Section 22 provides the over-riding of any "other law for the time
being in force".
Oct 12 is the more favourable date for RTI users not 21 June 2005 since more
laws will come into its scope to be over-ridden.
Obviously a law which came into force on 15 Oct 2005 will not be
over-ridden by RTI Act. These are standard / routine non-obtsante clauses
contained in many laws and nothing great should be read into them as
foolish RTI activists are wont to..
On 10/1/12, Surendera M. Bhanot <bhanot1952@gmail.com> wrote:
> *
> *
> Section 22 is as good represent the overriding effect as it was on 12
> October 2005. Its sentence formation does not say that it represent only
> one day i.e., 12 October 2005, why not 21 June 2005 or any other day.
>
> It is as relevant today as it was the act was enacted and as on it was came
> into force. Section 22 will remain relevant in its present form as long the
> RTI Act stays.
>
> Even the in para 77 of the WP(C) 210 of 2012 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
> explained the relevancy of Section 22 of the RTI Act even today. Para 77 of
> the Judgement is reproduced below:
>
> *77.* Let us now examine some other pre-requisites of vital significance in
> the functioning of the Commission. In terms of Section 22 of this Act, the
> provisions of the Act are to be given effect to, notwithstanding anything
> inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and any
> other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by
> virtue of any law other than this Act. This Act is, therefore, to prevail
> over the specified Acts and even instruments. The same, however, is only to
> the extent of any inconsistency between the two. Thus, where the provisions
> of any other law can be applied harmoniously, without any conflict, the
> question of repugnancy would not arise.
>
>
> Section 22 is also reproduced below:
> *
>
> Act to have overriding effect*
> Section 22. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding
> anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act,
> 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument
> having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If there is any portion of a preexisting law as on 12 Oct 2005 which
>> is inconsistent with providing information under RTI Act, then the
>> said law will not stand in the way of the applicant getting his
>> information.
>>
>> NB: It has to be first established that the applicant is otherwise
>> entitled to get info under RTI.
>>
>> On 9/30/12, NAVIN PANDYA <navinpandya1954@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello Friends,
>> >
>> > How the subject section is to be interpreted and applied?
>> >
>> > Registrar of Mumbai has refused to accept the above section.
>> >
>> > Kindly post your views immediately in public interest.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Navin Pandya
>> >
>> > --
>> > "CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF
>> THE
>> > SOCIETY."
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *GREETINGS AND WARM REGARDS
>
> Surendera M. Bhanot*
> - Coordinator, *RTIFED <http://www.rtifed.com/>*, Punjab Chandigarh
> - President, *RTI Help & Assistance* <http://www.rtihelp.in%20> Forum
> Chandigarh
> - Life Member, *Chandigarh Consumers Association*
> - Youth for Human Rights International - *YHRI
> <http://yhrisouthasia.ning.com/group/leadershipinyouth>*- South Asia
> - Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
> - Member, *SPACE <http://www.thespace.org.in>*- Society for Promotion and
> Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
> *No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
> Mob: 919-888-810-811
> PHONE: 91-172-5000970
> FAX: 91-172-5000970*
> *Mail Me* <bhanot1952@gmail.com>
>
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Re: [HumJanenge] Sec 22 of RTI Act, 2005 about its overriding effect on other laws
Even i have faced a similar situation where Registrar of Companies, Cuttack have refused to provide info saying that to collect the info from their registered agents by depositing Rs50/-. Also they have relied on CIC order as information is availbel in alternative places so they cant be compelled to share info under RTI.
Regards
Sankar
--
Sankar Prasad Pani, Lawyer
112/4, Infantry Road,(Opp infantry Wedding Hall)
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
If there is any portion of a preexisting law as on 12 Oct 2005 which
is inconsistent with providing information under RTI Act, then the
said law will not stand in the way of the applicant getting his
information.
NB: It has to be first established that the applicant is otherwise
entitled to get info under RTI.
On 9/30/12, NAVIN PANDYA <navinpandya1954@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Friends,
>
> How the subject section is to be interpreted and applied?
>
> Registrar of Mumbai has refused to accept the above section.
>
> Kindly post your views immediately in public interest.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Navin Pandya
>
> --
> "CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF THE
> SOCIETY."
>
Sankar Prasad Pani, Lawyer
112/4, Infantry Road,(Opp infantry Wedding Hall)
Bangaluru, 560001
India
Cell- 9437279278
India
Cell- 9437279278
Natural Justice: Lawyers for Communities and the Environment
Website | Blog | Facebook
http://environmentalrights-sankar.blogspot.com/
http://www.merinews.com/cj/sankarprasad
Website | Blog | Facebook
Biocultural Community Protocols
http://www.merinews.com/cj/sankarprasad
Re: [HumJanenge] Sec 22 of RTI Act, 2005 about its overriding effect on other laws
If there is any portion of a preexisting law as on 12 Oct 2005 which
is inconsistent with providing information under RTI Act, then the
said law will not stand in the way of the applicant getting his
information.
NB: It has to be first established that the applicant is otherwise
entitled to get info under RTI.
On 9/30/12, NAVIN PANDYA <navinpandya1954@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Friends,
>
> How the subject section is to be interpreted and applied?
>
> Registrar of Mumbai has refused to accept the above section.
>
> Kindly post your views immediately in public interest.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Navin Pandya
>
> --
> "CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF THE
> SOCIETY."
>
is inconsistent with providing information under RTI Act, then the
said law will not stand in the way of the applicant getting his
information.
NB: It has to be first established that the applicant is otherwise
entitled to get info under RTI.
On 9/30/12, NAVIN PANDYA <navinpandya1954@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Friends,
>
> How the subject section is to be interpreted and applied?
>
> Registrar of Mumbai has refused to accept the above section.
>
> Kindly post your views immediately in public interest.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Navin Pandya
>
> --
> "CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF THE
> SOCIETY."
>
[HumJanenge] Re: What kind of decision is this?
The thing you have not understood is "appeal"
CPIO denies information on ground that case is sub-judice .
FAA denies on same ground.
2nd appeal is in challenge that circumstances have changed.
This is not fit grounds for appeal
The Appellant has rightly been advised to file a fresh request.
On Sep 30, 8:34 pm, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What kind of decision is the attached decision?
>
> Information was denied earlier due to pending court case. At the time of
> hearing, no case was pending so information could have been provided, but
> the decision of CPIO/AA was upheld and appellant was asked to file another
> petition???
>
> Is this what is there in decision note or there is something I have not
> understood??
>
> Girish Mittal
>
> CIC_DS_A_2011_003676_M_CBDT_RM.pdf
> 91KViewDownload
CPIO denies information on ground that case is sub-judice .
FAA denies on same ground.
2nd appeal is in challenge that circumstances have changed.
This is not fit grounds for appeal
The Appellant has rightly been advised to file a fresh request.
On Sep 30, 8:34 pm, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What kind of decision is the attached decision?
>
> Information was denied earlier due to pending court case. At the time of
> hearing, no case was pending so information could have been provided, but
> the decision of CPIO/AA was upheld and appellant was asked to file another
> petition???
>
> Is this what is there in decision note or there is something I have not
> understood??
>
> Girish Mittal
>
> CIC_DS_A_2011_003676_M_CBDT_RM.pdf
> 91KViewDownload
[HumJanenge] What kind of decision is this?
What kind of decision is the attached decision?
Information was denied earlier due to pending court case. At the time of hearing, no case was pending so information could have been provided, but the decision of CPIO/AA was upheld and appellant was asked to file another petition???
Is this what is there in decision note or there is something I have not understood??
Girish Mittal
[HumJanenge] HAMMERING RTI
States Information Commissions take pretext of Supreme Court order to get rid of RTI Act? When the SC has granted 6-month time for the implementation of this decision, what is the justification of this logjam? All are out to hammer RTI Act.
Supreme Court order leads to RTI logjam across states
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court's order mandating the appointment of a judicial member and an expert to hear RTI-related cases, has crippled functioning of one-fourth of the country's 28 information commissions.
Work in the information commissions in Maharashtra, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Jharkhand has come to a halt, frustrating thousands who have filed RTI pleas to fight against injustices by authorities and for delivery of basic services. These information commissions ceased working on the advice of advocate generals and legal departments of respective states.
A survey conducted by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) showed that all such commissions have stopped hearing fresh applications for disclosures under RTI. Appeals against earlier orders are also not being heard on RTI.
The situation may worsen in coming days because of indications that other information commissions may chose to be "risk-averse" for the fear of running foul of the SC order.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has continued work after seeking the Centre's advice. Commissions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh have also continued hearing RTI cases. In fact, the Advocate General in Kerala has asked the state information commission to continue working.
However, RTI activists feel that the crisis may deepen. A pointer to that has come from Jharkhand, where the state information commission has halted work despite the availability of a member with judicial training. The Jharkhand commission is headed by Justice (retired) DK Sinha. While the concern in many other commissions seems to be about the non-availability of a member with judicial training, in Jharkhand the worry seems to be about non-availability of non-judicial experts. No hearings are being held in Goa as members to the information commission have not been appointed.
Case for review plea
The SC in a recent order had held that the information commissions are quasi-judicial bodies and, therefore, ought to have a judge or a trained expert to hear cases. Since there are few judges in information commissions, the order has raised doubts about the validity of the decisions taken by the commissions.
The paralysis in information commissions is likely to spur the government to expedite the review petition it plans to file. Sources say that the government plans to argue that familiarity with administrative matters should be the only criteria for appointment to the commissions. However, until such time the court disposes of the review petition, confusion over the status of existing commissions and their orders will continue.
Reacting to the situation, National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) member Shekhar Singh said that the Centre should ask for a clarification from the court instead of allowing status quo to continue.
SC lawyer Prashant Bhushan termed the order incorrect saying it "cripples the information commissions" because there were not enough judges to fill vacancies. "In my view it is not essential to stop hearing cases. The government should seek a clarification at least or a review of the order."
The J&K information commission is not affected by this ruling as it is constituted under a separate RTI law enacted by the J&K Legislature. The apex court's judgment is only restricted to the implementation of the RTI Act passed by Parliament.
According to CHRI, the patchy interpretation of the order has put India's reputation as a model for popular RTI at stake.
Work in the information commissions in Maharashtra, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Jharkhand has come to a halt, frustrating thousands who have filed RTI pleas to fight against injustices by authorities and for delivery of basic services. These information commissions ceased working on the advice of advocate generals and legal departments of respective states.
A survey conducted by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) showed that all such commissions have stopped hearing fresh applications for disclosures under RTI. Appeals against earlier orders are also not being heard on RTI.
The situation may worsen in coming days because of indications that other information commissions may chose to be "risk-averse" for the fear of running foul of the SC order.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has continued work after seeking the Centre's advice. Commissions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh have also continued hearing RTI cases. In fact, the Advocate General in Kerala has asked the state information commission to continue working.
However, RTI activists feel that the crisis may deepen. A pointer to that has come from Jharkhand, where the state information commission has halted work despite the availability of a member with judicial training. The Jharkhand commission is headed by Justice (retired) DK Sinha. While the concern in many other commissions seems to be about the non-availability of a member with judicial training, in Jharkhand the worry seems to be about non-availability of non-judicial experts. No hearings are being held in Goa as members to the information commission have not been appointed.
Case for review plea
The SC in a recent order had held that the information commissions are quasi-judicial bodies and, therefore, ought to have a judge or a trained expert to hear cases. Since there are few judges in information commissions, the order has raised doubts about the validity of the decisions taken by the commissions.
The paralysis in information commissions is likely to spur the government to expedite the review petition it plans to file. Sources say that the government plans to argue that familiarity with administrative matters should be the only criteria for appointment to the commissions. However, until such time the court disposes of the review petition, confusion over the status of existing commissions and their orders will continue.
Reacting to the situation, National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) member Shekhar Singh said that the Centre should ask for a clarification from the court instead of allowing status quo to continue.
SC lawyer Prashant Bhushan termed the order incorrect saying it "cripples the information commissions" because there were not enough judges to fill vacancies. "In my view it is not essential to stop hearing cases. The government should seek a clarification at least or a review of the order."
The J&K information commission is not affected by this ruling as it is constituted under a separate RTI law enacted by the J&K Legislature. The apex court's judgment is only restricted to the implementation of the RTI Act passed by Parliament.
According to CHRI, the patchy interpretation of the order has put India's reputation as a model for popular RTI at stake.
[HumJanenge] Sec 22 of RTI Act, 2005 about its overriding effect on other laws
Hello Friends,
How the subject section is to be interpreted and applied?
Registrar of Mumbai has refused to accept the above section.
Kindly post your views immediately in public interest.
Best regards,
Navin Pandya
--
"CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF THE SOCIETY."
--
"CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF THE SOCIETY."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)