[HumJanenge] Important request to moderator.

Dear Moderator,

I have observed that the emails from this group are being posted on a blog http://humjanege.blogspot.com/ . This blogpost is posting the emails along with the email addresses of the senders. This way of publishing the email addresses of the group members is not good as they can be picked up by net crawlers and can be misused. If you are the owner of the blog or if you know the owner of the above state blog, can you please change the way these emails are posted on the blog?
 
Thanx & Regards

Amit Arora

[HumJanenge] Some important judgements of courts

Dear Friends,
Please find enclosed the citations related to various useful
judgements of courts. It may be useful to somebody.
regards

--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] PIO’s RESPOBSIBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT - ADVICE SOUGHT FROM EXPERTS

Dear Arora ji,   In this case, the legal opinion was not given by any outsider legal consultant (Advocate) but i perceive was obtained from some officer probably from the Jt. Secy. of CIC.    In the past in 2007, CIC put the following advice tendered by an advocate on its website.  This is still available on the CIC website under heading 'Legal Opinion'..  The name Mr. Prasad, to who the advise has been sent is not clear to me.   Legal Advice down-loaded from CIC's website on 23.5.2011.   New Delhi, Dated July 17, 2007   Dear Mr Prasad:   This is in response to your e-mail dated June 15,2007 sent to our Chief, Shri Wajahat Habibullah, Chief Information Commissioner. I was required to send a reply to you, but I am sorry for the delay in writing to you because of my extremely busy work schedule. Anyway, we must thank you for conveying your appreciation for the work being done by the Central Information Commission, specially for rendering justice to the appellants by imposing penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act in appropriate cases, and for having consistently and unanimously taken the view that under Section 2(i) (a) "record" includes "file notings", though there are some dissensions in some quarters which we cannot help in view of our democratic system of Government where everyone is entitled to have his or her opinion.   So far as regards your other point regarding Section 23 of the RTI Act is concerned, we may inform you that notwithstanding the provisions contained in that Section we are flooded with a number of cases in Delhi High Court and other High Courts in India and we are somehow trying to manage this situation. Legally speaking, the type of so-called ouster clause contained in Section 23, or even the provision like the one contained in Section 21 of the RTI Act, does not give an absolute immunity to any administrative or quasi-judicial authority from being proceeded against in a court of law. Confining myself, for the present, only to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, I may remind you that as far back as the year 1997 the Supreme Court of India in the case of *L. Chandra* *Kumari* Vs. *Union of India* , AIR 1997 SC 1125, had held that even though the decisions of the Tribunals established under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution were supposed to be final they were still subject to the writ jurisdiction of the various High Courts in India under Article 226 of the Constitution. In any case, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 136 will remain intact, notwithstanding any legislative provision like Section 23 of the RTI Act ousting the jurisdiction of courts, unless, perhaps, the Constitution itself is suitably amended expressly debarring the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.   On the question whether one public authority can stand against another public authority or not, I may refer to at least one Article of the Constitution i.e. Article 131 which envisages that one State may file a case against another State, or even the Central Government itself may file a case against one of the States in India before the Supreme Court of India   I hope I have answered all your queries.   With regards and appreciating your concern and appreciation for the work being done by the Central Information Commission.   Sincerely yours Professor K. K. Nigam, Legal Advisor, Central Information Commission, New Delhi kk.nigam@nic.in . --- On Sun, 22/5/11, Arora H.C. (Advocate) <h_c_arora@yahoo.co.in> wrote: From: Arora H.C. (Advocate) <h_c_arora@yahoo.co.in> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PIO's RESPOBSIBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT - ADVICE SOUGHT FROM EXPERTS To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Sunday, 22 May, 2011, 6:48 PM Sandeep Ji,   Please search out various orders of R.I. Singh given by him immediately after he joine as CIC Punjab. He has given a detailed order to the effect that legal opinion given by an advocate to the Public authority is liable to be dislocse, as it is not in fiduciary capacity.   Regards,   H.C. Arora --- On Sat, 21/5/11, sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote: From: sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PIO's RESPOBSIBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT - ADVICE SOUGHT FROM EXPERTS To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 8:02 AM The work carried out by the IC is public activity so no question of section 8(1)(j). The advice given by the legal expert is not done in fiduciary capacity. It is based on payment received from public authority and is very much public information. On 5/20/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > > PIO's RESPOBSIBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT - > > I requested a copy of the legal advice given to the Information Commissioner > from the PIO, CIC about the action that can be legally taken against the > retired CPIO under section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act. > > Shri G. Subramanian, CPIO denied the information citing section 18(1) (e) > (Fiduciary Relationship) and Section 8(1) (j) (no relationship to any public > activity or would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the > individual).  The issue is of immense importance. > > My first appeal against the above decision is listed for hearing on 25th > May, 2011.  I request for forwarding the additional grounds for the > hearing. > > In the first appeal, I have made following points: > > 1.                 That Section 18 (1)(e) states that it is the duty of the > Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any > person who believes that he has been given incomplete, misleading or false > information under the RTI Act. Thus, this nowhere bars the PIO to disclose > the aforesaid information. > 2.                 That if the advice is disclosed and disseminated, it will > help the Central and State Information Commissioners in the discharge of > their duties viz in taking decision in the cases where the PIO has retired. > 3.                 That the disclosure will also assist the Public > Authorities and PIOs by guiding and assisting them in the discharge of their > duties. > 4.                 That the disclosure will also help the RTI applicants as > they will know the scope to the RTI Act in cases where PIOs have retired and > will thus reduce the number of complaints and appeals. > 5.                 That the disclosure will end the vagueness in the matter > and every stake will have the clarity in such circumstance and will not act > in dark. > 6.                 That the section 8(1) (j) bars personal information which > has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause > unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the PIO is > satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such > information.  This section also states that the information which cannot be > denied to the Parliament shall not be denied to any person. > 7.                 That the onus is on the PIO to substantiate as to how the > legal advice on the accountability of a retired PIO has no relationship to > any public activity, would cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the > individual (PIO) and is not in the larger public interest. > 8.                 That again the onus is on the PIO to justify as to how > the clarification obtained on the legal provisions/ service rules can be > denied to the Parliament. > 9.                 That retirement of PIOs and government servants is an > on-going process and every month hundreds PIOs retire and the retirement of > the PIO in the aforesaid case is not a stand alone case. > 10.             That by disclosure of information will enable the PIOs to > know in advance, before retirement, about the action that can or cannot be > or cannot be taken against them for the act of Commission and Omission while > discharging their official duties. > 11.             That the RTI appellants/ complainants  should also know > about the feasible action so that they can make a follow-up of their cases > in the right direction for taking their cases to the logical conclusion > without leaving them half way or do not drag the case unnecessary. > ON FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP > > 12.             That the advice has been taken by one Constitutional > Authority from the other Constitutional or Government Authority in the > discharge of official duties assigned to them.  There are many decisions > that in the above circumstances, the information cannot be treated in > fiduciary relationship and its disclosure is in warranted under the RTI Act. > M K Gupta > -- Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta 989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] PIO’s RESPOBSIBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT - ADVICE SOUGHT FROM EXPERTS

Please find enclosed herewith an important decision of SIC, Punjab
related to legal opinion given by advocate to public authority.
regards
sandeep

Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC

SC asks Delhi HC to stay CIC order

http://goo.gl/peIwe

................

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has rushed to the Delhi High Court
seeking a stay on the Central Information Commission's May 11 order
allowing litigants to raise RTI queries on the logic behind judgments.

How could the Supreme Court provide information under RTI on why a
particular order or judgment was passed that went beyond the reasoning
and logic given in that order or judgment, the SC asked.

The CIC's bare-all order on an RTI appeal filed by R S Misra directed
the SC to answer his queries — why his special leave petition was
dismissed and whether in deciding the appeal, the bench followed the
principles of natural justice — by June 5.

Terming the CIC order as beyond law and jurisdiction under RTI Act,
the SC in its appeal through advocate Devadatt Kamat pleaded before
the HC that "this would mean a litigant could redress his grievance
against dismissal of SLP through RTI".

The SC's petition, settled by attorney general G E Vahanvati, is
listed for hearing in the Delhi HC on Monday before Justice S
Muralidhar.

The CIC's May 11 order went against the commission's consistent view
since 2007 that access to information on the judicial side could be
obtained only through the mechanism of Supreme Court Rules, the SC
said.

"The Supreme Court Rules have been framed under a mandate in Article
124-127 of the Constitution and as such, RTI Act cannot in any manner
overrule the Supreme Court Rules," it said.

"The CIC failed to appreciate that an RTI applicant cannot seek reason
on why a particular order is passed and the Central Public Information
Officer (CPIO) of the SC cannot give information about reason for
dismissal over and above what is already stated in the order of the
judge," the apex court said.

The fallout of the CIC's order would be enormous, the SC said. "Can
RTI be made a tool to seek copy or information about confidential
reports sought by Supreme Court benches from investigating agencies
and governments on sensitive issues," the SC asked.

The CIC's order could result in huge revenue loss for the apex court.
"If people can get copies through RTI, it will also have revenue
implications as court fees are fixed for getting certified copies of
documents or records," it said.

Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC

madras high court order directing court records under RTI 

with regards

rakesh gupta 

2008 INDLAW MAD 554

[MADRAS HIGH COURT]

J.M.Arumugham v (1) State, Represented By Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Salem; (2) S.Arumugam; (3) A.Rajendran; (4) Santhi; (5) Brinda; (6) Nirmala; (7) Ramanayaki; (8) Leela

27 Feb 2008

BENCH M. JEYAPAUL THIS JUDGMENT WAS FOLLOWED IN 1 CASE(S) ACTS REFERRED Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988[s. 13(2), s. 13(1)(c), s. 13(2)(e)] Indian Penal Code, 1860[s. 109] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[s. 161, s. 363(5), s. 363(6), s. 363] Right to Information Act, 2005 RULES REFERRED Criminal Rules [r. 339]

CASE NO Crl.O.P.No.18533 of 2007

KEYWORDS Criminal Case, Criminal Justice System, First Information Report, Petition allowed, Certified Copy, Public Document, Interest Of Justice, CRIMINAL, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Tamil Nadu, Charge Sheet, Criminal Court, Corruption, Criminal Justice, Copies, Public Prosecutor, Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988, Judicial Record, Government Advocate, Right To Information Act, 2005, Criminal Rules

LAWYERS S.Jayakumar, A.Saravanan, V.Gopinath, L.Mahendran

.JUDGMENT TEXT The Order of the Court was as follows : 1. The petition is filed seeking to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.1116 of 2007 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem declining to grant certified copies of the documents pertaining to the Special C.C.No.14 of 2004 on his file. 2. A case in Special C.C.No.14 of 2004 was filed against respondents 2 to 8 under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the and section 109 of the read with section 13(2) read with section 13(2)(e) of the for acquisition of properties disproportionate to the known source of their income. Later on, they were discharged from the proceedings in Special C.C.No.14 of 2004 by the common order dated 6.11.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. 3. The petitioner, who is the former Public Prosecutor for Salem District and a practising Advocate from the District and Sessions Court, Salem, filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1116 of 2007 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem seeking certified copy of the First Information Report, Charge Sheet, Docket Sheet endorsement, various petitions, counters and orders passed thereon and the statements recorded under section 161 of the for the purpose of preferring revision against the discharge of the accused from the aforesaid case before the High Court. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, having observed that no substantive reason was assigned for seeking certified copies of these documents, that the petitioner was not an affected person as contemplated under section 363(5) of the , that section 363(6) of the of can be invoked only before the High Court and that Rule 339 of the contemplates furnishing of the records of the Criminal Case only to the parties concerned and not to third parties, chose to dismiss the petition seeking copies of the aforesaid documents. 5. The petitioner assails the aforesaid order rejecting his plea seeking certified copy of those documents for the purpose of preferring revision before this court challenging the discharge of respondents 2 to 7 in Special C.C.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that section 363(6) of the contemplates supply of copies of any judgment or order of a Criminal Court to any person for that matter on payment of fees as per the rules framed by the High Court. Referring to Order XII Rule 3 of the Rules of the High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965, he would further submit that on the request of any party certified copies of judicial records can be granted to persons who are not party to the proceedings. Referring to the judgment pronounced by the Bench of our High Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in a similar case, our High Court has taken a view that even a third party is entitled to copies of the records in the Criminal Court. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that section 363(6) of the contemplates only issuance of grant of copies of the judgment or order of a Criminal Court to a third party in terms of the rules framed by the High Court. No rule invoking the aforesaid law was framed by our High Court. Therefore, the petitioner being a third party is not entitled to copies of any judgment or order of a Criminal Court. Even assuming for the sake of argument that de hors any rule framed by the High Court, the petitioner can invoke section 363(6) of the , he can obtain only a certified copy of judgment or order passed by the Criminal Court and not other records not contemplated therein. He would further contend that Order XII Rule 3 of the Rules of High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965 does not apply to the records still lying with the Trial Court and not reached the portals of the High Court. Further, the Rules of High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965 was not enacted drawing powers under section 363(6) of the . Therefore, Order XII Rule 3 of the Rules of High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965 does not apply to the fact situation. It is his vehement submission that if the copies of documents maintained by the Criminal Court is parted with to a third party, there is every chance for misuse of those documents which may land an innocent person into trouble at the hands of unscrupulous elements. There may also be miscarriage of justice if such documents are furnished to a third party who is not entitled to such documents and permit him to use it as a weapon to wreak vengeance against an innocent person. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner, who is a third party, is not entitled to any of the documents maintained by the Criminal Court. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem in the impugned order, section 363(5) will not apply to the facts of this case inasmuch as the petitioner who is neither a party to the proceedings nor a close relative to the parties to the proceedings, can be termed as persons "affected by the order". Likewise, Rule 339 of the contemplates issuance of copies of the records of the Criminal Court to the parties concerned on payment of proper stamp duty. The petitioner, who is a third party cannot be considered as a party concerned in the aforesaid proceedings in Special C.C.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. # 9. The question is whether the petitioner, being a third party aggrieved by the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a sensational case under the can seek for certified copies of the material records therein. Section 363(6) of the reads as follows:- "The High Court may, by rules, provide for the grant of copies of any judgment or order of a Criminal Court to any person who is not affected by a judgment or order, on payment, by such person, of such fees, and subject to such conditions, as the High Court may, by such rules, provide." * The Parliament, in its wisdom, has thought it fit to grant copies of any judgment or order of a Criminal Court even to a third party as per the terms and conditions of the rules framed by the respective High Court. Unfortunately, our High Court has not framed any rule right from the year 1973. The question that arises for consideration is whether the right of a third party conferred under section 363(6) of the to seek certified copies of any judgment or order of Criminal Court can be taken away just because the High Court has not framed necessary rule therein. 10. In the considered opinion of this court, the failure on the part of High Court in framing rules as indicated by the Parliament cannot take away the valuable right of a third party to obtain a copy of the judgment or order of a Criminal Court. Even when the Parliament has intended something and the High Court has not carried its intention to its logical end, the benevolent provision will have to be necessarily extended to the party entitled to enjoy the right recognised therein. This court has already held in D.JAYAKUMAR v. STATE rep by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Wing, Dindigul in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10290 of 2007 by order dated 4.10.2007 that a third party is entitled to certified copies of all the material documents in a criminal case. 11. There is no doubt that all the documents sought for by the petitioner/third party are only public documents. They do not fall under the classified information category. It is not the case of the first respondent State that supply of copies of the criminal records in C.C.No.14 of 2004 would jeopardise the interest of the State. After all the petitioner wants to challenge the order of discharge passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as a citizen concerned with the criminal administration in the country. Further, the prohibits divulging of information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. In other respects, furnishing of information from the court records are not prohibited under the . 12. It is true that section 363(6) of the contemplates only copies of judgment or order of a Criminal Court to any third party. When a party concerned can invoke rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice to obtain any portion of the record of a Criminal Case on payment of stamp duty, the court finds that such a concession also will have to be extended notwithstanding the scope of section 363(6) of the to third parties also. # 13. Admittedly, the documents are still lying on the file of the Trial Court. It has not reached the portals of the High Court. Order XII Rule 3 of the Rules of High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965 will apply only in case where the documents have come to the file of the High Court. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the rules of the High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965 have not been framed by the High Court empowered under section 363(6) of the . Therefore, I find without any hesitation that the Rules of High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965 does not apply to a case where a third party seeks certified copies of the records of the Trial Court which have not come to the High Court in connection with any case pending before this court. 14. The created a dent in the so-called "privacy" being so far maintained by the authorities concerned. The courts also will have to be alive to the intendment of the to share vital information to the parties concerned. Any narrower interpretation of the law and imposition of any restriction on the right of the third party to know what is actually going on at the portals of the criminal justice system will not advance the interest of justice. For all these reasons, the court finds that the documents sought for by the petitioners in C.C.No.14 of 2004 will have to be granted to him. # 15. In view of the above, setting aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1116 of 2007 in Special C.C.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, he is directed to issue certified copies of all the documents the petitioner has sought for in Crl.M.P.No.1116 of 2007 in Special C.C.No.14 of 2004. The petition stands allowed. LIST OF CASE(S) REFERRING THIS JUDGMENT P. Ravindran vs. (1) State, Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing; (2) M. R. K. Paneerselvam; (3) P. Senthamizhselvi 2010 Indlaw MAD 1088

 

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:52 AM, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:

please note Mr. A.N. Tiwari was Central information commissioner in Central information commission and as chief info commissioner he would have referred appeal to larger bench why he has not referred why i was given opportunity of hearing  in my complaint against bombay High court viadya --- On Sat, 21/5/11, Abhijit Mehta <abhijit@abhijitmehta.com> wrote: From: Abhijit Mehta <abhijit@abhijitmehta.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 7:09 AM Dear Sarbajit In that case, I do stand corrected. Thank you. Regards Abhijit Mehta The Best Is Yet To Come  God Bless On 21-May-2011, at 6:28 AM, Sarbajit Roy wrote: Hi Abhijit This is just to clarify that the 2 points you made in your email are independent of each other, since Mr Tiwari was a Central Information Commissioner along with Mr Habibullah in the first CIC. Sarbajit. On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Abhijit Mehta <abhijit@abhijitmehta.com> wrote: Mr Prasad Vaidya Mr Wajahat Habibullah could not have taken any action against A.N.Tiwari. The Central Information Commission and the state information commission are independent of each other. Only the Governor of Maharashtra Can take action against the State Information Commission. Regards Abhijit Mehta The Best Is Yet To Come  God Bless On 20-May-2011, at 10:47 AM, prasad vaidya wrote: Mr. Sarbajit roy , respected sir forward my grievances to Mr. Habibullah if you respct rights of common man like me. Mr. Wajahat Habibullah has adopted double when he was in office as a Chief Information Commission. I wrote to him regrding one judgment related to incometax appellate tribunal and requested him reconsider his decision but he never took cognizance of my letter which includes amany constitutional apsects. I wrote to him about behaviour of information Commssioner Shri. A.N. Tiwari who dispoed my appeal against Bombay High Court and during hearing he had passed order in which he has assured me to allow file inspection but in the printed order the sentences were ommitted and even he took decision without reading my written notes of arguments but Mr. Habibullah has not taken action on my complaint against Mr. A.N. Tiwari also my reqquest for hearing of Appeal against before Full Bench was acccepted and even Mr. Habibullah never informed whether my request is accpeted if not why the same is rejected.Remember as section 4(1)(d) CIC and c\hief information Commissioner was bound to inform me reasons even my complaint against bombay high court was decided without giving any opprtunity of hearing which in turn against the provisions of Article 14 includes principles of natural justice Mr. Habibullah was considering requests of those who were represented by big lawyers and and paries who were big industrials Mr. Habibullah has nothing to do with common man like he partial fellow and also the information commissioners and also Maharashtra infor Commssion and Bombay High Court also Prasad B Vaidya mo.08149558468 viadya --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 7:57 AM Sir Whereas I freely admit that there are some of your decisions in my cases which were not drafted by me at all, I stick to my stand that 2 of them (fairly lengthy ones) were substantially drafted by me, to the extent that in one of them I had even taken the trouble to provide it in electronic form (a Floppy disk since the CIC PCs didn't have a CD option in those days) so that it could reach your computer to polish up in your inimitable style. PS: My comments which you incorporated were already placed by me in the public domain using this group and other "blogs" Sarbajit On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:22 PM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote: Yes, Singhi was indeed brought in by me, but only as legal advisor, not as a drfatsman for decision writing! And because I might have incoprportaed your comments in my decisions, it hardly means that the draft decision was yours. And ofcourse all my decisions are still on my computer. Good old Er Srabajit-ever the endearing court jester! Wajahat ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:49 pm Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com > Sir, > > 1) It was a typo - it should be read as Mr L. C. Singhi who was also the Registrar of the CIC and is probably well known to you from LBSA days if not earlier. > > 2) The statement that all your decisions were drafted by yourself is not true, because at least 2 decisions issued under your signature in my RTI cases were actually substantially drafted by me. > > 3)  I have never shirked from admitting that you are / were a vastly superior Commissioner than the likes of Mr Shailesh Gandhi. > > With best wishes > > Sarbajit > > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:18 PM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote: > Excuse me! All my decisions were drafted by myself, and there never was anybody by the name of Singhvi in the position of JS or anything else in the Commission. But thanks for the very rare compliment-which would never have come were I still CCIC! > Wajahat > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:29 pm > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com > > > Dear Mr Varma (and also Mr MK Gupta) > > > > It seems that you gentleman (like Mr Gandhi) are not aware of the facts concerning RTI process in the Supreme Court, and you would be well advised to read again Mr Habibullahs order in Adv Manish Khanna versus Supreme Court which is exceedingly well crafted considering the ground realities alluded to therein. It is another entirely that the decision in Adv Khanna's case was drafted by Mr LCSinghvi (the then JS-Law/CIC) and not by Mr Habibullah. The case number is CIC/WB/A/2006/00940 > > > > Sarbajit > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Narayan Varma <narayanvarma2011@gmail.com> wrote: > > It is no bunking. It is taking different view if one is convinced that view earlier taken by IC/CIC is incorrect. If One is to follow always what is decided  earlier, there will be no development of law or progress of law or understanding different view in any matter. I believe view now expressed by IC SG is the correct view, In fact sometime before on this sight strong objection was taken in context of registrar of companies matter and decision was debunked by many members. > > Narayan Varma > > > > > > On 16 May 2011 23:51, Shailesh Kumar Shukla <shailesh183@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > > Thanks for the updates.. > > Please keep it up.. > > Regards.... > > > > From: Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@gmail.com> > > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Mon, 16 May, 2011 4:55:19 PM > > Subject: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC > > > > IF IC Gandhi debunks his old boss Wajahat this way, does it mean that > > the prior decisions of CIC/SIC has no precedential  value ? > > > > > > http://goo.gl/umpW6 > > > > > > > > -- > > Narayan Varma > > 56B Mittal Tower, > > 210 Nariman Point > > Mumbai 400 021 > > RTI PCGT helpline 09322882288            > >  my cell   09821096052 > > >

Re: [HumJanenge] PIO’s RESPOBSIBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT - ADVICE SOUGHT FROM EXPERTS

Sandeep Ji,   Please search out various orders of R.I. Singh given by him immediately after he joine as CIC Punjab. He has given a detailed order to the effect that legal opinion given by an advocate to the Public authority is liable to be dislocse, as it is not in fiduciary capacity.   Regards,   H.C. Arora --- On Sat, 21/5/11, sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote: From: sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PIO's RESPOBSIBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT - ADVICE SOUGHT FROM EXPERTS To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 8:02 AM The work carried out by the IC is public activity so no question of section 8(1)(j). The advice given by the legal expert is not done in fiduciary capacity. It is based on payment received from public authority and is very much public information. On 5/20/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > > PIO's RESPOBSIBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT - > > I requested a copy of the legal advice given to the Information Commissioner > from the PIO, CIC about the action that can be legally taken against the > retired CPIO under section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act. > > Shri G. Subramanian, CPIO denied the information citing section 18(1) (e) > (Fiduciary Relationship) and Section 8(1) (j) (no relationship to any public > activity or would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the > individual).  The issue is of immense importance. > > My first appeal against the above decision is listed for hearing on 25th > May, 2011.  I request for forwarding the additional grounds for the > hearing. > > In the first appeal, I have made following points: > > 1.                 That Section 18 (1)(e) states that it is the duty of the > Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any > person who believes that he has been given incomplete, misleading or false > information under the RTI Act. Thus, this nowhere bars the PIO to disclose > the aforesaid information. > 2.                 That if the advice is disclosed and disseminated, it will > help the Central and State Information Commissioners in the discharge of > their duties viz in taking decision in the cases where the PIO has retired. > 3.                 That the disclosure will also assist the Public > Authorities and PIOs by guiding and assisting them in the discharge of their > duties. > 4.                 That the disclosure will also help the RTI applicants as > they will know the scope to the RTI Act in cases where PIOs have retired and > will thus reduce the number of complaints and appeals. > 5.                 That the disclosure will end the vagueness in the matter > and every stake will have the clarity in such circumstance and will not act > in dark. > 6.                 That the section 8(1) (j) bars personal information which > has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause > unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the PIO is > satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such > information.  This section also states that the information which cannot be > denied to the Parliament shall not be denied to any person. > 7.                 That the onus is on the PIO to substantiate as to how the > legal advice on the accountability of a retired PIO has no relationship to > any public activity, would cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the > individual (PIO) and is not in the larger public interest. > 8.                 That again the onus is on the PIO to justify as to how > the clarification obtained on the legal provisions/ service rules can be > denied to the Parliament. > 9.                 That retirement of PIOs and government servants is an > on-going process and every month hundreds PIOs retire and the retirement of > the PIO in the aforesaid case is not a stand alone case. > 10.             That by disclosure of information will enable the PIOs to > know in advance, before retirement, about the action that can or cannot be > or cannot be taken against them for the act of Commission and Omission while > discharging their official duties. > 11.             That the RTI appellants/ complainants  should also know > about the feasible action so that they can make a follow-up of their cases > in the right direction for taking their cases to the logical conclusion > without leaving them half way or do not drag the case unnecessary. > ON FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP > > 12.             That the advice has been taken by one Constitutional > Authority from the other Constitutional or Government Authority in the > discharge of official duties assigned to them.  There are many decisions > that in the above circumstances, the information cannot be treated in > fiduciary relationship and its disclosure is in warranted under the RTI Act. > M K Gupta > -- Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta 989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA Phone: 91-99929-31181