Saturday, June 8, 2013

Re: [IAC#RG] Fw: Need for Electoral Reforms -- Fundamental Deficiency

Dear All,
Why present complex/alien systems . Common Indian people may not know English or Persian or Sanskrit or Trigonometry, but they are wise and aware of good and bad .They possess individually or collectively the aggregate wisdom of our ancestors.
Democratic traditions did exist in ancient to recent past ie prior to the ingress of Marauders be they Moslem or European .

Simpler methods have been suggested by the wise of this Nation.

For eg. Hon Krishna Kant has suggested to elect only that candidate who gets 50%+ONE vote. If not, the top TWO candidates with a provision for NONE of THESE TWO  to be put up for Re -Election. If this also fails to give the TOP candidate 50%+ONE vote, the TWO candidates and the others who contested in the first election WILL be DEBARRED from Public life and A FRESH ELECTION SHOULD BE HELD WITH NEW FACES.  
Regards.
Veteran(LtCol)TTKishore,Engineers.

On Saturday, June 8, 2013, T Pannu wrote:
  It is an interesting debate. Can we think of suggesting a retirement age for politicians; and how it can be enforced. Since politicians are the law makers, this idea can never appeal to them but unless we take up this point, they will never think on these lines. May be after hearing the cry, a few, at least, may listen to their conscience to quit thus setting in motion a chain reaction.  Isnt it disgraceful that they do not call it a day till their last breath?
   Please think over.
 Regards.
 
T Pannu
Air Commodore (Retd)


On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:31 PM, BRIJESH KUMAR RAI <bkraikac@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sarbajit, Dr. Arun, Agrawal ji from Transparency international india, Vivek ji, Pawan Nair and all the friends in discussion here,

It is very good discussion going on and it is showing the concern and anxiety to usher in genuine democracy in our country.
There are various methods FTPT, Run off election to achieve 50% mark, Proportional Representation. All this has been going round and round. Different countries have adopted different system of selecting representatives.

Let us give a new thinking to it and be open to a new procedure. We should not blindly copy what is existing elsewhere. Let us give a consideration to it.

Deficiencies:

a) FTPT is outdated. a candidate with minority votes manages to win the election by dividing opposition votes and feeding to it's vote bank. This is nothing but fraud in our system.
b) Run off election means re-election between two or some suggest three best voted candidates to avoid vote divisions among multi candidates and achieve 50% mark. This will be very expensive as cost of re-election in a big country like ours.
c) Proportional Representation is not a direct democracy. Political Parties to feed in candidates, what is there in peoples'  hand. It may be working fine for small countries like Germany or Israel. For a big country like ours we need direct democracy from bottom to top.
d) Preferential Voting or rating candidates as First, Second or third Preferences and then doing indirect counting rounds to reach 50% mark and declare the winner. This is indirect selection as it is for our president. No good.

It will be worth while, to give a thought, as sarbajit has suggested, to why limit one voter to one vote only ? or just allow the voters to rate as first, second or third preferences and then count them in an indirect manner ? Why ?

Solutions:

1)  Give people wider powers in direct democracy from bottom to top. We can achieve this first, starting from allowing the voters to select their representative by empowering them to vote for as many candidates as he or she selects. everyone so voted gets one vote each. People would like to vote for their favorites, friends, relatives and as well to the winnable  good candidates without the fear of vote divisions. In this way, the candidate who secures most of the votes, the majority support, from the constituency wins the election.

This candidate (who secured max votes) is the outcome of direct public selection without the fear of dividing votes. It is as if he or she has defeated every other contestant in direct one to one election as in run off.

This form of election process and voting system is defined as APPROVAL VOTING SYSTEM. Where people are allowed to vote to candidates as many as they like. It is one time election process for multi-candidate election. There is no compulsion of 50% mark. For those who would like to go in detail study on this subject a research paper submitted at Newyork University is attached. It will be worth adopting it in our future elections. Only two actions are required.

         a) Allow multiple voting and inform people about this new change.

         b) Election commission will have to count more number of votes. That is the only drawback in this process.

The benefits of this will be immense as negative and vote-bank related campaigning based on caste etc will go away. Candidates will have to work for entire constituency rather than just for the cornered vote bank.    

2) All the money spent in election black or white, is nothing but public money. This needs to be controlled by making compulsory state funding to meet most of the major needs of campaigning through official media under control of election commission. Parties also may be given funds directly from govt. and also all donations to be transparent. CIC decision to bring parties under RTI is a welcome decision. The political parties cannot claim they are private bodies. People of this country, have all the rights.

3) Right to recall must be given to people and not to wait for 5 years. Ways and means can be devised.

4) Right to negate all or negative voting against certain candidates is also discussed in attached paper on approval voting. It may undermine the election process. As to reduce the chances of opponent voters for one candidate may vote negatively for others. So vote or no vote in approval voting. This may be debated in future as our democracy matures further.

5) We may also have certain minimum educational criteria and ban criminal backgrounds for candidacy in election.

The above reforms will empower the voters and generate curiosity in public. They will be encouraged to come out and vote in large numbers as it will give them a feeling that their vote will not wasted. This will make our democratic process stronger.

The concern raised by Dr Arun how to bring it in force. We are discussing it on net- forum. The process is very simple but it has to be acted by election commission or will require parliament approval and then to be implemented by election commission. This forum may propose all the relevant suggestions to Law Commission, Election Commission and to parliamentarians whoever may be interested to implement it. Public awareness will also make it happen through parliament, if not now, may be in future. Certain reforms may be implemented by Election Commission also without asking the parliament.

BRIJESH KUMAR RAI   
0 9619346740
Aap Navi Mumbai 


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Transparency International India <tiindia.newdelhi@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Friends,

I feel that there is a need for the Election Commission to issue orders for the implementation of its repeated recommendations for the decriminalisation of politics, as has been done by the CIC to bring Political Parties under the RTI Act.

With all the best wishes,
S K Agarwal


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Amit Mehta <amitvinaymehta@gmail.com> wrote:
We should have no reservation
MLA & MPs should be law abiding and have basic understanding of their responsibilities. They are law makers. How can a person with only brawn be a party to making laws for us. They are only suitable for Bouncer duties

Sent from my iPod

On 03-Jun-2013, at 9:00, Maj Gen Satbir Singh <satbirsm@yahoo.com> wrote:

> negative vote AGAINST a particular candidate




--
Transparency International India
India Secretariat
Lajpat Bhawan, No 4
Lajpat Nagar IV
New Delhi-110 024
India


Please consider the environment before printing this email.

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



--
LTCOL(retd) T T KISHORE
FLAT NO-134, SECTOR-A,
AWHO COLONY, SIKH ROAD,
GAUTAM ENCLAVE,
SECUNDERABAD-09
Res-040-27840415
Cell-9912594602

Re: [IAC#RG] Need for Electoral Reforms -- Fundamental Deficiency

  It is an interesting debate. Can we think of suggesting a retirement age for politicians; and how it can be enforced. Since politicians are the law makers, this idea can never appeal to them but unless we take up this point, they will never think on these lines. May be after hearing the cry, a few, at least, may listen to their conscience to quit thus setting in motion a chain reaction.  Isnt it disgraceful that they do not call it a day till their last breath?
   Please think over.
 Regards.
 
T Pannu
Air Commodore (Retd)


On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:31 PM, BRIJESH KUMAR RAI <bkraikac@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sarbajit, Dr. Arun, Agrawal ji from Transparency international india, Vivek ji, Pawan Nair and all the friends in discussion here,

It is very good discussion going on and it is showing the concern and anxiety to usher in genuine democracy in our country.
There are various methods FTPT, Run off election to achieve 50% mark, Proportional Representation. All this has been going round and round. Different countries have adopted different system of selecting representatives.

Let us give a new thinking to it and be open to a new procedure. We should not blindly copy what is existing elsewhere. Let us give a consideration to it.

Deficiencies:

a) FTPT is outdated. a candidate with minority votes manages to win the election by dividing opposition votes and feeding to it's vote bank. This is nothing but fraud in our system.
b) Run off election means re-election between two or some suggest three best voted candidates to avoid vote divisions among multi candidates and achieve 50% mark. This will be very expensive as cost of re-election in a big country like ours.
c) Proportional Representation is not a direct democracy. Political Parties to feed in candidates, what is there in peoples'  hand. It may be working fine for small countries like Germany or Israel. For a big country like ours we need direct democracy from bottom to top.
d) Preferential Voting or rating candidates as First, Second or third Preferences and then doing indirect counting rounds to reach 50% mark and declare the winner. This is indirect selection as it is for our president. No good.

It will be worth while, to give a thought, as sarbajit has suggested, to why limit one voter to one vote only ? or just allow the voters to rate as first, second or third preferences and then count them in an indirect manner ? Why ?

Solutions:

1)  Give people wider powers in direct democracy from bottom to top. We can achieve this first, starting from allowing the voters to select their representative by empowering them to vote for as many candidates as he or she selects. everyone so voted gets one vote each. People would like to vote for their favorites, friends, relatives and as well to the winnable  good candidates without the fear of vote divisions. In this way, the candidate who secures most of the votes, the majority support, from the constituency wins the election.

This candidate (who secured max votes) is the outcome of direct public selection without the fear of dividing votes. It is as if he or she has defeated every other contestant in direct one to one election as in run off.

This form of election process and voting system is defined as APPROVAL VOTING SYSTEM. Where people are allowed to vote to candidates as many as they like. It is one time election process for multi-candidate election. There is no compulsion of 50% mark. For those who would like to go in detail study on this subject a research paper submitted at Newyork University is attached. It will be worth adopting it in our future elections. Only two actions are required.

         a) Allow multiple voting and inform people about this new change.

         b) Election commission will have to count more number of votes. That is the only drawback in this process.

The benefits of this will be immense as negative and vote-bank related campaigning based on caste etc will go away. Candidates will have to work for entire constituency rather than just for the cornered vote bank.    

2) All the money spent in election black or white, is nothing but public money. This needs to be controlled by making compulsory state funding to meet most of the major needs of campaigning through official media under control of election commission. Parties also may be given funds directly from govt. and also all donations to be transparent. CIC decision to bring parties under RTI is a welcome decision. The political parties cannot claim they are private bodies. People of this country, have all the rights.

3) Right to recall must be given to people and not to wait for 5 years. Ways and means can be devised.

4) Right to negate all or negative voting against certain candidates is also discussed in attached paper on approval voting. It may undermine the election process. As to reduce the chances of opponent voters for one candidate may vote negatively for others. So vote or no vote in approval voting. This may be debated in future as our democracy matures further.

5) We may also have certain minimum educational criteria and ban criminal backgrounds for candidacy in election.

The above reforms will empower the voters and generate curiosity in public. They will be encouraged to come out and vote in large numbers as it will give them a feeling that their vote will not wasted. This will make our democratic process stronger.

The concern raised by Dr Arun how to bring it in force. We are discussing it on net- forum. The process is very simple but it has to be acted by election commission or will require parliament approval and then to be implemented by election commission. This forum may propose all the relevant suggestions to Law Commission, Election Commission and to parliamentarians whoever may be interested to implement it. Public awareness will also make it happen through parliament, if not now, may be in future. Certain reforms may be implemented by Election Commission also without asking the parliament.

BRIJESH KUMAR RAI   
0 9619346740
Aap Navi Mumbai 


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Transparency International India <tiindia.newdelhi@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Friends,

I feel that there is a need for the Election Commission to issue orders for the implementation of its repeated recommendations for the decriminalisation of politics, as has been done by the CIC to bring Political Parties under the RTI Act.

With all the best wishes,
S K Agarwal


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Amit Mehta <amitvinaymehta@gmail.com> wrote:
We should have no reservation
MLA & MPs should be law abiding and have basic understanding of their responsibilities. They are law makers. How can a person with only brawn be a party to making laws for us. They are only suitable for Bouncer duties

Sent from my iPod

On 03-Jun-2013, at 9:00, Maj Gen Satbir Singh <satbirsm@yahoo.com> wrote:

> negative vote AGAINST a particular candidate




--
Transparency International India
India Secretariat
Lajpat Bhawan, No 4
Lajpat Nagar IV
New Delhi-110 024
India


Please consider the environment before printing this email.

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

[IAC#RG] Aruna Roy replaced by Virginus Titus in NAC

" After the exit of Aruna Roy, government has reconstituted the
National Advisory Council by inducting renowned sociologist Virginius
Xaxa into the 12-member panel chaired by Sonia Gandhi.

The term of the panel, which has been giving legislative and policy
inputs to the government ranging from the seminal rural jobs scheme to
the latest food security bill, has been made co-terminus with the term
of the present government."

Watch this space : some amazing developments on this by Monday.

Re: [IAC#RG] CIC judgment WRT political parties and transparency

Oh yes, lotteries are mega farces. Our laws allow betting on horse racing and lotteries if run by the state, but our laws don't allow recovery of winnings if the organizers simply con winners and refuse to pay.

http://t.co/4T2HT0ipzF


On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Ravindran P M <raviforjustice@gmail.com> wrote:
On a similar vein I would argue for the ban of lotteries conducted even by governments when betting is viewed so criminally even in cricket!


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Vidyut Kale <wide.aware@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree with both sides of the debate. I do think the order is important because it is a straw put on the camel's back, which can be listed out at some point in future.

On unrelated note, banning smoking in public places is among the most arbitrary, discriminatory things without any foundation in science whatsoever. There is ZERO research proving any effect at all of passive smoke in large/open spaces. Research on passive smoking itself is mostly dubious, though presented with great authority so that people believe it. Smokers are as much citizens of India as non smokers. Worse, it encourages smokers to smoke in closed places which is far worse for all concerned. For example, kids/family at home, coworkers in (private) office, etc. 

Smoking lobbies are among the worst ventilated and humiliatingly un-hygienic for places for the role they play. Such crap deems smokers to be second class citizens deserving of deliberately damaging facilities and social rejection because of who they are. Anti-smoking campaigns are full of white lies for a "good cause". As far as I am concerned, lies are lies. Provide information, hold robust debate. Your hate for smoke should not be licence to misinform people into "independently" coming to same conclusion as you based on your "facts".

One example of a recent anti-smoking white lie was "more people die of lung cancer daily than road accidents" This is absurd to the point of being laughable. The entire number of people dying of lung cancer - smoking or not - in the world would be less than road accidents in Indian metros alone.

Such scare tactics are designed to terrify people into blindly endorsing policies being peddled. When lies are used to push agendas, no matter how "good" the goal seems, my bullshit-o-meter starts ringing. If it is such a bad thing, surely there are actual facts that can be presented to make the point?

Vidyut

Note: I neither endorse smoking nor bans. I do endorse correct information and robust debate leading to a collective decision that includes the well being of all.


On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Jagjit Ahuja <jagjit.ahuja@gmail.com> wrote:
Col Kurup is right. It may be taken just as an eye wash .They do not  obey the orders passed by the Parliament - NON SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES  ,who will care for such orders of the CIC

.There are many more such orders /  laws lying in the cold storage.

Brig J S Ahuja


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com> wrote:
As I had posted in Twitter the CIC Orders bringing the Political
Parties under RTI is stupid. This orders just cannot be enforced. I
don't think the political parties are duty bound to abide by orders of
CIC. They can just ignore CIC orders and the CIC will not be able to
do anything. Similarly the political parties can just ignore any
application requesting for information.  What can a cityzen do if the
political parties ignore their application and CIC's notice for
hearing as well as his final orders.  Nothing. How can a CIC penalise
any political party under Section 20 RTI Act.  The CIC has no means to
enforece his direction.

Further the CIC isnot a court of records and its orders are not
binding on SIC. Hence above orders of CIC is not binding on SICs of
States

Stupid orders

Col NR Kurup

On 04/06/2013, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
> AAP is not part of the order. It will be difficult for the 6 parties to
> wriggle out of this. This is significant and should be welcomed by IAC
> irrespective of who has filed the petition. The next step should be NGOs
> since donors are exempted from income tax under Sec 80G, where applicable.
> Pavan Nair
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Consider this
>>
>> 1) All 3 ICS on that CIC bench are due to retire shortly and this
>> (badly reasoned) order has been given to suit the Govt.
>>
>> 2) This is a collusive effort between parties like AAP, Cong and BJP
>> etc to see that RTI does NOT apply to them. The Delhi High Court will
>> promptly grant the parties an ex-parte stay and for 10 years nothing
>> will result.
>>
>> 3) Subhash Chandra Agrawal (as I have said before and to his face - we
>> discuss these things as we have different approaches) is also an RTI
>> taxi for Prashant Bhushan. Now if AAP can get even 5% votes in Delhi
>> elections they will be alloted a huge piece of land at institutional
>> rates to shut them up.
>>
>> 4) This is exactly the same modus operandi earlier used by Prashant
>> Bhushan (agaon with Agarwal as RTI taxi) to get judiciary taken out of
>> RTI. If they were genuine they should file  caveats in the High Court
>> as well as SC to ward off ex-parte stays.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/3/13, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Indeed. Why should donors to political parties get tax exemption? Even
>> > if
>> > they do not, they, I mean the political parties should be under RTI. We
>> > also need to consider public funding of elections which would
>> automatically
>> > get them under RTI. Cannot understand why they are are considered
>> > equivalent to public charities and trusts. Pavan Nair
>> >
>> > On 3 Jun 2013 22:44, "Vidyut Kale" <wide.aware@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I am still reading this, but I thought it would be of interest to us.
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_C_2011_000838_M_111223.pdf
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>

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



--
Vidyut
Twitter: @Vidyut
Phone: Allergic
Telephone: Forget it.
Mobile phone: Forgot

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



--
Veteran Major P M Ravindran
 
You may also like to visit:
'Judiciary Watch' at www.vigilonline.com 

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



--
Vidyut
Twitter: @Vidyut
Phone: Allergic
Telephone: Forget it.
Mobile phone: Forgot

[IAC#RG] RTI second appeal hearing within 15 days

Pendency of Second Appeal come down to 58. Hearing with 15 Days flat after filling appeal.. Indeed a good work by Maharashtra SIC Mr. Ratnakar Gaikwad. Keep up the good work sir..
DNA 8th June, 2013--Page 8.
http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=46670&boxid=31453&ed_date=2013-6-08&ed_code=820009&ed_page=8

Re: [IAC#RG] URGENT PUBLIC GRIEVANCE :Notice of Death of consumer by Set Top Box

There is another majnor lapse by cable opr which I have seen in Kanpur ,the cable is running on electric poles which is a great risk to subs cribers lives.sometime the current leaks to poles in rainy season or burning of cables due to short circuit.This is with the connivance of local auth.
Major.D S Sarwara
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from !DEA

-----Original Message-----
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Sender: indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:19:02
To: <cp@trai.gov.in>; TraiWasiAhmed advbcs 2<advbcs@trai.gov.in>; TraiParmeshrwnPr Advisor<param.trai@gmail.com>; indiaresists<indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
Reply-To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: [IAC#RG] URGENT PUBLIC GRIEVANCE :Notice of Death of consumer by
Set Top Box

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

[IAC#RG] URGENT PUBLIC GRIEVANCE :Notice of Death of consumer by Set Top Box

To:
Dr. Rahul Khullar
Chairman, TRAI

BY EMAIL

08-June-2013

Respected Sir,

Sub: Death of subscriber due to shorting through Set Top Box

I am enclosing for your notice a digital clipping from 'Jagran' dated yesterday 07-June-2013 wherein a lady subscriber has died due to current received through Set Top Box shorting between the power line and the LCO cable signal line

As we, and many other persons, have regularly reported to you/TRAI , the MSOs are providing cheap sub-standard STBs (usually Chinese made) and usually with metallic conductive bodies which can pass lethal currents.

It is an open secret that in the rush for DAS digitisation from 1-April-2013 these machines of death are being forcibly installed to benefit a few media houses now substantially foreign controlled.

This disregard for BIS norms was also the direct subject of a PIL in the Supreme Court, brought by Master Swayamjit Roy (minor) and myself (TRAI was a Respondent) about 8 years back when CAS was similarly mandated, which PIL was withdrawn because the I&B Ministry withdrew CAS. We have leave from the Hon'ble Court to re-approach should our cause of action be revived.

I on behalf of India Against Corruption had also responded in detail to TRAI''s recent Consultation Paper in April for providing STBs on regulated  tarriffs to consumers. However, it is curious that my detailed counter-comments to the MSO's submissions were not published by TRAI on the website to misrepresent that there is no opposition to TRAI.

Accordingly, I, on behalf of India Against Corruption people's movement, urge you to URGENTLY invoke TRAI's statutory powers in the public interest for consumer protection to ensure that suitable directions/regulations are issued to all concerned suppliers that only BIS/ISI marked STBs are supplied to the consumers. It is trite to say that this is a fit "Right to Life" case for TRAI's powers to be urgently invoked.

It is also pertinent to mention that from my private study not even 5% of the STBs in the market would meet BIS norms, and these are specially imported by the MSOs to install in residences of India''s creamy layer. I speculate that the deaths which shall occur henceforth from these Killer Boxes shall be mainly in the common classes which shall go un-mourned and unreported due to the media blackouts and active censorship put in place.

with best wishes

yours sincerely


(Er. Sarbajit Roy)
National Convenor
India Against Corruption, jan andolan

2nd floor B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel:  0931144869










Friday, June 7, 2013

Re: [IAC#RG] CIC judgment WRT political parties and transparency

On a similar vein I would argue for the ban of lotteries conducted even by governments when betting is viewed so criminally even in cricket!


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Vidyut Kale <wide.aware@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree with both sides of the debate. I do think the order is important because it is a straw put on the camel's back, which can be listed out at some point in future.

On unrelated note, banning smoking in public places is among the most arbitrary, discriminatory things without any foundation in science whatsoever. There is ZERO research proving any effect at all of passive smoke in large/open spaces. Research on passive smoking itself is mostly dubious, though presented with great authority so that people believe it. Smokers are as much citizens of India as non smokers. Worse, it encourages smokers to smoke in closed places which is far worse for all concerned. For example, kids/family at home, coworkers in (private) office, etc. 

Smoking lobbies are among the worst ventilated and humiliatingly un-hygienic for places for the role they play. Such crap deems smokers to be second class citizens deserving of deliberately damaging facilities and social rejection because of who they are. Anti-smoking campaigns are full of white lies for a "good cause". As far as I am concerned, lies are lies. Provide information, hold robust debate. Your hate for smoke should not be licence to misinform people into "independently" coming to same conclusion as you based on your "facts".

One example of a recent anti-smoking white lie was "more people die of lung cancer daily than road accidents" This is absurd to the point of being laughable. The entire number of people dying of lung cancer - smoking or not - in the world would be less than road accidents in Indian metros alone.

Such scare tactics are designed to terrify people into blindly endorsing policies being peddled. When lies are used to push agendas, no matter how "good" the goal seems, my bullshit-o-meter starts ringing. If it is such a bad thing, surely there are actual facts that can be presented to make the point?

Vidyut

Note: I neither endorse smoking nor bans. I do endorse correct information and robust debate leading to a collective decision that includes the well being of all.


On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Jagjit Ahuja <jagjit.ahuja@gmail.com> wrote:
Col Kurup is right. It may be taken just as an eye wash .They do not  obey the orders passed by the Parliament - NON SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES  ,who will care for such orders of the CIC

.There are many more such orders /  laws lying in the cold storage.

Brig J S Ahuja


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com> wrote:
As I had posted in Twitter the CIC Orders bringing the Political
Parties under RTI is stupid. This orders just cannot be enforced. I
don't think the political parties are duty bound to abide by orders of
CIC. They can just ignore CIC orders and the CIC will not be able to
do anything. Similarly the political parties can just ignore any
application requesting for information.  What can a cityzen do if the
political parties ignore their application and CIC's notice for
hearing as well as his final orders.  Nothing. How can a CIC penalise
any political party under Section 20 RTI Act.  The CIC has no means to
enforece his direction.

Further the CIC isnot a court of records and its orders are not
binding on SIC. Hence above orders of CIC is not binding on SICs of
States

Stupid orders

Col NR Kurup

On 04/06/2013, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
> AAP is not part of the order. It will be difficult for the 6 parties to
> wriggle out of this. This is significant and should be welcomed by IAC
> irrespective of who has filed the petition. The next step should be NGOs
> since donors are exempted from income tax under Sec 80G, where applicable.
> Pavan Nair
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Consider this
>>
>> 1) All 3 ICS on that CIC bench are due to retire shortly and this
>> (badly reasoned) order has been given to suit the Govt.
>>
>> 2) This is a collusive effort between parties like AAP, Cong and BJP
>> etc to see that RTI does NOT apply to them. The Delhi High Court will
>> promptly grant the parties an ex-parte stay and for 10 years nothing
>> will result.
>>
>> 3) Subhash Chandra Agrawal (as I have said before and to his face - we
>> discuss these things as we have different approaches) is also an RTI
>> taxi for Prashant Bhushan. Now if AAP can get even 5% votes in Delhi
>> elections they will be alloted a huge piece of land at institutional
>> rates to shut them up.
>>
>> 4) This is exactly the same modus operandi earlier used by Prashant
>> Bhushan (agaon with Agarwal as RTI taxi) to get judiciary taken out of
>> RTI. If they were genuine they should file  caveats in the High Court
>> as well as SC to ward off ex-parte stays.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/3/13, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Indeed. Why should donors to political parties get tax exemption? Even
>> > if
>> > they do not, they, I mean the political parties should be under RTI. We
>> > also need to consider public funding of elections which would
>> automatically
>> > get them under RTI. Cannot understand why they are are considered
>> > equivalent to public charities and trusts. Pavan Nair
>> >
>> > On 3 Jun 2013 22:44, "Vidyut Kale" <wide.aware@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I am still reading this, but I thought it would be of interest to us.
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_C_2011_000838_M_111223.pdf
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>

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



--
Vidyut
Twitter: @Vidyut
Phone: Allergic
Telephone: Forget it.
Mobile phone: Forgot

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



--
Veteran Major P M Ravindran
 
You may also like to visit:
'Judiciary Watch' at www.vigilonline.com 

Re: [IAC#RG] Need for Electoral Reforms -- Fundamental Deficiency

Dear Sarbajit, Dr. Arun, Agrawal ji from Transparency international india, Vivek ji, Pawan Nair and all the friends in discussion here,

It is very good discussion going on and it is showing the concern and anxiety to usher in genuine democracy in our country.
There are various methods FTPT, Run off election to achieve 50% mark, Proportional Representation. All this has been going round and round. Different countries have adopted different system of selecting representatives.

Let us give a new thinking to it and be open to a new procedure. We should not blindly copy what is existing elsewhere. Let us give a consideration to it.

Deficiencies:

a) FTPT is outdated. a candidate with minority votes manages to win the election by dividing opposition votes and feeding to it's vote bank. This is nothing but fraud in our system.
b) Run off election means re-election between two or some suggest three best voted candidates to avoid vote divisions among multi candidates and achieve 50% mark. This will be very expensive as cost of re-election in a big country like ours.
c) Proportional Representation is not a direct democracy. Political Parties to feed in candidates, what is there in peoples'  hand. It may be working fine for small countries like Germany or Israel. For a big country like ours we need direct democracy from bottom to top.
d) Preferential Voting or rating candidates as First, Second or third Preferences and then doing indirect counting rounds to reach 50% mark and declare the winner. This is indirect selection as it is for our president. No good.

It will be worth while, to give a thought, as sarbajit has suggested, to why limit one voter to one vote only ? or just allow the voters to rate as first, second or third preferences and then count them in an indirect manner ? Why ?

Solutions:

1)  Give people wider powers in direct democracy from bottom to top. We can achieve this first, starting from allowing the voters to select their representative by empowering them to vote for as many candidates as he or she selects. everyone so voted gets one vote each. People would like to vote for their favorites, friends, relatives and as well to the winnable  good candidates without the fear of vote divisions. In this way, the candidate who secures most of the votes, the majority support, from the constituency wins the election.

This candidate (who secured max votes) is the outcome of direct public selection without the fear of dividing votes. It is as if he or she has defeated every other contestant in direct one to one election as in run off.

This form of election process and voting system is defined as APPROVAL VOTING SYSTEM. Where people are allowed to vote to candidates as many as they like. It is one time election process for multi-candidate election. There is no compulsion of 50% mark. For those who would like to go in detail study on this subject a research paper submitted at Newyork University is attached. It will be worth adopting it in our future elections. Only two actions are required.

         a) Allow multiple voting and inform people about this new change.

         b) Election commission will have to count more number of votes. That is the only drawback in this process.

The benefits of this will be immense as negative and vote-bank related campaigning based on caste etc will go away. Candidates will have to work for entire constituency rather than just for the cornered vote bank.    

2) All the money spent in election black or white, is nothing but public money. This needs to be controlled by making compulsory state funding to meet most of the major needs of campaigning through official media under control of election commission. Parties also may be given funds directly from govt. and also all donations to be transparent. CIC decision to bring parties under RTI is a welcome decision. The political parties cannot claim they are private bodies. People of this country, have all the rights.

3) Right to recall must be given to people and not to wait for 5 years. Ways and means can be devised.

4) Right to negate all or negative voting against certain candidates is also discussed in attached paper on approval voting. It may undermine the election process. As to reduce the chances of opponent voters for one candidate may vote negatively for others. So vote or no vote in approval voting. This may be debated in future as our democracy matures further.

5) We may also have certain minimum educational criteria and ban criminal backgrounds for candidacy in election.

The above reforms will empower the voters and generate curiosity in public. They will be encouraged to come out and vote in large numbers as it will give them a feeling that their vote will not wasted. This will make our democratic process stronger.

The concern raised by Dr Arun how to bring it in force. We are discussing it on net- forum. The process is very simple but it has to be acted by election commission or will require parliament approval and then to be implemented by election commission. This forum may propose all the relevant suggestions to Law Commission, Election Commission and to parliamentarians whoever may be interested to implement it. Public awareness will also make it happen through parliament, if not now, may be in future. Certain reforms may be implemented by Election Commission also without asking the parliament.

BRIJESH KUMAR RAI   
0 9619346740
Aap Navi Mumbai 


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Transparency International India <tiindia.newdelhi@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Friends,

I feel that there is a need for the Election Commission to issue orders for the implementation of its repeated recommendations for the decriminalisation of politics, as has been done by the CIC to bring Political Parties under the RTI Act.

With all the best wishes,
S K Agarwal


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Amit Mehta <amitvinaymehta@gmail.com> wrote:
We should have no reservation
MLA & MPs should be law abiding and have basic understanding of their responsibilities. They are law makers. How can a person with only brawn be a party to making laws for us. They are only suitable for Bouncer duties

Sent from my iPod

On 03-Jun-2013, at 9:00, Maj Gen Satbir Singh <satbirsm@yahoo.com> wrote:

> negative vote AGAINST a particular candidate




--
Transparency International India
India Secretariat
Lajpat Bhawan, No 4
Lajpat Nagar IV
New Delhi-110 024
India
Tel: +91-11-26460826
Fax: +91-11-26424552


Please consider the environment before printing this email.

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

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Re: [IAC#RG] CIC judgment WRT political parties and transparency

Agree with both sides of the debate. I do think the order is important because it is a straw put on the camel's back, which can be listed out at some point in future.

On unrelated note, banning smoking in public places is among the most arbitrary, discriminatory things without any foundation in science whatsoever. There is ZERO research proving any effect at all of passive smoke in large/open spaces. Research on passive smoking itself is mostly dubious, though presented with great authority so that people believe it. Smokers are as much citizens of India as non smokers. Worse, it encourages smokers to smoke in closed places which is far worse for all concerned. For example, kids/family at home, coworkers in (private) office, etc. 

Smoking lobbies are among the worst ventilated and humiliatingly un-hygienic for places for the role they play. Such crap deems smokers to be second class citizens deserving of deliberately damaging facilities and social rejection because of who they are. Anti-smoking campaigns are full of white lies for a "good cause". As far as I am concerned, lies are lies. Provide information, hold robust debate. Your hate for smoke should not be licence to misinform people into "independently" coming to same conclusion as you based on your "facts".

One example of a recent anti-smoking white lie was "more people die of lung cancer daily than road accidents" This is absurd to the point of being laughable. The entire number of people dying of lung cancer - smoking or not - in the world would be less than road accidents in Indian metros alone.

Such scare tactics are designed to terrify people into blindly endorsing policies being peddled. When lies are used to push agendas, no matter how "good" the goal seems, my bullshit-o-meter starts ringing. If it is such a bad thing, surely there are actual facts that can be presented to make the point?

Vidyut

Note: I neither endorse smoking nor bans. I do endorse correct information and robust debate leading to a collective decision that includes the well being of all.


On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Jagjit Ahuja <jagjit.ahuja@gmail.com> wrote:
Col Kurup is right. It may be taken just as an eye wash .They do not  obey the orders passed by the Parliament - NON SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES  ,who will care for such orders of the CIC

.There are many more such orders /  laws lying in the cold storage.

Brig J S Ahuja


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com> wrote:
As I had posted in Twitter the CIC Orders bringing the Political
Parties under RTI is stupid. This orders just cannot be enforced. I
don't think the political parties are duty bound to abide by orders of
CIC. They can just ignore CIC orders and the CIC will not be able to
do anything. Similarly the political parties can just ignore any
application requesting for information.  What can a cityzen do if the
political parties ignore their application and CIC's notice for
hearing as well as his final orders.  Nothing. How can a CIC penalise
any political party under Section 20 RTI Act.  The CIC has no means to
enforece his direction.

Further the CIC isnot a court of records and its orders are not
binding on SIC. Hence above orders of CIC is not binding on SICs of
States

Stupid orders

Col NR Kurup

On 04/06/2013, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
> AAP is not part of the order. It will be difficult for the 6 parties to
> wriggle out of this. This is significant and should be welcomed by IAC
> irrespective of who has filed the petition. The next step should be NGOs
> since donors are exempted from income tax under Sec 80G, where applicable.
> Pavan Nair
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Consider this
>>
>> 1) All 3 ICS on that CIC bench are due to retire shortly and this
>> (badly reasoned) order has been given to suit the Govt.
>>
>> 2) This is a collusive effort between parties like AAP, Cong and BJP
>> etc to see that RTI does NOT apply to them. The Delhi High Court will
>> promptly grant the parties an ex-parte stay and for 10 years nothing
>> will result.
>>
>> 3) Subhash Chandra Agrawal (as I have said before and to his face - we
>> discuss these things as we have different approaches) is also an RTI
>> taxi for Prashant Bhushan. Now if AAP can get even 5% votes in Delhi
>> elections they will be alloted a huge piece of land at institutional
>> rates to shut them up.
>>
>> 4) This is exactly the same modus operandi earlier used by Prashant
>> Bhushan (agaon with Agarwal as RTI taxi) to get judiciary taken out of
>> RTI. If they were genuine they should file  caveats in the High Court
>> as well as SC to ward off ex-parte stays.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/3/13, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Indeed. Why should donors to political parties get tax exemption? Even
>> > if
>> > they do not, they, I mean the political parties should be under RTI. We
>> > also need to consider public funding of elections which would
>> automatically
>> > get them under RTI. Cannot understand why they are are considered
>> > equivalent to public charities and trusts. Pavan Nair
>> >
>> > On 3 Jun 2013 22:44, "Vidyut Kale" <wide.aware@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I am still reading this, but I thought it would be of interest to us.
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_C_2011_000838_M_111223.pdf
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>

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



--
Vidyut
Twitter: @Vidyut
Phone: Allergic
Telephone: Forget it.
Mobile phone: Forgot

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

[HumJanenge] Fwd: DEFAMATION CASE (I.C.C No. 3441 of 2013) AGAINST SRI JAGADANAND, ODISHA INFORMATION COMMISSIONER FILED IN SDJM COURT, BHUBANESWAR BY SMT. RAJALAXMI DAS, WIFE OF JAYANTA KUMAR DAS, RTI-COMPLAINANT

 

DEFAMATION CASE  (I.C.C No. 3441 of 2013) AGAINST SRI JAGADANAND,  ODISHA INFORMATION COMMISSIONER  FILED   IN SDJM COURT, BHUBANESWAR  BY SMT. RAJALAXMI DAS, WIFE OF JAYANTA KUMAR DAS, RTI-COMPLAINANT

 

Dear friends

On dated 04.6.2013,  Smt.  Rajalaxmi Das, my wife  has  filed  a Defamation Case  against Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty), State Information Commissioner in Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, capital of Odisha  with  prayer  to punish  him(Under Section 499 and 500 I.P.C)  for  using  derogatory and defamatory  languages  in  his decision          (Second  Appeal case No.- 439/2011 dated 09th Feb 2012).  In her petition, Smt. Rajalaxmi Das  has mentioned that  Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty), SIC  has illegally  and  without any relevance  reflected  the  version of PIO in the order  that  her  husband(me) is involved in fraudulent land deal with many persons and was arrested in criminal case. This decision of Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty)  is  illegal, perverse and non-application of judicial mind. Because without hearing the case from Appellant Sri  Jayanta Kumar Das, Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty)recorded the statement  of the erring PIO and the same  was also reflected  on the order sheet which does not come within the domain of the commission. Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty) has  passed the order  with an oblique motive  to malign  the image  of her  husband.

 

On  1.8.2011, I had filed an RTI Application to  the PIO, office of Health and Family Welfare , Govt. of Odisha seeking  information about copy of property statement of Dr. Sanat Mohapatra.  On refusal,  I approached the First Appellate Authority who dropped  the case without hearing because I (the appellant) was not present during hearing. Then I filed second appeal  S.A. No. 439/2011 before the Odisha Information Commission. Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty) did two

blunder mistakes during hearing:-

 

i)    Mistake No.1 heard the case on 09.2.2012  and  remanded the case again to the First Appellate Authority  without ensuring  information and without penalizing the Public Information Officer of Health & Family Welfare department as per Section 20 of RTI Act 2005 for not providing information to me.

 

ii)  Mistake No.2  Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty),  in his decision  mentioned  the  objectionable  version  of the PIO  which has damaged my social dignity.

 

This  is one of many cases  where Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty)always reflected berry acrimonious attitude to the information- seekers, RTI-Complainants  during hearing  in the court room. This case  will be heard very soon.

 

THANKS

SRI JAYANTA KUMAR DAS, SIDHAMAHABIR PATANA, PURI,9861770749(M)

 

 

 

Documents in Attachment for reference:-

1.  RTI Application dt. 01st Aug 2011 (Waiting for  information since 675 days!!!),

 

 

2.  Decision of First Appellate authority (Case was dropped as I was Absent during hearing!!!),

 

 

3.  Decision of OIC Sri Jagadananda, Second Appeal No. 439/2011(in which he has used defamatory  languages to defame the Appellant knowingly instead of Penalizing the PIO!!!),

 

4.  My Letter dated 11.2.2012 to OIC Sri Jagadananda,

 

 

5.   My Letter dated 19.5.2012 to OIC Sri Jagadananda (asking about the defamatory language used by him in his decision),

 

 



Get your own FREE website and domain with business email solutions, click here


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HumJanenge+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Re: [IAC#RG] CIC judgment WRT political parties and transparency

Col Kurup is right. It may be taken just as an eye wash .They do not  obey the orders passed by the Parliament - NON SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES  ,who will care for such orders of the CIC

.There are many more such orders /  laws lying in the cold storage.

Brig J S Ahuja

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com> wrote:
As I had posted in Twitter the CIC Orders bringing the Political
Parties under RTI is stupid. This orders just cannot be enforced. I
don't think the political parties are duty bound to abide by orders of
CIC. They can just ignore CIC orders and the CIC will not be able to
do anything. Similarly the political parties can just ignore any
application requesting for information.  What can a cityzen do if the
political parties ignore their application and CIC's notice for
hearing as well as his final orders.  Nothing. How can a CIC penalise
any political party under Section 20 RTI Act.  The CIC has no means to
enforece his direction.

Further the CIC isnot a court of records and its orders are not
binding on SIC. Hence above orders of CIC is not binding on SICs of
States

Stupid orders

Col NR Kurup

On 04/06/2013, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
> AAP is not part of the order. It will be difficult for the 6 parties to
> wriggle out of this. This is significant and should be welcomed by IAC
> irrespective of who has filed the petition. The next step should be NGOs
> since donors are exempted from income tax under Sec 80G, where applicable.
> Pavan Nair
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Consider this
>>
>> 1) All 3 ICS on that CIC bench are due to retire shortly and this
>> (badly reasoned) order has been given to suit the Govt.
>>
>> 2) This is a collusive effort between parties like AAP, Cong and BJP
>> etc to see that RTI does NOT apply to them. The Delhi High Court will
>> promptly grant the parties an ex-parte stay and for 10 years nothing
>> will result.
>>
>> 3) Subhash Chandra Agrawal (as I have said before and to his face - we
>> discuss these things as we have different approaches) is also an RTI
>> taxi for Prashant Bhushan. Now if AAP can get even 5% votes in Delhi
>> elections they will be alloted a huge piece of land at institutional
>> rates to shut them up.
>>
>> 4) This is exactly the same modus operandi earlier used by Prashant
>> Bhushan (agaon with Agarwal as RTI taxi) to get judiciary taken out of
>> RTI. If they were genuine they should file  caveats in the High Court
>> as well as SC to ward off ex-parte stays.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/3/13, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Indeed. Why should donors to political parties get tax exemption? Even
>> > if
>> > they do not, they, I mean the political parties should be under RTI. We
>> > also need to consider public funding of elections which would
>> automatically
>> > get them under RTI. Cannot understand why they are are considered
>> > equivalent to public charities and trusts. Pavan Nair
>> >
>> > On 3 Jun 2013 22:44, "Vidyut Kale" <wide.aware@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I am still reading this, but I thought it would be of interest to us.
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_C_2011_000838_M_111223.pdf
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>

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