Re: [IAC#RG] Request for suo-moto Information under RTI Act

To:

Ms. Manisha Verma

Jt. Secretary,

National Advisory Council, NAC

2 Motilal Nehru Place

New Delhi 110011

23.Aug.2013

Dear Ms. Verma,

I refer to the copy of the RTI First Appeal order in my case.

Whereas I appreciate your personal efforts to provide me Free_Of_Cost the documents as available with NAC concerning the documents I had requested, I am equally certain you will frankly acknowledge that the documents emailed are not at all what I had asked for, and that even had I paid the Rs.10 RTI application fee your answer / reply / decision would have been no different.

The documents annexed to the decision are fairly clear about the qualifications and mode of nomination of the 20 odd members of the NAC. The difficulty is quite clearly about their absolute silence on the qualifications and mode of selection of the Chairperson. It is not clear to me why I am not eligible to be appointed as Chairperson NAC. This is an information deficiency  which needs to be rectified as soon as possible.

To illustrate, how the NAC (which is purportedly this great champion of RTI in India) is severely lagging behind in its suo-moto section 4 RTI disclosure, I shall cite the example of a comparable "National Council", ie. the NCERT (National Council for Educational Research and Training) and compare NCERT's proactive / suo-moto RTI disclosure to NAC's.

RTI disclosure:
http://www.ncert.nic.in/organisation/disclo_rti/disclo_un_rti.html

Organisation Chart :
http://www.ncert.nic.in/organisation/sr_functn/index_sr_funct.html

(NB: Director is the senior most functionary)

Recruitment Rules for the Post of Director NCERT.
http://www.ncert.nic.in/organisation/disclo_rti/pdf_files/director_post.pdf

These NCERT documents published suo-moto u/s 4 RTI Act clearly spell out the qualifications - a PhD and impressive academic credentials in the subject area.etc. to be appointed to head the NCERT.

These Rules also spell out the disqualifications : Bigamous marriage of / to the candidates unless permitted in law.

It is therefore quite clear that the public/citizens of India have a Right to Information to be informed suo-moto if Smt. Sonia Gandhi holds a PhD (if so in what subject along with her other impressive academic qualifications, if any), OR if there is disqualification from holding the said office by virtue of any bigamous marriage etc. which prevents the Govt of India from framing analogous recruitment Rules for the NAC too, which disqualifications also exist for, say, being appointed as the Prime Minister of India.

These were issues which ought to have been resolved privately at the First Appeal stage by granting me a personal hearing. However, in the absence of a hearing, I must now place my concerns in the public space with the hope that my doubts will be answered eventually, or within 1 month..

With best regards

Er. Sarbajit Roy

National Convenor,

India Against Corruption,

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:50 PM, <santmathur@gmail.com> wrote:

Action next ? PIL? Shock treatment? Is the very creation of NAC in the realms of "arbtrariness",which  is anathema to law?spm
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Sender: indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 17:27:49
To: indiaresists<indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
Reply-To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Request for suo-moto Information under RTI Act