Saturday, February 18, 2012

Re: [rti4empowerment] RTI Act - Government Circular

Sarbajit Sir,

Thanks for the information. 

However, I think the purpose of Circulars issued by any governing body should be for the smooth day to day functioning. But in my case the Circular issued by the Cooperative society is hindering with the activity of the RTI Act and is trying to supersede it. Also, the RTI Act is a superior governing act under whose ambit falls all other governing bodies.

Therefore, the circular issued by the Cooperative Society was merely for its financial gains and to protect itself from the penalty for not providing the information.

Kindly let me know if my view is correct.

Thanks & Regards,
Shailmala


From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] RTI Act - Government Circular

Hi

Under 2(h) the Secretary of your CS is essentially saying that he is
not covered under RTI, ie. your CS is not covered under definition of
"public authority".

You wanted to know if you can question "any" CS. The answer is you can
question "some" CSes.
ie. only those which ARE included within 2(h)'s 4 cases. (usually 2(h)(d)).
There are conflicting High Court decisions on this.

The Secretary of a CS has the right power  to issue circulars TO ITS
MEMBERS. These are usually issued under the Societies Act / Rues and
can always be overturned by the General Body at a GBM if you have the
numbers..

Sarbajit

On 2/17/12, shailmala kumari <shailmala1@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Members,
>
> I  have one question from the members regarding the Government Circular.
>
> What is a Government Circular? Who has the authority to issue Circulars OR
> what is the position (designation) of the particular official issuing the
> Circular?
>
> If I ask question through RTI Act to any Cooperative Society, does the
> Secretary of the Cooperative Society has right to issue a circular and deny
> any
> information under Section 2H of the RTI Act?
>
> Any information regarding this would be highly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Shailmala
>


RE: [HumJanenge] Central Information Commission warns the public authorities against demanding proof of citizenship from RTI applicants .

Dear Mr. Gill,

My opinion in this case is as follows:

You may file a RTI application seeking information under Right to Information Act, 2005 to Minister of Education (by name) and to Director of Education
both of Delhi Government by sending an IPO as application fee of Rs. 10/- immediately.

2.   I do not know the practice in AP and MP and we don't need to know.   

3.   With all the publicity the CM of Delhi getting, you will certainly get an answer.

With best wishes,

Hari Goyal
(Dr. Hari Dev Goyal)
Indian Economic Service (1968 Batch)
Director, RTI & Consumer Protection Centre-Dwarka
Phones: 011- 2



Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:22:20 +0530
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Central Information Commission warns the public authorities against demanding proof of citizenship from RTI applicants .
From: isgill48@gmail.com
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com; pradippradhan63@gmail.com

Dear Sir,

I wish to seek guidance for the following case:

a)   Can a private school (say DPS) is justified in asking parents for addmission fee from old students of school, when they get promoted from one class to the other? Can an indivisual seek information under RTI about their policy on taking 'addmission  fee'
from old students each year, when they get promoted in next class.

b) If answer to above is yes, then what should be the procedure say in AP or MP? Can stamps of INR 10.00 be attached with the application?

c) What could be a suggested FORMAT of the application & its wording.

Thanks


IS Gill
MHOW(MP)

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
Central Information Commission warns the public authorities against
demanding proof of citizenship from RTI applicants .


Dear  friends,
While deciding  a Complaint Case ( File No; CIC/AD/C/2011/001736 on
11.1.2012,, Ms. Annapurna Dixit, Central Information Commissioner
observed,    "there is no provision in the RTI Act to seek
identification of a citizen who seeks information from any Public
Authority. The PIO of the Company is warned not to seek such
identification in future u/s 3 of the RTI Act, which stipulates that
all citizens shall have the Right to Information, as it would be
construed by the Commission as deemed denial". The fact of the case is
that an RTI Applicant Mr. M Rangarajan of Bangalore had sought
information about the   provision of retirement benefits of the
employees from the PIO,  M/s. Braithwaite and Company Ltd under
Ministry of Railways, 5, Hide Road, Kolkata - 700 043. But the said
PIO quoting Section 3 of the Act demanded the proof of citizenship
identity of the applicant before he would be able to disclose the
information sought. Then the aggrieved applicant approached the
Central Information Commission with a complaint against the said
illegal order of the PIO. Having heard the parties to the case, the
CIC Mrs.Dixit passed the above order quoted above.
Now, let us have a look at the procedure of submitting RTI Application
in Odisha. The  State Govt.  has made a provision  under  Odisha Right
to Information Rules 2005 for  submission of  proof of  identity of
citizenship  along with RTI application  being made to any Public
Authority. Besides   a Compulsory and a lengthy 11-column "Form-A" has
been prescribed by the State Govt.  wherein the Column No.4  requires
submission of  Proof of Citizenship in the shape of a copy of Voter's
Card or Passport.  If  an RTI Applicant  fails  to attach the said
proof of Citizenship,  the PIO has been  given absolute power in
Form-C ( Intimation of Rejection) to reject the application on the
ground that "your identity is not satisfactory'. . This queer
provision  contradicts the letter and spirit of Section 6 (2) of the
RTI Act, which says, "An applicant  making request  for information
shall not be required  to give  any reason  for requesting the
information  or any other personal details  except those  that may be
necessary  for  contacting him". This provision also deprives
millions of young people in Odisha and outside of their right to apply
for information to any public authority located in Odisha, for the
obvious reasons that they being underaged can't have a voter's card
and they, in absence of any compelling need, may not have any passport
either. Besides quite many adult persons may not have a voter's card
at all, since it is not a compulsory provision at all to have a voter
card.. Thus millions of people in and outside Odisha who are bonafide
citizens because of their domicile within territory of India and thus
entitled to apply for information under Section 3 of the Act are
defrauded of this statutory right due to the ultra vires RTI Rules of
Odisha.

Besides, the mode of payment of application fees is either through
Treasury Challan or through cash. It means that every person, wherever
he or she may be located, has to physically visit the concerned office
to remit the application fee to the PIO, no matter the amount to be
paid is a trifle. Alternatively, he or she may post the application
fee through Treasury Challan. But as everybody knows, for collecting a
Treasury Challan of Rs.10/-, one has to visit the nearest town where
the Treasury Office may be located, stand in the queue for as many
hours as is required and also remember the excessively long Treasury
Code of the RTI application fee which is humanly impossible. Every RTI
applicant in Odisha has thus to pass through a hell of hassles in
availing the Treasury Challan of Rs.10/- to be attached to his or her
RTI application. But still funniest is the predicament of a citizen
living outside Odisha, who can neither afford to visit Odisha simply
to pay in cash the application fee of Rs.10/- to the concerned PIO nor
can arrange a Treasury Challan of Rs.10/- for remittance by post for
the said purpose, for the simple reason that there is no Office of
Odisha Treasury located outside Odisha. For such prohibitive modes of
payment, no person from outside Odisha has yet applied for information
under RTI Act to any public authority located in Odisha, and most
common people living inside Odisha have stayed away from using RTI Act
during last 6 and half years. In a nutshell, the Orissa RTI Rules can
be called Odisha RTI Disentitlement Rules.

However, the tragedy is that in Odisha such anti-RTI and anti-citizens
 provisions are upheld   and justified  by Odisha information
commissioners  during hearing of the cases and as well in course of
their address in public meetings. The only lame excuse they
unabashedly proffer in defense of the above anti-citizen Rules is that
the State Govt. has framed it.  While saying so, the Commissioners
blissfully ignore Section 25(5) of the Act, which authorizes the
Commission   to recommend  to any public authority including the State
Govt.  to take steps  for removing any deviation and effecting
conformity to the letter and spirit of Act.  Though nearly six  and
half years has  passed since Odisha Information Commission started
functioning , it has not  made a single recommendation   to remove the
anti-citizen and  ultra vires Odisha RTI Rules 2005. Of all, the
Compulsory Application Form, proof of citizenship and prohibitive mode
of payment for application  is the greatest nuisance wrought against
every citizen's right to information, and woefully enough, Odisha
Information Commission has been sleeping over it at tandem with the
State Government.

Will the Central Information Commission's latest, eye-opening warning
against the proof of citizenship of an RTI applicant serve as a
wake-up call to Odisha Information Commission for taking a similar
position?

Regards
Pradip Pradhan
M-99378-43482
Date-18.2.2012

RE: [HumJanenge] Conspiracy behind Army Chief's Age Row - THE STATESMAN

Dear All,
I dont know what is the truth with different stories going around. But Shami Mehta was much senior to JJ Singh so question of his superseeding JJ singh did not arise.
 

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 08:16:16 +0530
Subject: [HumJanenge] Conspiracy behind Army Chief's Age Row - THE STATESMAN
From: mgd@airtelmail.in
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com

Dear All,
 
As promised herewith is the lead Article in today's THE STATESMAN that bares the deep rooted conspiracy that led to the sordid episode of the Army Chief's age row. It is for sure that the 'motivated media' would try and suppress it, but Truth always has an uncanny way of surfacing and then prevailing
 
M.G.Devasahayam
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 

http://thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=400557&catid=38

THE STATESMAN

Special Article

19 February 2012

VK Singh's age-battle
Ball Back In Centre's Court

By Sam Rajappa

An honest man's the noblest work of God.
~ Alexander Pope

HONESTY is a vanishing commodity, according to a recent research study by Essex University. Paul Whiteley, author of the report, says low-level dishonesty has increased across the social classes, although the younger generation is, on the whole, even less scrupulous than the older one. In 1712, Jonathan Swift wrote a treatise on "The Art of Political Lying." If defence minister AK Antony read either of the reports, this raging controversy about the date of birth of the Chief of the Army Staff, General VK Singh, could have been avoided. There is an age-old dispute between moderates and rigorists.

Antony is a moderate who believes a few lies are acceptable if they serve the larger interest of statecraft, like Oskar Schindler, who did not hesitate to lie to Hitler's storm troopers to save the lives of more than 1,000 of his Jewish employees. General Singh belongs to the school of thought of Immanuel Kant, one of the renowned exponents of the rigorist position, and landed himself in this unseemly controversy.


The media, for whatever interest they were serving, saw in the 10 February order of the Supreme Court, the army chief losing his age war. Nowhere in the brief 12-paragraph judgment can one find the Supreme Court telling General Singh to change his date of birth to suit the interests of the government.


The operative part of the judgment reads: "As a matter of fact, the question before us in the writ petition is not about the determination of actual date of birth of the petitioner, but it concerns the recognition of a particular date of birth of the petitioner by the respondent (Union of India) in the official service record. In view of the statement made by Goolam Vahanvati, Attorney-General, and the limited controversy in the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press the matter further and he seeks withdrawal of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn." Where is the question of who won and who lost?


Earlier in the day, Vahanavati handed over to the Bench a short affidavit by KL Nandwani, deputy secretary in the Defence ministry, seeking to treat the second part of his 30 December 2011, order to the Adjutant General's branch to change VK Singh's date of birth from 10 May 1951 to 10 May 1950, and send a "strict compliance report at the earliest without further loss of time," as withdrawn and confine it to the first part only which holds the statutory complaint by the petitioner as not maintainable.

The Bench granted permission and observed: "In view thereof, the petitioner's grievance with regard to the part of the order dated 30 December 2011, which deals with the merits of the controversy, does not survive." The judgment took care to record Vahanavati's statement that the government had not questioned the integrity or bona fide of the petitioner. "The writ petition was on a matter of principle and it did not reflect any lack of faith or confidence in the petitioner's ability to lead the army." The judges took particular care to avoid any obiter dicta in their order. What is, however, regrettable in this sordid saga of age controversy is the government ignoring primary and legally accepted documents like birth certificate and school leaving certificate and giving credence to non-legal documents like an application form which can be easily manipulated. Birth is a natural occurrence ordained by Providence and its date and time cannot be altered by any government order.


The ball is now in the court of defence minister Antony who had ordered a junior-level officer in his ministry to write to the Adjutant General to change the date of birth of General Singh to 10 May 1950, when the matter was sub judice. The letter had to be withdrawn on order of the Supreme Court. The Military Secretary, Lt.-Gen. GM Nair, in his letter A/4501/01(GEN/MS(1) dated 01 July 2011, to the defence minister, marked 'confidential,' wrote: On scrutiny of past records pertaining to Selection Boards, it has been observed that the MDSs pertaining to Gen. VK Singh which were drawn up at the time of his consideration for promotion to select ranks reflect the date of birth of the General Officer as 10 May 1951." The letter goes on to give his promotion as Major-General on 25 October 2001, Lieutenant-General on 18/19 September 2003, and as Army Commander on 30 September 2005, all based on his actual date of birth. The letter said that copies of the relevant MDS sheets are available with the ministry of defence for verification, and added for good measure that "this has been brought to the notice of the defence minister." This document, a photocopy of which is available with The Statesman, makes it clear that till Manmohan Singh became Prime Minister, there was no dichotomy between the records maintained by the Military Secretary branch and the Adjutant General branch pertaining to the date of birth of VK Singh.


The plot began to thicken when Gen. Joginder Jaswant Singh of Maratha Light Infantry took over as Chief of the Army Staff on 1 February 2005. He was the first-ever Sikh to rise to the top in the Indian Army. In the preceding months, as Gen. NC Vij's tenure was coming to an end, there was speculation that JJ Singh would be superseded by Lt.-Gen. Shammi Mehta, an Armoured Corps officer. The Shiromani Gurdwara Prabanthak Committee issued a strongly worded statement favouring JJ Singh which was prominently featured in The Tribune and a few other newspapers. The Tribune was used again, this time to pillory Gen. VK Singh.


For the first time in the history of the Indian Army, the communal card came into play, though the SGPC statement might not have had any bearing on the Appointments Committee headed by Manmohan Singh clearing JJ Singh's elevation to the top slot. Within months of taking over, he plotted a succession plan. That Deepak Kapoor would take over from JJ Singh was well known by then. After Kapoor who would depend on the Selection Board which was to meet towards the end of 2005 to decide on which officers were to be promoted to the Lieutenant-General's rank.


After working out various permutations and combinations, JJ Singh discovered that VK Singh, who was a Corps Commander by then, would be the obvious choice to succeed Kapoor, but if his tenure could be curtailed to two years, the way could be cleared for Bikram Singh, the present chief of the Eastern Command, to take over in May 2012. At that time, Bikram Singh was not a front- runner as there were other officers with better credentials ahead of him in the succession pyramid. But they could be sidelined with a bit of deft tweaking.
 
Those to be neutralised included Brigadiers Padam Budhwar and MM Chaudhary, and Majors-General Shujan Chatterjee, AK Singh and Ravi Arora, a gold medalist from the same batch as Bikram Singh. Raising VK Singh's age issue before his Lieutenant-General Board would have eliminated him from the race and in the process, Bikram Singh too would have been knocked out. For JJ Singh's succession plan to succeed, VK Singh had to remain in office till 31 May. On 3 May 2006, the Military Secretary branch was asked to rake up VK Singh's date of birth issue based on an error in his application form at the time of joining the NDA as a teenager, and asked to accept, in writing, that he was born in 1950, with the promise of an inquiry which was never held.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Prakash Katoch <prakashkatoch7@gmail.com> wrote:

This article by Mrinalini Singh needs to be read coupled with the fact how the government has used the media (The Fourth Estate) – in line with what MK Dhar, former Joint Director Intelligence Bureau wrote in his book 'Top Secret – India's Intelligence Unveiled' wherein he says, "The susceptibility of the fourth estate to the intelligence community had tied our hands down. They are one of the too many holy Indian cows. Some of them, as described by a senior member of the fourth estate, 'taxi on hire.' any paymaster can hire this particular brand."

Incredible India marches on !

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Colonelrajan Srinivas <colonelrajan44@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:34 PM
Subject: Article - HOW CAN GREAT OAKS SWAY WITH THE WIND? - Mrinalini Singh
To: M V <militaryveterans@yahoogroups.com>, veteransindia <VeteransIndia@yahoogroups.com>, ExecutiveGpMilitaryVeteransIndia@yahoogroups.com, sappersjune1963 <SappersJune1963@yahoogroups.com>, 268hippos <268Hippos@yahoogroups.com>, MaduraiAppathuraiIyerClan@yahoogroups.com, 98BigStreet@yahoogroups.com, elephantlodge <ElephantLodge@yahoogroups.co.in>


http://www.outlookindia.com/images/common/outlook.gif

OUTLOOKINDIA.COM

 

HOW CAN GREAT OAKS SWAY WITH THE WIND?

 

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279938#.Tz-yG2XuVCA.email

 

MRINALINI SINGH

 

When he was a lieutenant general, V.K. Singh gave it in writing that he had faith in his army chief. This cannot be construed as 'acceptance' of a wrong DoB.

 

MRINALINI SINGH

 

 

An error had been made regarding the date of birth of my father at the time of filling up the UPSC form when he had applied for admission to the National Defence Academy (NDA). This was detected instantly and certain steps were taken to correct the year of birth even before he joined the academy. In fact, he reported 13 days late to the NDA as the date was being sor­ted out. This was obviously taken due note of, for all NDA records then showed his year of birth as 1951. Three years later, when he moved from the NDA to the Indian Military Academy (IMA), he was told to write the date of birth as in the UPSC form. He pointed out that this had been corrected and was told that this would be verified by a board of officers. The pre-commission advisory board checked and verified his particulars; his IMA ident­ity card and his record of service duly sta­ted that he was born in 1951. For the next few decades, ever since his commissioning into the army, his year of birth in all records, whether in the military secretariat or the adjutant general's branch, was 1951. The only exception was the Army List, which is published keeping the original UPSC form as reference point. Even in this case, as the date of birth had to be verified against the school-leaving certificate, the entry was erroneous.

On May 3, 2006, 19 days after the results of the selection board for lieutenant generals had been declassified, the military secretary at the time, Lt Gen Richard Khare, first wrote to Gen V.K. Singh claiming there was a discrepancy in the records of the two branches. This set off a chain of events that eventually led to the army chief first filing a statutory complaint and then referring the matter to the Supreme Court.

On February 3, 2012, the SC, in its wisdom, castigated the government, stating that the due process of natural justice had not been followed and the process had been "vitiated" in addressing the army chief's statutory complaint. The attorney general at that time asked for an adjournment, which was granted. During the second hearing, a week later, the attorney general started proceedings by submitting an affidavit by way of which it withdrew its order dated December 30, 2011, that rejected the statutory complaint. In view of the government's move, and the praise about the general's professional and personal conduct, our lawyer felt there was no point in pressing the matter further, especia­lly since the court had made it clear that in light of the government's stance, there was nothing further to be discussed from a legal point of view. As a citizen of India, the army chief has already expressed his grateful thanks to the learned judges of the apex court for addressing the issue.

***

My Ambition


I don't want to be,
A wealthy man,
Nor I want to be,
A working man.


I want to be,
A great soldier,
Fighting on the front,
with a gun on my shoulder,


I want to die for,
My great, beloved nation,
And for my enemy,
I shall have no compassion,


I want to let the 
Chinese know
That Indians can die,
For their Motherland.


(A poem written by Gen V.K. Singh as a Std VIII student,

culled from his school magazine)

***

The order passed by the court is not ambiguous in its content. I am bitterly disappointed at the deliberate spin given in the media to the proceedings in the court, which in my view and understanding are quite contrary to what the honourable judges have said in their order. Firstly, the order does not uphold an error in the threshold document, nor does it say anything about the legality of either of the two dates of birth. There's also nothing to suggest that the so-called 'acceptance letters' exist. While it is true that these points came up during the hearing—as did many other statements, which include the much talked about "wise men move with the wind" remark of the judges—but these were arguments that in my understanding cannot be confused with the order passed by the learned judges.

If the government had not withdrawn its order of December 30 concerning my father's statutory appeal, the arguments in the court would have had a different flavour and intensity and all the facts given above would have come into play, requiring adjudication. But this did not happen, and my father's critics have gone to town, repeatedly harping that there are three occasions when he had "moved with the wind" and given acceptance letters to the year of birth being 1950. This is blatantly untrue, and I would like to set the record straight.

Contrary to what is being projected, there has never been any such 'acceptance letter'. In 2006, he was perhaps the only serving lieutenant general in the history of the nation to be asked to furnish a fresh date of birth prior to being cleared for appointment as a corps commander. This despite the fact that just a few weeks prior to that, the military secretariat branch records had cleared him for promotion based on a 1951 year of birth. The then army chief, Gen J.J. Singh, my father's chief at the time, had categorically told him that there was merely a clerical discrepancy in the records. This would be sorted out, and for that he needed to accept that he had faith in the army chief's decisions. This would be in the interest of the organisation, as it was otherwise holding up the appointments of all corps commanders. Once the army chief had this letter, it was projected to the defence ministry that there was an 'acceptance letter' procured from my father, acknowledging the year of birth as 1950. The fact that my father, then a lieutenant general, continued to ask the military secretariat branch even after that how and why the army chief had been advised to make him declare a new year of birth underlines the fact that in 2006 there was no such 'acceptance'.

The question that needs to be asked of the then army chief, the military secretary (Lt Gen Khare) and the judge advocate general (Maj Gen Nilender Kumar), who together initiated what was clearly not the standard operating procedure in 2006, is: Why did they make an exception in this case only? These gentlemen have found immunity in red tape, aided perhaps by some deft management of the media, which has sidestepped this question, while my father is accused of "bending with the wind". In my view, this is where the injustice lies.

As for the second and third 'acceptance' letters, it is loos­ely being said they had been written in 2008 and 2009. This immediately begs the question that if there was a 'first acceptance' letter, then, what was the need for a second and a third one to be asked for? The situation here is slightly more complex. The army chief at this point of time was Gen Deepak Kapoor and the military secretary Lt Gen Avdhesh Prakash. It is a well known fact that these two gentlemen, both professionally and otherwise, differed sharply from my father (then a lieutenant general) and if the former had his way, my father would not have headed the Eastern Command. Professionally, there was nothing that could be used by the army chief to damage my father, so the 'age issue' was once again raked up to provoke him into disobeying a direct order to accept an incorrect year of birth. The army chief is the most powerful man in the army and a series of letters were written which have to be seen in their entirety to get the complete picture. Opinions should not be based on an isolated sentence which cites "the larger organisational interest". Had this logic been true—that Lt Gen V.K. Singh 'accepted' the year of birth as 1950 so as to head the Eastern Command and later become army chief—he would have shut the cupola and not stirred the issue at all during his tenure as eastern army commander before taking over as the chief. However, he continued to write to the military secretary (Lt Gen Prakash), going systematically along accepted lines of redressing the clerical error within the army.

Honour and izzat are words that are emblazoned on a soldier's heart. Apart from being the daughter of Gen V.K. Singh, I too am an army wife and have seen from close quarters the man I call my father stand up for what he considers is the right thing to do.

In this rather one-sided slanging match, it is also being implied by his critics that the army chief would be better off fighting for one-rank-one-pay, war memorials, weapon systems and all the other problems that haunt the system. I am not going to get drawn into what all he has done as the army chief; that's best left to others and that is a part of his job anyway. For me, his worldview is best encapsulated in a quote from Ernest Hemingway that he uses often: "Few men for the right cause brave the disrespect of their fellow men, the censure of their colleagues and ignorance of society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields out painfully to change."


(Mrinalini Singh is the daughter of Gen V.K. Singh)

—as told to Chander Suta Dogra





Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] rti activist stoned to death

Dear Deepandra and Rajiv,

I would be in Haridwar 27th for a few days. Will meet both of you and decide what we can do together.

Manoj

Re: [HumJanenge] RTI Help

Mr sarabjit's reply is crystal clear. Ideally the letter is posted the
same day of its entry into the despatch register. if some PIO is not
posting the letter on the same day of its entry into despatch
register, he is wrong.

On 2/18/12, krishnan nambudiri <knknambudiri@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mr. Sarabjit's reply is confusing. Date of reply is the date on which the
> letter is approved by the PIO.But if it is not despatched on the same date
> (there should be enttries in the Despatch Register and stamp account
> register if postage stamp is used). So the date of actual date is what
> matters and not the date of approval of communication.
>
> On 18 February 2012 11:40, sanjay kumar <sk_j30@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>> Dear PIO responded on 05-02-12 is quiet ok .
>>
>> *From:* NIRAJ <nirajklko@yahoo.com>
>> *To:* "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, 17 February 2012 7:58 AM
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [HumJanenge] RTI Help
>>
>> 30 days period starts from the day when your RTI application was received
>> by the PIO not the date of posting.
>>
>> Dr. NIRAJ KUMAR
>> C-4/8, RIVER BANK COLONY
>> LUCKNOW - 226018
>> INDIA
>> Mob.: +91+9415787095
>> *From:* sneh santosh <snehsantosh@gmail.com>
>> *To:* humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 16 February 2012 1:00 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [HumJanenge] RTI Help
>>
>> Dear Gaurav,
>>
>> This is not a voilation of RTI time frame of 30 days. This is OK.
>>
>> On 2/15/12, Kumar Gaurav <simple.gaurav@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Hello Sir,
>> >
>> > This is Gaurav from haridwar.
>> >
>> > Sir, I need your help in a very simple issue.
>> >
>> > Consider the following case -
>> >
>> > RTI application file on date 5.1.2012
>> >
>> > PIO responded on 5.2.2012,
>> >
>> >
>> > Is this a voilation of RTI time frame of 30 days. or this is OK.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Gaurav Sharma
>> > 9837779669
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> K.N.K.Namboodiri
> Choma Elamon Mana,
> Chathakulam-PO
> Poruvazhi-,Kollam Dist
> Pin 690520
> Mob.9447470073
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] Central Information Commission warns the public authorities against demanding proof of citizenship from RTI applicants .

Please attach IPO of Rs 10.00. stamps are not admissible.
My suggestion is that first you send a complaint against the school
attaching the proofs. send this complaint to Deputy Commissioner,
District education officer, Secretary, school education and CBSE (if
school is affiliated with CBSE).
wait for two months. then seek information about action taken on your
complaints.
there is no specific format needed for RTI. anyhow i am attaching one
RTI application. go through it and draft your application accordingly.

On 2/18/12, Inderjit Singh Gill <isgill48@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sir,
>
> I wish to seek guidance for the following case:
>
> a) Can a private school (say DPS) is justified in asking parents for
> addmission fee from old students of school, when they get promoted from one
> class to the other? Can an indivisual seek information under RTI about
> their policy on taking 'addmission fee'
> from old students each year, when they get promoted in next class.
>
> b) If answer to above is yes, then what should be the procedure say in AP
> or MP? Can stamps of INR 10.00 be attached with the application?
>
> c) What could be a suggested FORMAT of the application & its wording.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> IS Gill
> MHOW(MP)
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Pradip Pradhan
> <pradippradhan63@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Central Information Commission warns the public authorities against
>> demanding proof of citizenship from RTI applicants .
>>
>>
>> Dear friends,
>> While deciding a Complaint Case ( File No; CIC/AD/C/2011/001736 on
>> 11.1.2012,, Ms. Annapurna Dixit, Central Information Commissioner
>> observed, "there is no provision in the RTI Act to seek
>> identification of a citizen who seeks information from any Public
>> Authority. The PIO of the Company is warned not to seek such
>> identification in future u/s 3 of the RTI Act, which stipulates that
>> all citizens shall have the Right to Information, as it would be
>> construed by the Commission as deemed denial". The fact of the case is
>> that an RTI Applicant Mr. M Rangarajan of Bangalore had sought
>> information about the provision of retirement benefits of the
>> employees from the PIO, M/s. Braithwaite and Company Ltd under
>> Ministry of Railways, 5, Hide Road, Kolkata - 700 043. But the said
>> PIO quoting Section 3 of the Act demanded the proof of citizenship
>> identity of the applicant before he would be able to disclose the
>> information sought. Then the aggrieved applicant approached the
>> Central Information Commission with a complaint against the said
>> illegal order of the PIO. Having heard the parties to the case, the
>> CIC Mrs.Dixit passed the above order quoted above.
>> Now, let us have a look at the procedure of submitting RTI Application
>> in Odisha. The State Govt. has made a provision under Odisha Right
>> to Information Rules 2005 for submission of proof of identity of
>> citizenship along with RTI application being made to any Public
>> Authority. Besides a Compulsory and a lengthy 11-column "Form-A" has
>> been prescribed by the State Govt. wherein the Column No.4 requires
>> submission of Proof of Citizenship in the shape of a copy of Voter's
>> Card or Passport. If an RTI Applicant fails to attach the said
>> proof of Citizenship, the PIO has been given absolute power in
>> Form-C ( Intimation of Rejection) to reject the application on the
>> ground that "your identity is not satisfactory'. . This queer
>> provision contradicts the letter and spirit of Section 6 (2) of the
>> RTI Act, which says, "An applicant making request for information
>> shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the
>> information or any other personal details except those that may be
>> necessary for contacting him". This provision also deprives
>> millions of young people in Odisha and outside of their right to apply
>> for information to any public authority located in Odisha, for the
>> obvious reasons that they being underaged can't have a voter's card
>> and they, in absence of any compelling need, may not have any passport
>> either. Besides quite many adult persons may not have a voter's card
>> at all, since it is not a compulsory provision at all to have a voter
>> card.. Thus millions of people in and outside Odisha who are bonafide
>> citizens because of their domicile within territory of India and thus
>> entitled to apply for information under Section 3 of the Act are
>> defrauded of this statutory right due to the ultra vires RTI Rules of
>> Odisha.
>>
>> Besides, the mode of payment of application fees is either through
>> Treasury Challan or through cash. It means that every person, wherever
>> he or she may be located, has to physically visit the concerned office
>> to remit the application fee to the PIO, no matter the amount to be
>> paid is a trifle. Alternatively, he or she may post the application
>> fee through Treasury Challan. But as everybody knows, for collecting a
>> Treasury Challan of Rs.10/-, one has to visit the nearest town where
>> the Treasury Office may be located, stand in the queue for as many
>> hours as is required and also remember the excessively long Treasury
>> Code of the RTI application fee which is humanly impossible. Every RTI
>> applicant in Odisha has thus to pass through a hell of hassles in
>> availing the Treasury Challan of Rs.10/- to be attached to his or her
>> RTI application. But still funniest is the predicament of a citizen
>> living outside Odisha, who can neither afford to visit Odisha simply
>> to pay in cash the application fee of Rs.10/- to the concerned PIO nor
>> can arrange a Treasury Challan of Rs.10/- for remittance by post for
>> the said purpose, for the simple reason that there is no Office of
>> Odisha Treasury located outside Odisha. For such prohibitive modes of
>> payment, no person from outside Odisha has yet applied for information
>> under RTI Act to any public authority located in Odisha, and most
>> common people living inside Odisha have stayed away from using RTI Act
>> during last 6 and half years. In a nutshell, the Orissa RTI Rules can
>> be called Odisha RTI Disentitlement Rules.
>>
>> However, the tragedy is that in Odisha such anti-RTI and anti-citizens
>> provisions are upheld and justified by Odisha information
>> commissioners during hearing of the cases and as well in course of
>> their address in public meetings. The only lame excuse they
>> unabashedly proffer in defense of the above anti-citizen Rules is that
>> the State Govt. has framed it. While saying so, the Commissioners
>> blissfully ignore Section 25(5) of the Act, which authorizes the
>> Commission to recommend to any public authority including the State
>> Govt. to take steps for removing any deviation and effecting
>> conformity to the letter and spirit of Act. Though nearly six and
>> half years has passed since Odisha Information Commission started
>> functioning , it has not made a single recommendation to remove the
>> anti-citizen and ultra vires Odisha RTI Rules 2005. Of all, the
>> Compulsory Application Form, proof of citizenship and prohibitive mode
>> of payment for application is the greatest nuisance wrought against
>> every citizen's right to information, and woefully enough, Odisha
>> Information Commission has been sleeping over it at tandem with the
>> State Government.
>>
>> Will the Central Information Commission's latest, eye-opening warning
>> against the proof of citizenship of an RTI applicant serve as a
>> wake-up call to Odisha Information Commission for taking a similar
>> position?
>>
>> Regards
>> Pradip Pradhan
>> M-99378-43482
>> Date-18.2.2012
>>
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

[HumJanenge] Second Appeal at CIC status: "Signed copy awaited"

Dear All,

I am following up my father's case where he was not given the pensionary benefits he is entitled for by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bandra, Mumbai through RTI.

In this connection, I sent a RTI application to PF office Bandra, that was not responded by the CPIO. After filing the First appeal, We received a reply from CPIO that  was ccd to FAA also

but the reply was grossly bad and incorrect. I then filed a second appeal at CIC, New Delhi online. The status of the second appeal -no
SA/UG/12/1849n4g1- is "Signed copy awaited", However Post office record shows that the signed copy was delivered on Feb-08,2012.

Anyone having experience with CIC, Pl. let me know, what could be the remedial action.

--
Thanks
Abhinav
 
"
Have a heart that never hardens, a temper that never tires, and a touch that never hurts...
"

[HumJanenge] Conspiracy behind Army Chief's Age Row - THE STATESMAN

Dear All,
 
As promised herewith is the lead Article in today's THE STATESMAN that bares the deep rooted conspiracy that led to the sordid episode of the Army Chief's age row. It is for sure that the 'motivated media' would try and suppress it, but Truth always has an uncanny way of surfacing and then prevailing
 
M.G.Devasahayam
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 

http://thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=400557&catid=38

THE STATESMAN

Special Article

19 February 2012

VK Singh's age-battle
Ball Back In Centre's Court

By Sam Rajappa

An honest man's the noblest work of God.
~ Alexander Pope

HONESTY is a vanishing commodity, according to a recent research study by Essex University. Paul Whiteley, author of the report, says low-level dishonesty has increased across the social classes, although the younger generation is, on the whole, even less scrupulous than the older one. In 1712, Jonathan Swift wrote a treatise on "The Art of Political Lying." If defence minister AK Antony read either of the reports, this raging controversy about the date of birth of the Chief of the Army Staff, General VK Singh, could have been avoided. There is an age-old dispute between moderates and rigorists.


Antony is a moderate who believes a few lies are acceptable if they serve the larger interest of statecraft, like Oskar Schindler, who did not hesitate to lie to Hitler's storm troopers to save the lives of more than 1,000 of his Jewish employees. General Singh belongs to the school of thought of Immanuel Kant, one of the renowned exponents of the rigorist position, and landed himself in this unseemly controversy.


The media, for whatever interest they were serving, saw in the 10 February order of the Supreme Court, the army chief losing his age war. Nowhere in the brief 12-paragraph judgment can one find the Supreme Court telling General Singh to change his date of birth to suit the interests of the government.


The operative part of the judgment reads: "As a matter of fact, the question before us in the writ petition is not about the determination of actual date of birth of the petitioner, but it concerns the recognition of a particular date of birth of the petitioner by the respondent (Union of India) in the official service record. In view of the statement made by Goolam Vahanvati, Attorney-General, and the limited controversy in the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press the matter further and he seeks withdrawal of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn." Where is the question of who won and who lost?

Earlier in the day, Vahanavati handed over to the Bench a short affidavit by KL Nandwani, deputy secretary in the Defence ministry, seeking to treat the second part of his 30 December 2011, order to the Adjutant General's branch to change VK Singh's date of birth from 10 May 1951 to 10 May 1950, and send a "strict compliance report at the earliest without further loss of time," as withdrawn and confine it to the first part only which holds the statutory complaint by the petitioner as not maintainable.


The Bench granted permission and observed: "In view thereof, the petitioner's grievance with regard to the part of the order dated 30 December 2011, which deals with the merits of the controversy, does not survive." The judgment took care to record Vahanavati's statement that the government had not questioned the integrity or bona fide of the petitioner. "The writ petition was on a matter of principle and it did not reflect any lack of faith or confidence in the petitioner's ability to lead the army." The judges took particular care to avoid any obiter dicta in their order. What is, however, regrettable in this sordid saga of age controversy is the government ignoring primary and legally accepted documents like birth certificate and school leaving certificate and giving credence to non-legal documents like an application form which can be easily manipulated. Birth is a natural occurrence ordained by Providence and its date and time cannot be altered by any government order.


The ball is now in the court of defence minister Antony who had ordered a junior-level officer in his ministry to write to the Adjutant General to change the date of birth of General Singh to 10 May 1950, when the matter was sub judice. The letter had to be withdrawn on order of the Supreme Court. The Military Secretary, Lt.-Gen. GM Nair, in his letter A/4501/01(GEN/MS(1) dated 01 July 2011, to the defence minister, marked 'confidential,' wrote: On scrutiny of past records pertaining to Selection Boards, it has been observed that the MDSs pertaining to Gen. VK Singh which were drawn up at the time of his consideration for promotion to select ranks reflect the date of birth of the General Officer as 10 May 1951." The letter goes on to give his promotion as Major-General on 25 October 2001, Lieutenant-General on 18/19 September 2003, and as Army Commander on 30 September 2005, all based on his actual date of birth. The letter said that copies of the relevant MDS sheets are available with the ministry of defence for verification, and added for good measure that "this has been brought to the notice of the defence minister." This document, a photocopy of which is available with The Statesman, makes it clear that till Manmohan Singh became Prime Minister, there was no dichotomy between the records maintained by the Military Secretary branch and the Adjutant General branch pertaining to the date of birth of VK Singh.


The plot began to thicken when Gen. Joginder Jaswant Singh of Maratha Light Infantry took over as Chief of the Army Staff on 1 February 2005. He was the first-ever Sikh to rise to the top in the Indian Army. In the preceding months, as Gen. NC Vij's tenure was coming to an end, there was speculation that JJ Singh would be superseded by Lt.-Gen. Shammi Mehta, an Armoured Corps officer. The Shiromani Gurdwara Prabanthak Committee issued a strongly worded statement favouring JJ Singh which was prominently featured in The Tribune and a few other newspapers. The Tribune was used again, this time to pillory Gen. VK Singh.

For the first time in the history of the Indian Army, the communal card came into play, though the SGPC statement might not have had any bearing on the Appointments Committee headed by Manmohan Singh clearing JJ Singh's elevation to the top slot. Within months of taking over, he plotted a succession plan. That Deepak Kapoor would take over from JJ Singh was well known by then. After Kapoor who would depend on the Selection Board which was to meet towards the end of 2005 to decide on which officers were to be promoted to the Lieutenant-General's rank.

After working out various permutations and combinations, JJ Singh discovered that VK Singh, who was a Corps Commander by then, would be the obvious choice to succeed Kapoor, but if his tenure could be curtailed to two years, the way could be cleared for Bikram Singh, the present chief of the Eastern Command, to take over in May 2012. At that time, Bikram Singh was not a front- runner as there were other officers with better credentials ahead of him in the succession pyramid. But they could be sidelined with a bit of deft tweaking.

 

Those to be neutralised included Brigadiers Padam Budhwar and MM Chaudhary, and Majors-General Shujan Chatterjee, AK Singh and Ravi Arora, a gold medalist from the same batch as Bikram Singh. Raising VK Singh's age issue before his Lieutenant-General Board would have eliminated him from the race and in the process, Bikram Singh too would have been knocked out. For JJ Singh's succession plan to succeed, VK Singh had to remain in office till 31 May. On 3 May 2006, the Military Secretary branch was asked to rake up VK Singh's date of birth issue based on an error in his application form at the time of joining the NDA as a teenager, and asked to accept, in writing, that he was born in 1950, with the promise of an inquiry which was never held.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Prakash Katoch <prakashkatoch7@gmail.com> wrote:

This article by Mrinalini Singh needs to be read coupled with the fact how the government has used the media (The Fourth Estate) – in line with what MK Dhar, former Joint Director Intelligence Bureau wrote in his book 'Top Secret – India's Intelligence Unveiled' wherein he says, "The susceptibility of the fourth estate to the intelligence community had tied our hands down. They are one of the too many holy Indian cows. Some of them, as described by a senior member of the fourth estate, 'taxi on hire.' any paymaster can hire this particular brand."

Incredible India marches on !

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Colonelrajan Srinivas <colonelrajan44@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:34 PM
Subject: Article - HOW CAN GREAT OAKS SWAY WITH THE WIND? - Mrinalini Singh
To: M V <militaryveterans@yahoogroups.com>, veteransindia <VeteransIndia@yahoogroups.com>, ExecutiveGpMilitaryVeteransIndia@yahoogroups.com, sappersjune1963 <SappersJune1963@yahoogroups.com>, 268hippos <268Hippos@yahoogroups.com>, MaduraiAppathuraiIyerClan@yahoogroups.com, 98BigStreet@yahoogroups.com, elephantlodge <ElephantLodge@yahoogroups.co.in>


http://www.outlookindia.com/images/common/outlook.gif

OUTLOOKINDIA.COM

 

HOW CAN GREAT OAKS SWAY WITH THE WIND?

 

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279938#.Tz-yG2XuVCA.email

 

MRINALINI SINGH

 

When he was a lieutenant general, V.K. Singh gave it in writing that he had faith in his army chief. This cannot be construed as 'acceptance' of a wrong DoB.

 

MRINALINI SINGH

 

 

An error had been made regarding the date of birth of my father at the time of filling up the UPSC form when he had applied for admission to the National Defence Academy (NDA). This was detected instantly and certain steps were taken to correct the year of birth even before he joined the academy. In fact, he reported 13 days late to the NDA as the date was being sor­ted out. This was obviously taken due note of, for all NDA records then showed his year of birth as 1951. Three years later, when he moved from the NDA to the Indian Military Academy (IMA), he was told to write the date of birth as in the UPSC form. He pointed out that this had been corrected and was told that this would be verified by a board of officers. The pre-commission advisory board checked and verified his particulars; his IMA ident­ity card and his record of service duly sta­ted that he was born in 1951. For the next few decades, ever since his commissioning into the army, his year of birth in all records, whether in the military secretariat or the adjutant general's branch, was 1951. The only exception was the Army List, which is published keeping the original UPSC form as reference point. Even in this case, as the date of birth had to be verified against the school-leaving certificate, the entry was erroneous.

On May 3, 2006, 19 days after the results of the selection board for lieutenant generals had been declassified, the military secretary at the time, Lt Gen Richard Khare, first wrote to Gen V.K. Singh claiming there was a discrepancy in the records of the two branches. This set off a chain of events that eventually led to the army chief first filing a statutory complaint and then referring the matter to the Supreme Court.

On February 3, 2012, the SC, in its wisdom, castigated the government, stating that the due process of natural justice had not been followed and the process had been "vitiated" in addressing the army chief's statutory complaint. The attorney general at that time asked for an adjournment, which was granted. During the second hearing, a week later, the attorney general started proceedings by submitting an affidavit by way of which it withdrew its order dated December 30, 2011, that rejected the statutory complaint. In view of the government's move, and the praise about the general's professional and personal conduct, our lawyer felt there was no point in pressing the matter further, especia­lly since the court had made it clear that in light of the government's stance, there was nothing further to be discussed from a legal point of view. As a citizen of India, the army chief has already expressed his grateful thanks to the learned judges of the apex court for addressing the issue.

***

My Ambition


I don't want to be,
A wealthy man,
Nor I want to be,
A working man.


I want to be,
A great soldier,
Fighting on the front,
with a gun on my shoulder,


I want to die for,
My great, beloved nation,
And for my enemy,
I shall have no compassion,


I want to let the 
Chinese know
That Indians can die,
For their Motherland.


(A poem written by Gen V.K. Singh as a Std VIII student,

culled from his school magazine)

***

The order passed by the court is not ambiguous in its content. I am bitterly disappointed at the deliberate spin given in the media to the proceedings in the court, which in my view and understanding are quite contrary to what the honourable judges have said in their order. Firstly, the order does not uphold an error in the threshold document, nor does it say anything about the legality of either of the two dates of birth. There's also nothing to suggest that the so-called 'acceptance letters' exist. While it is true that these points came up during the hearing—as did many other statements, which include the much talked about "wise men move with the wind" remark of the judges—but these were arguments that in my understanding cannot be confused with the order passed by the learned judges.

If the government had not withdrawn its order of December 30 concerning my father's statutory appeal, the arguments in the court would have had a different flavour and intensity and all the facts given above would have come into play, requiring adjudication. But this did not happen, and my father's critics have gone to town, repeatedly harping that there are three occasions when he had "moved with the wind" and given acceptance letters to the year of birth being 1950. This is blatantly untrue, and I would like to set the record straight.

Contrary to what is being projected, there has never been any such 'acceptance letter'. In 2006, he was perhaps the only serving lieutenant general in the history of the nation to be asked to furnish a fresh date of birth prior to being cleared for appointment as a corps commander. This despite the fact that just a few weeks prior to that, the military secretariat branch records had cleared him for promotion based on a 1951 year of birth. The then army chief, Gen J.J. Singh, my father's chief at the time, had categorically told him that there was merely a clerical discrepancy in the records. This would be sorted out, and for that he needed to accept that he had faith in the army chief's decisions. This would be in the interest of the organisation, as it was otherwise holding up the appointments of all corps commanders. Once the army chief had this letter, it was projected to the defence ministry that there was an 'acceptance letter' procured from my father, acknowledging the year of birth as 1950. The fact that my father, then a lieutenant general, continued to ask the military secretariat branch even after that how and why the army chief had been advised to make him declare a new year of birth underlines the fact that in 2006 there was no such 'acceptance'.

The question that needs to be asked of the then army chief, the military secretary (Lt Gen Khare) and the judge advocate general (Maj Gen Nilender Kumar), who together initiated what was clearly not the standard operating procedure in 2006, is: Why did they make an exception in this case only? These gentlemen have found immunity in red tape, aided perhaps by some deft management of the media, which has sidestepped this question, while my father is accused of "bending with the wind". In my view, this is where the injustice lies.

As for the second and third 'acceptance' letters, it is loos­ely being said they had been written in 2008 and 2009. This immediately begs the question that if there was a 'first acceptance' letter, then, what was the need for a second and a third one to be asked for? The situation here is slightly more complex. The army chief at this point of time was Gen Deepak Kapoor and the military secretary Lt Gen Avdhesh Prakash. It is a well known fact that these two gentlemen, both professionally and otherwise, differed sharply from my father (then a lieutenant general) and if the former had his way, my father would not have headed the Eastern Command. Professionally, there was nothing that could be used by the army chief to damage my father, so the 'age issue' was once again raked up to provoke him into disobeying a direct order to accept an incorrect year of birth. The army chief is the most powerful man in the army and a series of letters were written which have to be seen in their entirety to get the complete picture. Opinions should not be based on an isolated sentence which cites "the larger organisational interest". Had this logic been true—that Lt Gen V.K. Singh 'accepted' the year of birth as 1950 so as to head the Eastern Command and later become army chief—he would have shut the cupola and not stirred the issue at all during his tenure as eastern army commander before taking over as the chief. However, he continued to write to the military secretary (Lt Gen Prakash), going systematically along accepted lines of redressing the clerical error within the army.

Honour and izzat are words that are emblazoned on a soldier's heart. Apart from being the daughter of Gen V.K. Singh, I too am an army wife and have seen from close quarters the man I call my father stand up for what he considers is the right thing to do.

In this rather one-sided slanging match, it is also being implied by his critics that the army chief would be better off fighting for one-rank-one-pay, war memorials, weapon systems and all the other problems that haunt the system. I am not going to get drawn into what all he has done as the army chief; that's best left to others and that is a part of his job anyway. For me, his worldview is best encapsulated in a quote from Ernest Hemingway that he uses often: "Few men for the right cause brave the disrespect of their fellow men, the censure of their colleagues and ignorance of society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields out painfully to change."


(Mrinalini Singh is the daughter of Gen V.K. Singh)

—as told to Chander Suta Dogra





Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] rti activist stoned to death

Narayan Verma,
 
government is elected to power by us. We have never been vigilent about the governments that we chose all these years. There is no representative of the people who is empowered to overseas governance. Hence the malady.
 
nothing will  happen; this status quo will continue as a bane of Democracy. Many have lost lives exercising the Right to Information & paid heavy price by either their lives, or by outrage of modesty of their women & daughters; none of us have done anything except offering condolences or lip sympathy. sadly & ashamed;y I am one of them.
 
Ruefully,
WEDS 

From: Narayan Varma <narayanvarma2011@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 19 February 2012, 5:43
Subject: Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] rti activist stoned to death
Very sad. One wonders in a democratic country like ours why Govt. is unsympathetic to common citizens who are contributing to improve GOVERNANCE thru the instrument of RTI, the Act of which Govt is proud of.My condolences to the family.Narayan Varma
On 18 February 2012 19:41, rajeev kumar <yadavrajeev_2005@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Mr. Chauhan,
Pl. accept our condolences and I am planning to visit shortly and shall get back to you on the same on your no.Regards,Rajeev Yadav,National President,(B.Sc., M.B.A., L.L.B., P.G.D. Human Rights),Adhikaar the rights path,+919811242471.www.adhikaar.in.--- On Sat, 18/2/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] rti activist stoned to death
To: "rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com" <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>
Date: Saturday, 18 February, 2012, 6:41 PM

In cases some RTI activist gets some threat, application should be filed in group.
From: DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com" <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>; deependra chauhan <deep2142000@yahoo.com>; rajeev kumar <yadavrajeev_2005@yahoo.co.in>; "" Bimal Khemani"" <bimal.khemani@gmail.com>; Urvi Sukul Singh <usukulsingh@hotmail.com>; M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>; Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in>; sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>; Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012 9:18 PM
Subject: Reply: [rti4empowerment] rti activist stoned to death
Extremely deplorable. This why I was advocating mailing of solidarity RTI applications & concerted applications under RTI Act 2005 for disclosure under section 4 of RTI Act 2005 by every public authority.
 
My condolences to bereaved family. Why there cannot be all India level coordination without hegemony?
 
 
Regards,
WEDS
From: deependra chauhan <deep2142000@yahoo.com>
To: "rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com" <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012, 19:58
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] rti activist stoned to death
Gunbahdur s/o late Sh Jagdish Chauhan ( Victim/RTI Activist)
Village-fehrupur
Thana-Pathri
Haridwar( Uttarakhand)
Kindly do inform me also if you are coming at 9759690300
Regds
Deependra Chauhan
From: rajeev kumar <yadavrajeev_2005@yahoo.co.in>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] rti activist stoned to death
V. Serious matter. Kindly provide details of the victim family as our team would like to visit them.

Regards,
Rajeev Yadav,
National President,
(B.Sc., M.B.A., L.L.B., P.G.D. Human Rights),
Adhikaar the rights path,
+919811242471.
www.adhikaar.in
.

--- On Fri, 17/2/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] rti activist stoned to death
To: "rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com" <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>
Date: Friday, 17 February, 2012, 6:25 PM

Matter is of grave concern but how a legal aid can be rendered from Delhi?  Some local legal practitioners will be more useful.
Please see if the police work with due deligence to nab the culprits.
 
Dear members, i am very sad to inform you all one of our senior RTI Activists in Haridwar Sh Jagdish Chauhan ,65 yrs old,Retd teacher,has been stoned to death by local Mafias,the incident took place in fehrpoor village of Hardwar on eve of 14th feb when the body of the victim was found just near to a police post,no arresting has been done so far from Haridwar police,recently the Mr Chauahan has revealed some information regarding double salary payment to 61 teachers through RTI,it is request with senior RTI Activists to kindly help the family for justice.for more details ,kindly see the e paper amarujala,dainik jagarn,hindustan ( Dehradun or hardwar edition) of date 15,16,17 Regds Deependra Chauhan deep2142000@yahoomail.com
-- Narayan Varma56B Mittal Tower, 210 Nariman PointMumbai 400 021RTI PCGT helpline 09322882288             my cell   09821096052