Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CIC not practising what it preaches

Firstly the RTI Act is all about disclosing info and hence the PIO cannot ab intio decide not to disclose it unless it falls within the ambit of Sec 8 or 9. Even the proviso to sec 11 says that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. So it requires the statement of the thrid party as to how it would harm him before deciding whether the harm would be more than public interest claimed. That property returns of public servants are of public interest needs no reiteration. In fact the insistence on election candidates declaring their assets even before being elected is a true example of the need to keep public track of the assets of public servants. (That it, the declaration of assets by candidates, has NOT served its purpose is a different matter!)

 

Further, please see the highlighted portion. Keen to know the other grounds.

 

regards n bw

 

ravi

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:33 AM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

Members (In this case Dr J.K. Grover) are requested not to change the
subject lines of message posts. This thread was earlier
"Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts"

1) The PIO only invokes 3rd party when he intends to disclose
information.
In Vihar's case, the PIO /FAA have never intended to disclose it.

2) The question of "larger public interest" for 8(1)(j) was considered
and
disposed of by IC(DS) that till until there is some specific evidence /
CoA
sufficient to intrude on a public servant's privacy the exemption
would hold.
Merely on the appellant's say that there is larger public interest
such info
cannot be disclosed.

3) I have never said the IC(DS)'s order is valid. In fact I have said
it is a poor
order The order certainly deserves to be challenged but on different
grounds.

Sarbajit

On Jan 3, 7:33 am, Ravindran P M <pmravind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mr Roy is partially right in that there is no contradiction in the orders of
> the CIC in the judges assets case and the current case. But he is wrong in
> that the current order is valid. The fact is that in matters of third party
> info there is a process to be followed - of giving opportunity to the third
> party to know if he/she has an objections to the disclosure of info. After
> getting the response or failing to get the response in 15 days only can the
> IC decide whether there is any public interest involved or not and then
> decide whether the info should be disclosed or not. By not following the
> specified procedure the IC has vitiated the due process.
>
> regards n bw
>
> ravi
>

> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Newspaper reporters don't know anything and publish rubbish to fill their
> > columns.
>
> > The SC case is clearly distinguishable, hinging as it did on whether the
> > office of the CJI is a public authority distinct from the SC, whether the
> > CJI is required to disclose information submitted to him in confidence,
> > whether there is any legal requirement (versus voluntary requirement) for
> > asset returns to be submitted in the first place et al..
>
> > In the present instance, it is a clear case of 8(1)(j) which has 2
> > components - "personal information" or "invasion of privacy" EITHER of which
> > is adequate to deny information.
> > Asset returns cans be voluntarily disclosed, but the RTI Act has no teeth
> > to extract it on behalf of the citizens.
>
> > Finally let us see the operative part of this news report
>
> > ""This order of the CIC is completely contradictory to what it ruled in
> > January last year, when it asked Supreme Court to provide information under
> > RTI on whether judges declare their assets to their chief justices," Durve
> > said."
>
> > Where is the contradiction ? We all know that SC judges do declare their
> > assets, and we knew it without RTI.
>
> > Sarbajit
>

> > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Dr. J. K. Grover <jk...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/PUBLICATIONS/HT/HD/2011/01/01/INDEX....
>
> >> *CIC not practising what it preaches*
> >> Nagendar Sharma nagendar.sha...@hindustantimes.com, NEWDELHI

> >> TheCentralInformation Commission (CIC) has in a controversial decision
> >> ruled against making public the wealth details of its former top officials
> >> as well as of former bosses of the Election Commission.
>
> >> The transparency watchdog has delivered many landmark verdicts, including
> >> one that led to the declaration of assets by judges of the Supreme Court and
> >> high courts last year.
>
> >> But in its decision on an appeal filed by Pune-based right to information
> >> (RTI) activist Vihar Durve, who sought property details of former chief
> >> information commissioners Wajahat Habibullah and AN Tiwari and of former
> >> chief election commissioners N Gopalswami and Navin Chawla, the commission
> >> ruled in favour of secrecy.
>
> >> "Property returns of the f officers s are subs mitted . to the cadre
> >> authoritie every yea dence and disclosure of information contained would
> >> definitely be unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual,"
> >> information commissioner Deepak Sandhu said in the order.
> >> "If the applicant had any specific information with regard to any acts of
> >> corruption or disproportionate wealth in respect of any civil servant, he
> >> should pass it on to the designated organisations responsible for
> >> investigating such matters," the commission ruled.
>
> >> Criticising Durve, it said: "The role of investigating agencies can't be
> >> assumed by any citizen along with the right to have access to personal
> >> information of third parties..."
>
> >> "This order of the CIC is completely contradictory to what it ruled in
> >> January last year, when it asked Supreme Court to provide information under
> >> RTI on whether judges declare their assets to their chief justices," Durve
> >> said.
>
> >> He approached the CIC after he was denied the information by the
> >> department of personnel and training (DoPT) last year.
>
> >> "The information sought by you is personal and exempt from disclosure
> >> under section 8 of the RTI Act," the DoPT had written to Durve. Till now,
> >> only one information commissioner, Shailesh Gandhi, has declared his assets
> >> voluntarily.
> >> Dr J K Grover