RE: [IAC#RG] Congress tables RTI Amendment Bill 2013 in Lok Sabha

As a lay and an honest man I am getting more and more confused by these exchanges.  I also want toknow ythe age of Sarbajit. He appears to be atleast 30 yoears older than Sudarshan!!!

All I want to know is whether today  POLITICAL PARTIES can be asked to provide info I want to know. For example , If I ask how much did Ambani’s give the BJP and Congress during the year 2012 to 2013.  And after the amendment on the P to day whether the same can still be asked.

We also hear quite frequently , particularly in Tamil Nadu , ( Both DMK and ADMK ) and even BJP and Congress issue statements such as  Mr. X  is expelled from the party for indiscipline and party cadres should not have anything to do with that X. I want to know the reason . . After all Mr X may join another party may seek election and so on . So the general public would like to know what exactly did X do to deserve this summary punishment without any trial . The surprising fact is that nothing is normally heard of this public figure’s doings that invited such a summary punishment handed down so swiftly and usually accepted without any appeal or fight. This appears to be even better and swifter than summary punishments given by the summary court martial’s at the lowest UNIT level.  But in the Army such punishments are given after summary trial recorded in a proper format and has to be routinely approved by the next commander !!  

Will Sarbajit educate me please . All I want is that the Political Parties must be much more transparent than any NGO or any voluntary organization  surviving solely on donations !!!  According to me the MOST unproductive ( contributing nothing to thre countries wealth are these  PARTIES .   Seshadri

 

From: indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net [mailto:indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Navnith Krishnan
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:24 PM
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: RE: [IAC#RG] Congress tables RTI Amendment Bill 2013 in Lok Sabha

 

Dear Sarbajit,
You write "But this is only the BILL. And it reiterates that information on registered / recognised political parties is still very much within RTI's reach".Then why the political parties want an amendment excluding them from RTI.
A line of simple explanation will be appreciated.

navnith

 

 

 

---

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:53:11 +0530
From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Congress tables RTI Amendment Bill 2013 in Lok Sabha

1) The Bill, as it is, exposes that the underlying CIC decision of 3.Jun.2013 is flawed. (I have always said the CIC order is flawed  from day 1).

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

 

 

 

---

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 02:27:58 +0530
From: sroy.mb@gmail.com

To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Congress tables RTI Amendment Bill 2013 in Lok Sabha

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.

Sarbajit

On 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

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