2) The Bill makes it very clear (by a new explanation to section 2(h)) that political parties were not covered in RTI as bodies/NGOs established BY any law passed by Parliament - and that they are registered/recognised UNDER provisions of the RPA 1951.
'Explanation.––The expression "authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted" by any law made by Parliament shall not include any association or body of individuals registered or recognised as political party under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.'.
3) The Bill goes on to clarify (by a new section 32) that any registered / recognised political party will be subject to RTI Act (as amended) notwithstanding any judgment / order /decree of any Court or Commission
"32. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or commission, the provisions of this Act, as amended by the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2013, shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have effect, in the case of any association or body of individuals registered or recognized as political party under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or any other law for the time being in force and the rules made or notifications issued thereunder.".
But this is only the BILL. And it reiterates that information on registered / recognised political parties is still very much within RTI's reach
The danger now is that many Private-Public Partnerships (PPPs) will use this to go back to court saying that they are equally registered UNDER the Companies Act and hence not under RTI. It is no secret that the Bhushan & Bhushan family (who represented Subhash Chandra Agrawal in CIC for this order) also represent many such PPPs / JVs before various Regulatory Tribunals and courts especially in Energy and Mining sectors.
Sarbajit
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Sureshan <sureshandelhi@gmail.com> wrote:
dear sarbajit
the fundamental issue raised by u is that the proposed amendment is good for the public u did not place any point in support of this argument. parliamentary competance is different issue and every body knows that the proposed law will be approved by Court.unless and until public sentiment is raised against the bill it will have a smooth passage which u like to be happens. still u accuse others with vested intrest in opposing the bill .can tell ur interst in getting this bill passed in a simple language without giving any old age thearies to disregard valid point.being an office bearer of a paper party I against this bill. that my intrest that is all
Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sureshan
1) I was probably appearing in SC when you were in diapers.
2) You have not read my previous 2nd para properly and are twisting my words deliberately. I had nowhere said that Parliament cannot pass an amending law retrospectively. I said such curative law has no force if it is passed in capacity of Parliament sitting as an appellate over the courts. I was well aware of "HOODA" judgment while writing that para.
3) As an AOR and office bearer of a Political Party, you are a vested interest, so I thank you deeply for making the legal case for Congress and BJP etc. so that we all better understand the issues involved.
Sarbajit
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Sureshan <sureshandelhi@gmail.com> wrote:parliament can't pass law to override the effect of a judgment passed by courts I don't understand stand the basis of such ridiculous statements. A person who studied on diggy school of thought can only come with such stupid arguments. supreme court in HUDA judgment ,after analysing variuos earlier authority including Indira gandhi raj Narayn case held that parliament can pass law retrospectively to change the basis of a judgment. but cannot pass a law to simply override the effect of particular law sitting just like an appellate authority. the present amendment is well within the power of parliament they are trying to remove the basis for passing an order
Navnith Krishnan <navkris@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sarbajit,
How do you think that we will get RTI information about political parties faster once the amenment is passed. As an expert on RTI,can you clarify?
navnith
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Congress tables RTI Amendment Bill 2013 in Lok SabhaDear 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/indiaresi
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.