Re: [IAC#RG] Citizens to attach ID proof with RTI applications: HC

Dear Sarabjit Roy,

I will take care that when I post to the Indiaresist, I do it in plain
text format,

Futher I would like to see the paragraph 20 onwards of the judgement
and offer your comments as I am going to take up issues with the State
Information Commission, Punjab. This judgement will have impact in
Chandigarh and Haryana as they fall under the jyurisdiction of the P&H
High Court. Since the Court has implicted the Central Information
Commission too, it may have a wide ranging effect on the Public
Authorities of the Central Goverments.

Also, this judgement reflect the sentiment of the "Namit Sharma"
judgement of Apex Court.

What do you say!!


WITH WARM REGARDS
Surendera
Tel: 919888810811 | Mobile: 919888810811
SNAIL MAIL: Office: 182/53 Industrial Area-I, UNION TERRITORY,
Chandigarh - 160002 INDIA
CEO, AvisSoft || Coordinator, RTIFED, Punjab Chandigarh || President,
RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh || Life Member, Chandigarh
Consumers Association || Youth for Human Rights International - YHRI -
South Asia || Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh ||
Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment,
Chandigarh

Please do not mark me as spam.
I do not intend to send unwanted material to any one uninterested. If
you do not want to receive these emails any more please send an email
to me with "Remove" in subject and I will remove you from our mailing
list immediately.


On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Naveen Tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Sarbajit,
>
> Pl refer to your mail below. Of course the ID proof will be mandatory in
> the case of access to information under 4-1b too if it is so for disclosure
> since the Right is given only to Indian Citizens. The act itself says so in
> its preamble, section-2(j)and section 3. It is a different matter though
> that the information available on the website can be accessed by anyone as
> of now.
>
> Please stop the practice of pronouncing laws.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Naveen Tewari
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On ०६-०१-२०१३, at १२:३५ पूर्वाह्न, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mandar
>
> The RTI Act distinguishes between information "dissemination" (ie.
> proactively / suo-moto) to the entire world, and information "disclosure"
> (ie. on formal application to be provided to AN INDIAN CITIZEN - WITHIN
> INDIA on payment).
>
> In the 2nd case, the public authority can demand proof of the above 2
> criteria before disclosing the information.
>
> PS: I haven't read the PHC judgment as yet.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Mandar Jog <mandarjog@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think we should be able to request this anonymously.
>>
>> RTI act Chapter II, 1(a) says that the public authority should have this
>> info computerized and easily accessible.
>>
>> Someone had to put in an RTI request because information that should have
>> been public was not public.
>> If the information was public in the first place, it could have been
>> accessed anonymously.
>>
>> I understand that we should protect the system from requests whose only
>> intent is to burden the system, but there are other ways to achieve that.
>>
>> Whether some information is public or not does not and should not depend
>> on who is asking for it.
>>
>> - Mandar
>
>
> Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
> Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
> Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
> Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
> WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
>
>
> Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
> Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
> Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
> Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
> WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in