Dear Sarbajit,
Would be grateful for the citation of the Cauvery waters case. I am unaware even though I am from one of the litigant states. I fully agree with your assessment of the amendment Bill. I cant believe the GOI draftspersons came up with such a trashed up Bill. Surely many of them have better brains than this. I hope this is not a ploy to achieve some other hidden goal.
Thanks
Venkat
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Er Purohit,
The RT Act amendment does not take political parties out of RTI Act. It says they are not "public authority".
Firstly, the new Bill seeks to amend the definition of public authority in s/s 2(h) of the Act to exclude them as public authorities:-
"... bodies .. established or constituted BY any law passed by Parliament shall not include any body registered as a political party UNDER the Representation of People's Act 1951."
So this is a completely meaningless and inapplicable piece of drafting and the sooner it is passed the better.
Secondly, the Bill tries to amend the Act, RETROSPECTIVELY SINCE 3 JUNE 2013, to exclude jurisdiction of Courts and Commissions over the amendment.
In other words it is clearly a "curative legislation" for the CIC's order dt. 3.Jun.2013. In 1993 a Constitution Bench of the SC in Cauvery Waters dispute has already held that such curative legislations have no force as it would amount to Parliament sitting as an appellate body. This is at least the second time the Govt is trying this retrospective nonsense after Vodafone.
Thirdly, Political Parties were never included as "public authorities" under the present RTI Act. So this amendment firmly puts the CIC in its place as a corrupt body packed with corrupt pliable persons who lack "judicial mind" and don't know the difference between "BY" and "UNDER".
Information about Parties is still very much available in RTI from those who hold it.
SarbajitOn Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:35 AM, rb purohit <rbpurohit4productivity@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sarbajitji
You have confused me.
If you are debarred from getting any RTI how can you get information faster. Not undrr RTI that is.
Regards
Er Ratanlal Purohit
On 13-Aug-2013 2:33 AM, "Sarbajit Roy" <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Gp Cap Rao
Its the oldest trick in the book, to first create the problem and then offer yourself as part of the solution.
These anti-RTI-amendment wallahs are mostly either foreign financed or Congress/NAC stooges. (They are financed in crores - not lakhs)
Starting from Aruna Roy and ending with Bhaskar Prabhu, with Anjali Bharadwaj, Nikhil Dey, Harsh Mander, Shekhar Singh, Shailesh Gandhi, Venkatesh Nayak, etc thrown in for good measure.
I say its a damn good thing if the RTI Amendment Bill is passed as it is and as soon as possible (even with the wobbly section 31). We will get RTI info about Political Parties faster.
SarbajitOn Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Venkata Rao <bvrao39@hotmail.com> wrote:I find 'Political Language' in the trail mail.
RTI amendment is moved by Congress. Mail states that this is opposed " by a small section of anti-national NGO persons closely associated with the Congress Party who claim to be 'thekedars' of RTI.
Can the contradictions be clarified in " simple (non-emotional/apolitical) language", please.
BV Rao
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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.