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

Dear All,
The Constitution of India says that the SUPREME COURT is the Guardian & Care taker of Constitution. According to it if the Parliament Amends any Law and that amendment is against the basic structure of Constitution i.e. rights and liberties given u/A 21 and 32...The SC have a right to make it Void? am I right?

Girendra Singh
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 8/13/13, SURESHAN P <sureshandelhi@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Congress tables RTI Amendment Bill 2013 in Lok Sabha
To: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>, "Navnith Krishnan" <navkris@hotmail.com>, nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com, manavasi.seshadri@gmail.com, rbpurohit4productivity@gmail.com
Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2013, 3:20 PM

Dear
Sarbajit great reading of this proposed amendment ,,
Once the political parties are taken away from the ambit of
body of associations U find that still political parties are
within the purview of RTI. that is section  32 a
complimentary provision to new amendment . which gives the
amendment's protection to the parties against any order
was passed, ....... This is ur greatness ,nobody can find
out this much ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 
thanks 

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at
2:53 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
wrote:

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



--
http://freedomteam.in/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ftilogo-new-300x183.jpg

P. Sureshan,
Advocate-on-record, Supreme Court Of India, 
NLC( India ) Law Office
257-F, Ground Floor,Street No-6, West Guru Angad Nagar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92..... Ph: 9818083219,8802797432



-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

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