value of these items, no such records are available in >> the Art section."  This is indeed shocking for, as per the ministry of >> home >> affairs, any contribution in the form of gifts received by President of >> India or other dignitaries must be valued within 30 days of receipt of >> gift. >> >> It may be recalled that a museum is being specially set up in Pratibha >> Patil's hometown by the family trust, Vidya Bharti Shaikshnik Mandal, run >> by her politician-son Rajendra Shekhawat. >> >> The writer is filing a first appeal to the President's Secretariat since >> the information received is inadequate. >> >> Read the previous article here: *Pratibha Patil's Museum: Gifts received >> by VVIPs from foreign countries can be purchased by them but can they be >> loaned?<http://www.moneylife.in/article/pratibha-patils-museum-gifts-received-by-vvips-from-foreign-countries-can-be-purchased-by-them-but-can-they-be-loaned/27641.html> >> * >> >> *(Vinita Deshmukh is the consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist >> and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of >> prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she >> won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for >> outstanding >> media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She >> co-authored >> the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - >> Ashok >> Kamte" with Vinita Kamte. She can be reached atvinitapune@gmail.com.)* >> > > > > -- > Kiran Shaheen > > > *I carry a torch in one hand > And a bucket of water in the other: > With these things I am going to set fire to Heaven > And put out the flames of Hell > So that voyagers to God can rip the veils > And see the real goal....... > Rabia (Rabi'a Al-'Adawiyya)* >

[HumJanenge] Re: Information Request : Hearings by Central Information Commission without "legal members"

Subject: REMINDER: Information Request : Hearings by Central
Information Commission without "legal members"

To:
Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskkar
Deputy Secretary & Joint Registrar (Nodal CPIO)
Central Information Commission
at New Delhi

18-Sep-2012

Sir

It is a matter of great concern that the minutes of meeting I
requested have neither been sent to me nor uploaded to the website. In
the circumstances I am unable to comprehend how the Commission is
continuing to hear RTI matters without the legal members in the face
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment. Some State Information
Commissions have ceased work after this judgment, so the entire public
at large wants to know why / how CIC is still carrying on .

I am also concerned that CIC is organising its Annual Conference /
Convention next month, at the cost of the public exchequer, and
request you to kindly bring it to the notice of all the Information
Commissioners that they should cancel this conference/convention in
view of the emergent situation.

Thanking you,
yours faithfully

Sarbajit Roy

B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024

On 9/17/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> To:
> Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskkar
> Deputy Secretary & Joint Registrar (Nodal CPIO)
> Central Information Commission
> at New Delhi
>
> 17-Sep-2012
>
> Sir
>
> From the website of the Commission I note that you are the Nodal CPIO
> for all matters relating to decisions taken by the Commission in its
> weekly meetings,
>
> It appears that a meeting was held recently by the Commission in the wake of
> the
> Supreme Court Judgment in "Namit Sharma versus UoI" whereby all
> Information Commissions have been directed to "henceforth" function
> only in Benches of 2 or more, at least one of the members being a
> "legal member".
>
> As the functioning of the Commission in Benches is in any case only
> carrying on under the interim stay order of the Supreme Court in SLP
> 30152/2011where I am a party, I would request you to immediately send
> me the copy of the aforesaid minutes of meeting (or an other basis)
> whereby the Commission is now conducting hearings into Appeals and
> Complaints in contravention of the Supreme Court's detailed Judgment
> of 13.09.2012.
>
> Kindly treat this matter as very urgent and as a request for
> disclosure under section 4(1)(b),(c) of the RTI Act 2005 which you are
> bound to comply with immediately.
>
> As the matter is also of considerable public interest, you may
> alternatively immediately publish the minutes of meeting on the
> Commission's website under advise to me.
>
> Thanking you,
> yours faithfully
>
> Sarbajit Roy
>
> B-59 Defence Colony
> New Delhi 110024
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Pratibha Patil to return 155 artifacts to Rashtrapati Bhavan by 15 June 2013, reveals RTI reply

Great Job, Vinita.

While RTIs reveal a lot of shenanigans by these politigoons, it is equally important to brings these to public thru such well-written articles.

My regards & best wishes,

 

Chandra K Jain
93124 39464
INDIA

From: Naveen Johri <naveenjohri@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Pratibha Patil to return 155 artifacts to Rashtrapati Bhavan by 15 June 2013, reveals RTI reply

hope some keeps a tag of the date of return, 

lest we forget that 

laudible success 

my hats off

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:14 PM, kiran shaheen <kiranshaheen@gmail.com> wrote:

Great. is initiative ki tarif ke liye mere paas shabd nahi hain.

If I wish to write on this, I would like to talk to you. Please share your contact number. if u do not wantto share it publicly then send iot me at kiranshaheen@gmail.com

Solidarity,

Kiran

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:04 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Pratibha Patil to return 155 artifacts to Rashtrapati Bhavan by 15 June 2013, reveals RTI reply

• • irst to comment
• + COMMENT

VINITA DESHMUKH | 17/09/2012 07:36 AM |   

To a RTI query by this writer asking about the list of gift items loaned specifically to Pratibha Patil along with the evaluated price of each item, Rashtrapati Bhavan says information not necessary as it is a 'temporary' arrangement

The Rashtrapati Bhavan has officially admitted through a RTI (Right to Information) reply to this writer that "An MoU was signed on 15th June 2012 between Rashtrapati Bhavan and the Vidya Bharti Shaikshnik Mandal, Amravati, for display of 155 artifacts/mementos on a purely temporary basis, which in any case, cease to be operative with effect from 15th June 2013 and all the artifacts presently on loan shall be returned to the Rashtrapati Bhavan Museum thereafter" but refuses to divulge detailed information on the list of artifacts transferred to Ms Patil's museum.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the President's Secretariat takes this 'temporary' arrangement as an excuse to not provide the list of artifacts given to Ms Patil to display it in her museum in her hometown, Amravati, along with their individual costs and countries that they were gifted from.

The RTI application filed by me on 3 August 2012, specifically asked the PIO of the President's Secretariat, "List of gift items loaned specifically to Ms Pratibha Patil along with the evaluated price of each item; from which country did each gift item come from; what was the purpose of her visit when she received each of the gift item." The reply is "do not arise in view of the answer at (3) above" (which is she would be returning artifacts by 15 June 2013 as the agreement would cease by then.

The RTI reply interestingly suggests that it was President Abdul Kalam who started the trend of moving out gifts received in the capacity of being President of India. The CPIO Saurabh Vjay states in his reply dated 6 September 2012, "No such requests have been made by any former President of India. It is, however, stated that in the past, 36 artifacts were handed over during the Presidency of Dr APJ Abdul Kalam for being displayed in the Brahmos Centre, New Delhi." This reply came to the writer's query under RTI seeking "copies of official requests made by Presidents of India for loaning of gifts from 1990 onwards. Provide copies of all such correspondence within the President of India office as well as between President of India office and the relevant district/city authority where the President of India may have resided or the place where she/he wants to display the loanedgift items, form 1990 onwards."

The RTI reply also states that "no such rules and regulations are available for loaning ofgift items received by the President of India. This was in reply to my query, "Copies of Rules/GRs/amendments/correspondence for rules and amended rules regarding gift articles and souvenirs which are received by Presidents of India from other countries and within the country; Copy of rules and regulations for 'loaning' official gifts received by President of India to presidents on their retirement or loaned to any other organisation."

To the query, "How many gift items in total does the 'Tosha Khana' of the President's office have at the moment and what is the total amount in value?" CPIO Saurabh Vijay states in his reply that "as per our records there are about 2,500 gifts in 'Tosha Khana' of the President's Secretariat and as regards the value of these items, no such records are available in the Art section."  This is indeed shocking for, as per the ministry of home affairs, any contribution in the form of gifts received by President of India or other dignitaries must be valued within 30 days of receipt of gift.

It may be recalled that a museum is being specially set up in Pratibha Patil's hometown by the family trust, Vidya Bharti Shaikshnik Mandal, run by her politician-son Rajendra Shekhawat.

The writer is filing a first appeal to the President's Secretariat since the information received is inadequate.

Read the previous article here: Pratibha Patil's Museum: Gifts received by VVIPs from foreign countries can be purchased by them but can they be loaned?

 

(Vinita Deshmukh is the consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte. She can be reached atvinitapune@gmail.com.)

--

Kiran Shaheen

 

I carry a torch in one hand
And a bucket of water in the other:
With these things I am going to set fire to Heaven
And put out the flames of Hell
So that voyagers to God can rip the veils
And see the real goal.......
Rabia (Rabi'a Al-'Adawiyya)

 

 

--
"Be kinder than necessary  
 because everyone you meet  
 is fighting some kind of battle."


Regards
NK Johri
044-24491003
09444412644

Re: [HumJanenge] Pratibha Patil to return 155 artifacts to Rashtrapati Bhavan by 15 June 2013, reveals RTI reply

hope some keeps a tag of the date of return, 

lest we forget that 

laudible success 

my hats off

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:14 PM, kiran shaheen <kiranshaheen@gmail.com> wrote:

Great. is initiative ki tarif ke liye mere paas shabd nahi hain.

If I wish to write on this, I would like to talk to you. Please share your contact number. if u do not wantto share it publicly then send iot me at kiranshaheen@gmail.com

Solidarity,

Kiran

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:04 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Pratibha Patil to return 155 artifacts to Rashtrapati Bhavan by 15 June 2013, reveals RTI reply

• • irst to comment
• + COMMENT

VINITA DESHMUKH | 17/09/2012 07:36 AM |   

To a RTI query by this writer asking about the list of gift items loaned specifically to Pratibha Patil along with the evaluated price of each item, Rashtrapati Bhavan says information not necessary as it is a 'temporary' arrangement

The Rashtrapati Bhavan has officially admitted through a RTI (Right to Information) reply to this writer that "An MoU was signed on 15th June 2012 between Rashtrapati Bhavan and the Vidya Bharti Shaikshnik Mandal, Amravati, for display of 155 artifacts/mementos on a purely temporary basis, which in any case, cease to be operative with effect from 15th June 2013 and all the artifacts presently on loan shall be returned to the Rashtrapati Bhavan Museum thereafter" but refuses to divulge detailed information on the list of artifacts transferred to Ms Patil's museum.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the President's Secretariat takes this 'temporary' arrangement as an excuse to not provide the list of artifacts given to Ms Patil to display it in her museum in her hometown, Amravati, along with their individual costs and countries that they were gifted from.

The RTI application filed by me on 3 August 2012, specifically asked the PIO of the President's Secretariat, "List of gift items loaned specifically to Ms Pratibha Patil along with the evaluated price of each item; from which country did each gift item come from; what was the purpose of her visit when she received each of the gift item." The reply is "do not arise in view of the answer at (3) above" (which is she would be returning artifacts by 15 June 2013 as the agreement would cease by then.

The RTI reply interestingly suggests that it was President Abdul Kalam who started the trend of moving out gifts received in the capacity of being President of India. The CPIO Saurabh Vjay states in his reply dated 6 September 2012, "No such requests have been made by any former President of India. It is, however, stated that in the past, 36 artifacts were handed over during the Presidency of Dr APJ Abdul Kalam for being displayed in the Brahmos Centre, New Delhi." This reply came to the writer's query under RTI seeking "copies of official requests made by Presidents of India for loaning of gifts from 1990 onwards. Provide copies of all such correspondence within the President of India office as well as between President of India office and the relevant district/city authority where the President of India may have resided or the place where she/he wants to display the loanedgift items, form 1990 onwards."

The RTI reply also states that "no such rules and regulations are available for loaning ofgift items received by the President of India. This was in reply to my query, "Copies of Rules/GRs/amendments/correspondence for rules and amended rules regarding gift articles and souvenirs which are received by Presidents of India from other countries and within the country; Copy of rules and regulations for 'loaning' official gifts received by President of India to presidents on their retirement or loaned to any other organisation."

To the query, "How many gift items in total does the 'Tosha Khana' of the President's office have at the moment and what is the total amount in value?" CPIO Saurabh Vijay states in his reply that "as per our records there are about 2,500 gifts in 'Tosha Khana' of the President's Secretariat and as regards the value of these items, no such records are available in the Art section."  This is indeed shocking for, as per the ministry of home affairs, any contribution in the form of gifts received by President of India or other dignitaries must be valued within 30 days of receipt of gift.

It may be recalled that a museum is being specially set up in Pratibha Patil's hometown by the family trust, Vidya Bharti Shaikshnik Mandal, run by her politician-son Rajendra Shekhawat.

The writer is filing a first appeal to the President's Secretariat since the information received is inadequate.

Read the previous article here: Pratibha Patil's Museum: Gifts received by VVIPs from foreign countries can be purchased by them but can they be loaned?

 

(Vinita Deshmukh is the consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte. She can be reached atvinitapune@gmail.com.)

--

Kiran Shaheen

 

I carry a torch in one hand
And a bucket of water in the other:
With these things I am going to set fire to Heaven
And put out the flames of Hell
So that voyagers to God can rip the veils
And see the real goal.......
Rabia (Rabi'a Al-'Adawiyya)

 

 

--
"Be kinder than necessary  
 because everyone you meet  
 is fighting some kind of battle."


Regards
NK Johri
044-24491003
09444412644

Re: [HumJanenge] Pratibha Patil to return 155 artifacts to Rashtrapati Bhavan by 15 June 2013, reveals RTI reply

The author is Vinita Deshmukh
Her email ID is mentioned at the foot of the article
"vinitapune@gmail.com"

I think she is no longer on this list due to ideological differences.

On 9/17/12, kiran shaheen <kiranshaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great. is initiative ki tarif ke liye mere paas shabd nahi hain.
> If I wish to write on this, I would like to talk to you. Please share your
> contact number. if u do not wantto share it publicly then send iot me at
> kiranshaheen@gmail.com
> Solidarity,
> Kiran
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:04 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>> Pratibha Patil to return 155 artifacts to Rashtrapati Bhavan by 15 June
>> 2013, reveals RTI reply
>>
>> -
>> - irst to comment
>> - +
>> COMMENT<http://www.moneylife.in/article/pratibha-patil-to-return-155-artifacts-to-rashtrapati-bhavan-by-15-june-2013-reveals-rti-reply/28508.html#postcomment>
>>
>> VINITA DESHMUKH <http://www.moneylife.in/author/vinita-deshmukh.html> |
>> 17/09/2012
>> 07:36 AM |
>> <http://www.moneylife.in/article/pratibha-patil-to-return-155-artifacts-to-rashtrapati-bhavan-by-15-june-2013-reveals-rti-reply/28508.html#>
>> *To a RTI query by this writer asking about the list of gift items loaned
>> specifically to Pratibha Patil along with the evaluated price of each
>> item, Rashtrapati Bhavan says information not necessary as it is a
>> 'temporary' arrangement*
>>
>> The Rashtrapati Bhavan has officially admitted through a RTI (Right to
>> Information) reply to this writer that "An MoU was signed on 15th June
>> 2012
>> between Rashtrapati Bhavan and the Vidya Bharti Shaikshnik Mandal,
>> Amravati, for display of 155 artifacts/mementos on a purely temporary
>> basis, which in any case, cease to be operative with effect from 15th
>> June
>> 2013 and all the artifacts presently on loan shall be returned to the
>> Rashtrapati Bhavan Museum thereafter" but refuses to divulge detailed
>> information on the list of artifacts transferred to Ms Patil's museum.
>>
>> The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the President's
>> Secretariat takes this 'temporary' arrangement as an excuse to not
>> provide the list of artifacts given to Ms Patil to display it in her
>> museum
>> in her hometown, Amravati, along with their individual costs and
>> countries
>> that they were gifted from.
>>
>> The RTI application filed by me on 3 August 2012, specifically asked the
>> PIO of the President's Secretariat, "List of gift items loaned
>> specifically
>> to Ms Pratibha Patil along with the evaluated price of each item; from
>> which country did each gift item come from; what was the purpose of her
>> visit when she received each of the gift item." The reply is "do not
>> arise
>> in view of the answer at (3) above" (which is she would be returning
>> artifacts by 15 June 2013 as the agreement would cease by then.
>>
>> The RTI reply interestingly suggests that it was President Abdul Kalam
>> who
>> started the trend of moving out gifts received in the capacity of being
>> President of India. The CPIO Saurabh Vjay states in his reply dated 6
>> September 2012, "No such requests have been made by any former President
>> of
>> India. It is, however, stated that in the past, 36 artifacts were handed
>> over during the Presidency of Dr APJ Abdul Kalam for being displayed in
>> the
>> Brahmos Centre, New Delhi." This reply came to the writer's query under
>> RTI
>> seeking "copies of official requests made by Presidents of India for
>> loaning of gifts from 1990 onwards. Provide copies of all such
>> correspondence within the President of India office as well as between
>> President of India office and the relevant district/city authority where
>> the President of India may have resided or the place where she/he wants
>> to
>> display the loanedgift items, form 1990 onwards."
>>
>> The RTI reply also states that "no such rules and regulations are
>> available for loaning ofgift items received by the President of India.
>> This
>> was in reply to my query, "Copies of Rules/GRs/amendments/correspondence
>> for rules and amended rules regarding gift articles and souvenirs which
>> are
>> received by Presidents of India from other countries and within the
>> country; Copy of rules and regulations for 'loaning' official gifts
>> received by President of India to presidents on their retirement or
>> loaned to any other organisation."
>>
>> To the query, "How many gift items in total does the 'Tosha Khana' of the
>> President's office have at the moment and what is the total amount in
>> value?" CPIO Saurabh Vijay states in his reply that "as per our records
>> there are about 2,500 gifts in 'Tosha Khana' of the President's
>> Secretariat
>> and as regards the value of these items, no such records are available in
>> the Art section." This is indeed shocking for, as per the ministry of
>> home
>> affairs, any contribution in the form of gifts received by President of
>> India or other dignitaries must be valued within 30 days of receipt of
>> gift.
>>
>> It may be recalled that a museum is being specially set up in Pratibha
>> Patil's hometown by the family trust, Vidya Bharti Shaikshnik Mandal, run
>> by her politician-son Rajendra Shekhawat.
>>
>> The writer is filing a first appeal to the President's Secretariat since
>> the information received is inadequate.
>>
>> Read the previous article here: *Pratibha Patil's Museum: Gifts received
>> by VVIPs from foreign countries can be purchased by them but can they be
>> loaned?<http://www.moneylife.in/article/pratibha-patils-museum-gifts-received-by-vvips-from-foreign-countries-can-be-purchased-by-them-but-can-they-be-loaned/27641.html>
>> *
>>
>> *(Vinita Deshmukh is the consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist
>> and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of
>> prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she
>> won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for
>> outstanding
>> media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She
>> co-authored
>> the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart -
>> Ashok
>> Kamte" with Vinita Kamte. She can be reached atvinitapune@gmail.com.)*
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kiran Shaheen
>
>
> *I carry a torch in one hand
> And a bucket of water in the other:
> With these things I am going to set fire to Heaven
> And put out the flames of Hell
> So that voyagers to God can rip the veils
> And see the real goal.......
> Rabia (Rabi'a Al-'Adawiyya)*
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Pratibha Patil to return 155 artifacts to Rashtrapati Bhavan by 15 June 2013, reveals RTI reply

Great. is initiative ki tarif ke liye mere paas shabd nahi hain.

If I wish to write on this, I would like to talk to you. Please share your contact number. if u do not wantto share it publicly then send iot me at kiranshaheen@gmail.com

Solidarity,

Kiran

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:04 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Pratibha Patil to return 155 artifacts to Rashtrapati Bhavan by 15 June 2013, reveals RTI reply

• • irst to comment
• + COMMENT

VINITA DESHMUKH | 17/09/2012 07:36 AM |   

To a RTI query by this writer asking about the list of gift items loaned specifically to Pratibha Patil along with the evaluated price of each item, Rashtrapati Bhavan says information not necessary as it is a 'temporary' arrangement

The Rashtrapati Bhavan has officially admitted through a RTI (Right to Information) reply to this writer that "An MoU was signed on 15th June 2012 between Rashtrapati Bhavan and the Vidya Bharti Shaikshnik Mandal, Amravati, for display of 155 artifacts/mementos on a purely temporary basis, which in any case, cease to be operative with effect from 15th June 2013 and all the artifacts presently on loan shall be returned to the Rashtrapati Bhavan Museum thereafter" but refuses to divulge detailed information on the list of artifacts transferred to Ms Patil's museum.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the President's Secretariat takes this 'temporary' arrangement as an excuse to not provide the list of artifacts given to Ms Patil to display it in her museum in her hometown, Amravati, along with their individual costs and countries that they were gifted from.

The RTI application filed by me on 3 August 2012, specifically asked the PIO of the President's Secretariat, "List of gift items loaned specifically to Ms Pratibha Patil along with the evaluated price of each item; from which country did each gift item come from; what was the purpose of her visit when she received each of the gift item." The reply is "do not arise in view of the answer at (3) above" (which is she would be returning artifacts by 15 June 2013 as the agreement would cease by then.

The RTI reply interestingly suggests that it was President Abdul Kalam who started the trend of moving out gifts received in the capacity of being President of India. The CPIO Saurabh Vjay states in his reply dated 6 September 2012, "No such requests have been made by any former President of India. It is, however, stated that in the past, 36 artifacts were handed over during the Presidency of Dr APJ Abdul Kalam for being displayed in the Brahmos Centre, New Delhi." This reply came to the writer's query under RTI seeking "copies of official requests made by Presidents of India for loaning of gifts from 1990 onwards. Provide copies of all such correspondence within the President of India office as well as between President of India office and the relevant district/city authority where the President of India may have resided or the place where she/he wants to display the loanedgift items, form 1990 onwards."

The RTI reply also states that "no such rules and regulations are available for loaning ofgift items received by the President of India. This was in reply to my query, "Copies of Rules/GRs/amendments/correspondence for rules and amended rules regarding gift articles and souvenirs which are received by Presidents of India from other countries and within the country; Copy of rules and regulations for 'loaning' official gifts received by President of India to presidents on their retirement or loaned to any other organisation."

To the query, "How many gift items in total does the 'Tosha Khana' of the President's office have at the moment and what is the total amount in value?" CPIO Saurabh Vijay states in his reply that "as per our records there are about 2,500 gifts in 'Tosha Khana' of the President's Secretariat and as regards the value of these items, no such records are available in the Art section."  This is indeed shocking for, as per the ministry of home affairs, any contribution in the form of gifts received by President of India or other dignitaries must be valued within 30 days of receipt of gift.

It may be recalled that a museum is being specially set up in Pratibha Patil's hometown by the family trust, Vidya Bharti Shaikshnik Mandal, run by her politician-son Rajendra Shekhawat.

The writer is filing a first appeal to the President's Secretariat since the information received is inadequate.

Read the previous article here: Pratibha Patil's Museum: Gifts received by VVIPs from foreign countries can be purchased by them but can they be loaned?

 

(Vinita Deshmukh is the consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte. She can be reached atvinitapune@gmail.com.)

--

Kiran Shaheen

 

I carry a torch in one hand
And a bucket of water in the other:
With these things I am going to set fire to Heaven
And put out the flames of Hell
So that voyagers to God can rip the veils
And see the real goal.......
Rabia (Rabi'a Al-'Adawiyya)

 

 

Re: [HumJanenge] SC Judgement on CICs

respected girish sir                          I wrote the detail constitutional provisions in my last email to humjanenge and i have also mentioned regarding my online grievances to Hon'ble President of India I wrote specifically to Mr. Sarabjeet Roy requested him to make an enquiry with office of President of India unfortunately for no one is willing to reply me. the age of retirement for SC judges is 65 years and the conditions prescibed by SC is more than required for HC Judge (For HC judge 10 yres judgment says 20 years practise) prasad vaidya 08857993253 viadya --- On Mon, 17/9/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC Judgement on CICs To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 17 September, 2012, 5:03 PM Dear Girish The easiest way to test a bad mathematical model is to feed it bad data. The RTI Act was combination of a law for babudom drafted in conjunction with illiterates (activists). As a result it eventually degenerated into nothingness. The SC order has to be interpreted as something introduced by God to demolish the present increasingly unworkable structure of the RTI Act. There will be the inevitable counter-thrust from babudom as well as Parliament. What will result will either be something workable or something completely unworkable. The chances are with the latter which in turn will engender something even greater than RTI - CHAOS !!! Sarbajit On 9/17/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I am not sure if the order of SC is workable. > > Retirement age of HC judges is slated to be increased from 62 to 65(bill > pending in Parliament), while the retirement age of IC is 65 years. So I am > not how many former HC judges will qualify? Besides, one would want to > continue in HC or later practise as solicitor/advocate, rather than to > become an IC. If the argument is that lot of decisions are being challenged > in courts of law, hence judicial help is required-well, lot of HC cases go > to division benches and SC. Even this decision is likely to be challenged > before larger bench. > > Also, I wonder if a HC judge would want to be an IC-its like HC judge > becoming Sessions judge. I don't foresee too many people agreeing for this > type of job. > > Also FAA having degree in law/experience in law. Take for example Municipal > Corporation in any city. The FAA, is, any superior authority. for example > Ward Officer in the relevant ward. If FAA has to be a legal degree holder, > then by default, he is law officer of the organisation, and all appeal > would lie before him. Imagine the number of appeals to be settled by a > single law officer. What about places where there is no legal person?? In > CIC if JS/Law is to be the FAA, I dont think it will make > any significant difference to non disclosure by CIC. He will continue to > justify not providing information. Currently also they seek help of JS/Law, > who I am not sure is legally qualified. > > Regards. > > Girish Mittal >

[HumJanenge] Information Request : Hearings by Central Information Commission without "legal members"

To:
Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskkar
Deputy Secretary & Joint Registrar (Nodal CPIO)
Central Information Commission
at New Delhi

17-Sep-2012

Sir

From the website of the Commission I note that you are the Nodal CPIO
for all matters relating to decisions taken by the Commission in its
weekly meetings,

It appears that a meeting was held recently by the Commission in the wake of the
Supreme Court Judgment in "Namit Sharma versus UoI" whereby all
Information Commissions have been directed to "henceforth" function
only in Benches of 2 or more, at least one of the members being a
"legal member".

As the functioning of the Commission in Benches is in any case only
carrying on under the interim stay order of the Supreme Court in SLP
30152/2011where I am a party, I would request you to immediately send
me the copy of the aforesaid minutes of meeting (or an other basis)
whereby the Commission is now conducting hearings into Appeals and
Complaints in contravention of the Supreme Court's detailed Judgment
of 13.09.2012.

Kindly treat this matter as very urgent and as a request for
disclosure under section 4(1)(b),(c) of the RTI Act 2005 which you are
bound to comply with immediately.

As the matter is also of considerable public interest, you may
alternatively immediately publish the minutes of meeting on the
Commission's website under advise to me.

Thanking you,
yours faithfully

Sarbajit Roy

B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024

Re: [HumJanenge] SC Judgement on CICs

Dear Girish

The easiest way to test a bad mathematical model is to feed it bad data.
The RTI Act was combination of a law for babudom drafted in
conjunction with illiterates (activists). As a result it eventually
degenerated into nothingness.

The SC order has to be interpreted as something introduced by God to
demolish the present increasingly unworkable structure of the RTI Act.
There will be the inevitable counter-thrust from babudom as well as
Parliament.

What will result will either be something workable or something
completely unworkable. The chances are with the latter which in turn
will engender something even greater than RTI - CHAOS !!!

Sarbajit

On 9/17/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> I am not sure if the order of SC is workable.
>
> Retirement age of HC judges is slated to be increased from 62 to 65(bill
> pending in Parliament), while the retirement age of IC is 65 years. So I am
> not how many former HC judges will qualify? Besides, one would want to
> continue in HC or later practise as solicitor/advocate, rather than to
> become an IC. If the argument is that lot of decisions are being challenged
> in courts of law, hence judicial help is required-well, lot of HC cases go
> to division benches and SC. Even this decision is likely to be challenged
> before larger bench.
>
> Also, I wonder if a HC judge would want to be an IC-its like HC judge
> becoming Sessions judge. I don't foresee too many people agreeing for this
> type of job.
>
> Also FAA having degree in law/experience in law. Take for example Municipal
> Corporation in any city. The FAA, is, any superior authority. for example
> Ward Officer in the relevant ward. If FAA has to be a legal degree holder,
> then by default, he is law officer of the organisation, and all appeal
> would lie before him. Imagine the number of appeals to be settled by a
> single law officer. What about places where there is no legal person?? In
> CIC if JS/Law is to be the FAA, I dont think it will make
> any significant difference to non disclosure by CIC. He will continue to
> justify not providing information. Currently also they seek help of JS/Law,
> who I am not sure is legally qualified.
>
> Regards.
>
> Girish Mittal
>

Re: [HumJanenge] SC ORDER ON INFORMATION COMMISSIONS

Dear sirs

same provision of appointment of HC/SC judge as president and one member with legal background exist in Consumer forums. 

as per consumer act , case need to be settled within 120 days of complaint being admitted. On the contrary it is taking 5 years at each level, district, state or national level to get judgement on case. in total 10-12 years to get your case decided

The reasons for delay is on account of huge vacancies of members with legal backgrounds and retired judges ...... in delhi alone most of the consumer court function with legal background members and president and thus cases pendancy have gone to uncontrollable level.

same thing will gona happen with RTI 

regards

Mohit 

---

From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2012 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC ORDER ON INFORMATION COMMISSIONS

Gupta sir,  the SC judges have only ensured 100% re-employment to the judges, and nothing else and they have ignored the provision that SC Judges will not plead in indian Courts after retirement. If they decide case on whims, give observations without  reading the  relevant sections of RTI Act, what else can be said. They have not struck down any provision of the RTI Act being unconstitutional. The RTI Act provides for appointment of eminent knowledgeable citizens as IC and not only IAS/IPS. thats the problem. there are plenty knowledgeable citizen available in India. May be you can be appointed.  SC judge will certainly be unsuitable and waste of knowledge/talent  to decide whether reply/information  was given in stipulated 30 days or not?. i am sure a school student will tell correctly. but if we want to create further mess yes then we should have judges as ICs.  just imagine if a poor begger/mali/sweeper comes to commission in second appeal/complaint, how they will be treated by these people, i can well imagine. regds. beniwal      --- On Fri, 14/9/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> Subject: [HumJanenge] SC ORDER ON INFORMATION COMMISSIONS To: "RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge Forum People's Right to Information" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com> Date: Friday, 14 September, 2012, 1:01 PM Supreme Court has yesterday passed a sweeping order about the Information Commissions without given proper time to the Govt. for the transformation from the old system to new.  The new Commissioners with legal knowledge like Justices and Chief Justice cannot be appointed overnight without following some system and till then, the will of the Commission may come to the standstill.  It would have been better if the SC should have given time as the govt. will require time to fill the existing and forthcoming vacancies with the persons of legal background.  Govt. reaction to this decision is not known so far and it may object to the advice given by the Court to the govt. for amending the rules governing the appointment of Information Commissioners.  It will not be a surprise if the govt. apply for the review of this decision terming the same as in interference in its work governing the policy.  It may also say that the decision is erroneous as it implicitly issue direction to the Parliament to amend an Act passed by it. The Apex Court should pay its attention towards this and should grant some time for the smooth transformation from old to new. It may issue directions that till the 50% Commissioners are appointed with possessing legal knowledge, no new Commissioner will be appointed without legal knowledge so that the Info Commissioners with legal background are made available for constituting two members benches. Without this, the order in effect will work to the detriment of the appellant and immediate death of the system of hearing and passing orders on second appeal till an alternative start working.