Sarbajit Roy | 13 Oct 17:14 2013
Picon

[HumJanenge] Re: CHRI's report on the status of RTI in India based on a study of Annual Reports of Information Commissions

Dear Gen Jatar

The fundamental mistake RTI activists make is to treat the obtaining of the information as their  primary objective. It seems that all the RTI activist can do is make a great pretence of obtaining information (all the while circulating his failures in cry-baby email groups where RTI activist mutually console each other) and then think that the job is over by putting whatever they get into public domain / media.

Actually, if information is not given by the PIO the matter ends there. The trick is to draft the RTI request properly and ensure  that a) PIO does NOT give the requested information or b) evades givig information in the manner you want him to.

Sarbajit

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Sudhir Jatar <scnjat-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Dear Venkatesh saheb,
I have not yet studied the report in detail but thought I would give you my response to the report in ToI of today in the Pune Edition.
It says that less than 10 % RTI queries recorded face rejection. This statement gives a wrong impression that the public information officers have supplied 90 % information information and hence the Act has met with its objectives.
My own experience with applications sent by me and by a number of citizens who come to us for advice is that the information that is denied is generally the critical one. Giving you an example, I asked for 'consent' under the Air and Water Acts for municipal solid waste processing plants both from the municipal corporation and from the pollution control board. Both gave me 'authorisation' under the MSW (Handling & Management) Rules, 2000 and not 'consent'. 
This critical information is essential because the plants are creating havoc in polluting the ground water and the ambient air. This is adversely affecting the health of the citizens. Apparently, for what ever reasons, contracts have been awarded without due authority and contrary to the law of the land.
Of course, we go in for an appeal. The Appellate Authority directs that the information be given. It is again denied. Hence, we put in a second appeal. Currently, the information commissioner is hearing second appeals of May 2011 vintage. Even after the hearing, it takes almost six months to issue orders. The PIO is generally not fined and if fined, the amount is rarely deducted from the person's salary. Again, we are no so much interested in the penalty. We want information, which may still be far away.  
Hence, do we wait for more than 3 years to get a decision in such critical and straight forward matters? In spite of orders for preference to senior citizens, it is generally not accorded. 
Hence, if I have received 90 % of the information but denied the 10 %, what do we say is the status of the implementation of the RTI Act?
I have given you only one example. But now-a-days, this is an increasing tendency on the part of the PIOs. 
We need to study the quality and not quantity, we need to study the time frame within which information is given, the time frame within which appeals are heard and lastly whether the orders of the information commissions are implemented or only lip service paid.
The tendency to compare the speed of disposal with courts of law or tribunals is erroneous because in the case of RTI, highly complicated legal issues are rarely to be decided upon.
Maj. Gen. S. C. N. Jatar, Retd


On 12 October 2013 08:01, Venkatesh Nayak <venkatesh-VldVBIePPc7rfyPWP6PaXg+gnn+XHhfY2LY78lusg7I@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Dear all,
I am happy to send you our latest study report on the status of RTI use in
India based on data mined from the Annual Reports of Information
Commissions.
Please circulate this email amongst your networks.


*DEFEND THE PEOPLE担 RIGHT TO KNOW! *

*SEND YOUR SUBMISSIONS TO THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON THE RTI
(AMENDMENT) BILL, 2013!*

*In order to access our previous email alerts on RTI and related issues
please click on:
http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&Itemid=84
You
will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
receive these email alerts please send an email to this address indicating
your refusal.*

Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Venkatesh Nayak
*Access to Information Programme*
*Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative*
*B-117, 1st Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave*
*New Delhi- 110 017*
*Tel: +91-11-43180201/ 9871050555*
*Fax: +91-11-26864688*
*Website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org*
--
Maj. Gen. S. C. N. Jatar, Retd
Telephone: +912024475366/+919970093533
Visit us at <http://www.nagrikchetna.com>
The time to relax is when you do not have time for it!



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HumJanenge+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Sarbajit Roy | 7 Oct 06:08 2013
Picon

[HumJanenge] Re: Personal Memorandum on RTI Amendment Bill 2013

To:
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice

Date: 6-Oct-2013 (Sunday)
filed on 07.10.2013

Sirs,

By EMAIL

Additional Memorandum

Dear Sirs

I refer to my memorandum on the subject Bill submitted by email on 06.10.2013 (Sunday).

I have subsequently received additional suggestions on my memorandum from several subscribers of the India Against Corruption (of which andolan I am presently Hony. National Convenor) which I wish to additionally submit as part of my aforesaid memorandum.

1) That merely having Political Parties under the RTI regime shall not promote transparency within / upon these bodies, as section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act 2005 is presently not adequate for the purpose to enable an elector/voter to take informed decisions at moment of casting his ballot.

2) That the Representation of People's Act ("RP Act") does not sufficiently regulate the working and internal functioning of these parties, and there is no other legal framework to regulate the parties at the present time.

3) That whereas the RP Act has certain bare provisions concerning the sources of finance / donations for parties, there is no regulation/restriction on how the money is spent or used.

4) That the RP Act does not lay down that there shall be transparent criteria and procedures for selection/nomination of candidates by parties.

5) That the RP Act confers tremendous additional advantages to candidates of national political parties vis-a-vis the independent (citizen) candidates in an election.

That accordingly, the Hon'ble Committee may kindly simultaneously conduct a wide public consultation on LISTING the additional amendments to RTI Act 2005 and the RP Act with a view to ensuring complete transparency of political parties for the electors concerning, inter alia,

(i) All aspects of inner democracy(as defined in any organisation);

(ii) All Rules, Responsibilities,Functions, Duties and Privileges of various levels/functionaries,

(iii) Discipline and Conduct Rules;

(iv) Selection criteria(Qualifications/Experience,Reservation Rules etc;

(v) Standard Operating Procedures/Protocols of functioning of the Party organisation,

(vi) All aspects of revenue and expenditure;

(vii) Party's stand/position, in a structured format, on all aspects(as prescribed by Election Commission/Parliament/Assembly) dealing with subjects on which legislative powers could be exercised etc.

And for which we the people of India shall be ever grateful.

NB: I desire to appear in person to present my oral evidence.
 
Yours faithfully,

Er. Sarbajit Roy

National Convenor :  India Against Corruption ("IAC") (www.indiaagainstcorruption.net.in)
Convenor : National Campaign for Political Reform in India ("NCPRI") (www.ncpri.org)

B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
 
Tel: 09311448069

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HumJanenge+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Sarbajit Roy | 6 Oct 18:38 2013
Picon

[HumJanenge] Re: CONSULTATIONS FOR RTI AMENDMENT

Dear Bhaskar

I really can't understand why you are so disappointed with the way things are going for your side. After holding up placards at railway platforms (like a good little Congress Party worker) why are you now crying ?

"I can only say please please please please please comment about the RTI amendment Bill otherwise you will be having a shock."

Enough said !!, We are not little children here :-

1) If RTI activists / so-called civil society had done nothing, Parliament would have passed the Bill, nothing would have changed and Political Parties would have continued to be under RTI - as they always were - and there would have been no "shock". BUT, as we all know it was never intended for that Bill to be passed at all - and we have dared them to pass that Bill.

2) We knew this because there are a bunch of PROFESSIONAL HARAMIs disguised as RTI activists in our midst - they are collectively called "NCPRI-Aruna". Nikhil Dey is the Convenor (because Aruna Roy is too old and discredited now) and you are a co-Convenor of this racket. Your grouping was promised a sweet deal by Digvijay Singh - generate 1 Lakh fake "signatures", meet the PM, meet the Minister, get social media buzz and paid media publicity, so that Rahul Baba will step in aggressively at last moment and save the day for "Young India".  RTI v2.0 will be the new "game changer" ushered in by Prince Charming - politics will be cleaned up using his new improved RTI vacuum cleaner MK-II personally designed in Italy (in other words trying to recreate 2004 all over again).

BUT, if you ultimately get cheated and Rahul Baba does not "Save RTI" like you were promised, please preserve this email so that future generations will recall who the Mir Jafars among us were.  

PS: Why were so many "NCPRI-Aruna" people attending Rahul's PR training camps for Congress workers ?

Sarbajit
Convenor NCPRI
www.ncpri.org

DISCLAIMER: "Young India" does not refer to any Rahul Gandhi linked corporation which gobbles up prime property in Delhi like National Herald building at throwaway prices.


On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> Friends,
>
> Please enquire with GAD of your state when is the Public Consultation of Standing Committee on RTI Amendment.
>
> The circular of DoPT is dated 25-09-13 to state's and state is calling the stake holders. The Maharashtra state invited myself and Vijay Kumbhar, I also called Dolphy D'Sousa and Sudhir Badami to come for this consultation.
>
> The political parties representatives were also called for the meeting.The meeting was held in Hotel Trident !! I cannot disclose of proceedings as there is OFFICIAL technical restriction of talking about the proceedings.
>
> I can only say please please please please please comment about the RTI amendment Bill otherwise you will be having a shock.
>
> We have put forwarded very strongly and cleared to all standing committee members about their apprehension, doubts, fears, apprehension of harassment etc of political parties for coming under RTI Act. I vehemently opposed the RTI Amendment with reasons of various court judgements HC to SC and various citations.  I feel any person who has concern for the RTI Act request them to pro-actively demand participation in such type consultation in your respective states, ALSO GO WITH PREPARED KNOWLEDGE INPUTS, JUST DON'T EXPRESS EMOTIONS. Otherwise DoPT and Standing Committee will wind-off consultation technically.
>
> They are having next in Tamil Nadu, Rajastan, Delhi.  I CAN ONLY SAY THE WAY I HAVE VEHEMENTLY PUT FORWARDED OUR POINTS TO STANDING COMMITTEE MEMBERS THEY WILL NOT FORGET MY NAME OR MAHITI ADHIKAR MANCH. I request all not to take this matter as easy, please submit your submissions in any language though the advertisement says in Hindi or English, for which I objected to Standing Committee, they agreed to take comments in any official 21 languages, I don't know whether they have recorded this and will put in practise. I am disclosing this (I hope standing committee should not have objection) as this will increase participation in democracy from all section, class and creed of people this country.
>
> ZINDABAD ZINDABAD ZINDABAD
>
>
> Yours in service of RTI
>
> Bhaskar Prabhu
> Convenor
> Mahiti Adhikar Manch &
> Maharashtra RTI Council
> Co Convenor NCPRI
> 9892102424


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HumJanenge+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Sarbajit Roy | 6 Oct 09:40 2013
Picon

[HumJanenge] Fwd: Personal Memorandum on RTI Amendment Bill 2013

To: rs-cpers-eVHoZDbIwRPF3p0Bv/b1wg@public.gmane.org, sahoo.ak-eVHoZDbIwRPF3p0Bv/b1wg@public.gmane.org, Shantaram Naik <shantaramgoa-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To:
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice

Date: 6-Oct-2013

Sirs,

By EMAIL

Memorandum

I refer to the public notice dt. 21.09.2013 inviting memorandum from the public on the subject Bill.

I would be obliged if the Hon'ble Committee  will take on record and consider my below listed brief personal submissions, submitted as a directly affected citizen of India.

1) That I am reliably informed the Hon'ble Committee has accepted and commenced processing some public representations submitted in advance of the aforesaid public notice. I therefore object that this practice (to favour some vested interests) is grossly violative of the Constitutional guarantee of EQUALITY  - of STATUS and of OPPORTUNITY - summarised in the preamble to the Constitution of India. I further object that the principle of "Parliamentary Privilege" is being invoked to pull a veil of secrecy over such goings on.

2) That I am reliably informed the CIC's decision of 03.06.2013 is a political decision stage managed (down to its timing and its drafting by the lawyer for the appellant) in collusion with the "Aam Aadmi Party" to project that having political parties under RTI is a "game changer" which shall reform the present rotten system.

3) That having political parties under RTI regime shall hardly achieve anything worthwhile for political reform until the Representation of People's Act is itself amended simultaneously to ensure that Political Parties are mandated to maintain and keep detailed records of all aspects of their functioning - especially their internal functioning.

4) That proper public consultations must be held to determine the list(s) of records  - preferably in prescribed proformas -  which every registered political party is mandated in Law to maintain and which must be made available to the electors to enable them to make informed electoral choices with scientific temper.

5) That the under-pinning of this exercise must be the recognition  that the RP Act is a fountain head of corruption in India and and its creatures (Political Parties) are the  visible heads of the Hydra.

NB: I desire to appear in person to present my oral evidence.

Yours faithfully,

Er. Sarbajit Roy

B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024

Tel: 09311448069


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HumJanenge+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Sarbajit Roy | 4 Oct 14:00 2013
Picon

[HumJanenge] Fwd: The RTI Amendment Bill 2013

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Veeresh Malik <veereshmalik <at> gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM
Subject: Fwd: The RTI Amendment Bill 2013
To: rs-cpers-eVHoZDbIwRPF3p0Bv/b1wg@public.gmane.org, sahoo.ak-eVHoZDbIwRPF3p0Bv/b1wg@public.gmane.org
Cc: shantaramgoa-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, Veeresh Malik <veereshmalik-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>

To:
The Joint Secretary PPG
RAJYA SABHA

4-October-2013

Jai Hind & Good Evening!!


Please find attached the memorandum submitted on behalf of the
"National Campaign for Political Reform in India"  concerning the subject Bill for consideration by the sub-Committee in response to the public notice dated 21.09.2013..

yours faithfully

Veeresh Malik
Coordinator - NCPRI

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HumJanenge+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Attachment (NCPRI_RTI_RSCl__2013.pdf): application/pdf, 61 KiB
Indranil Bhattacharya | 3 Oct 10:51 2013
Picon

[HumJanenge] Mysterious affairs at CIC ?

Dear friends

Does anyone know the process by which Information Commissioners (or their office) admit complaints and appeals, takes action and disposes them? Is it serially as per date of receipt? Or there are other considerations.

If action on a complaint/appeal is delayed for other considerations, can the complainant/appellant expect some intimation from CIC.

I have a Direct Complaint which is received (as online status) and is "under scrutiny' since July 7, 2013. But I discovered that there some direct complaints, received atleast two months after mine, which have been 'admitted' and reflects in the monthly report of the IC.

Interestingly,when I traced these complaints there was no details apart from a name and incomplete address, no email, phone number, no supporting documents that are shown in the 'view details' link of the complaints.

Can someone throw a light on the mystery ?

rgds
I Bhattacharya








--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HumJanenge+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Sarbajit Roy | 4 Oct 09:36 2013
Picon

[HumJanenge] RTI Amendment Bill 2013 (Bill 112/2013)

To:
Joint Secretary (PPG)
Rajya Sabha

04-Oct-2013

BY EMAIL

Sir

This is further to my email of 26.09.2013 concerning public notice dt. 21.09.2013 for the subject Bill.

Please find attached the PDF file containing submissions of the India Against Corruption jan andolan pertaining to the subject Bill.

Our movement would also like to personally appear before the Hon'ble Committee and make our presentations in person.

We would be obliged if you would therefore kindly place our submissions on the record of the Hon'ble Committee for this Bill.

With best wishes,

( Er. Sarbajit Roy )

National Convenor : India Against Corruption, jan andolan
www.indiaagainstcorruption.net.in

Mailing address:
2nd floor, B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HumJanenge+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Sarbajit Roy | 27 Sep 12:54 2013
Picon

[HumJanenge] Re: NCPRI's suggestions on the RTI Amendment Bill

Dear Bhaskar

Suggestions:

1) I think all flavours of NCPRI probably agree that RTI needs to be
defended. And also that many other bodies like the political parties,
ie. PPPs, PSUs (owned by 2 or more public authorities if not by Govt.)
etc. must be brought under RTI.

2) It must be worked out how 2 incompatible stands  eg. "RTI Act needs
no amendment" and "RTI Act needs to be urgently amended" can be
harmonised.

3) Do you have any clear stand on if the CIC order of 03.06.2013 is
sustainable or not. After all there is no point in defending the
indefensible.

4) Lastly we must not lose sight of the facts that this CIC order was
brought on us by certain professional RTIers who are heavily financed
by political forces as a distraction while the real political
haraamipan is being carried out elsewhere.

Sarbajit

On 9/27/13, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@...> wrote:
> Dear friend,
>
> Thanks for your comments on NCPRI.
>
> Can you give any of your suggestions that you feel necessary to be said
> pertaining to RTi Amendment Bill.
>
> Thanks.
> Bhaskar

--

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

Manoj Pai | 27 Sep 07:15 2013
Picon

[HumJanenge] Govt. ban on foreign email & servers

For a long time, this group has debated on the ban of use of free web based emails like Yahoo!, Hotmail, Gmail
etc. by officials working with various Public Authorities. Even T.O.U. of  the respective email provider
made it clear. Several of the list members like Sarbajit, Karira, Harikumar etc. had emphasized the
various Govt. regulations and NIC policy on ban of usage of such free email services.

Our moderator too had brought this to the notice of various senior officers and secretaries. Given below
are some links which might be of interest to most of you

Indian Govt. use of hotmail, gmail receipe for disaster
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-07-18/india-government-s-use-of-hotmail-gmail-recipe-for-disaster-.html

Indian Govt. bans use of Gmail
http://dottech.org/126462/indian-government-bans-use-gmail-thanks-nsa-spying/

Cyberspying Govt. may ban Gmail for official communication
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/internet/Cyberspying-Government-may-ban-Gmail-for-official-communication/articleshow/22156529.cms

Cyber spying fallout Govt. may restrict usage of Google
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Cyber-spying-fallout-Govt-may-restrict-usage-of-Googles-Gmail-for-employees/articleshow/22157309.cms

Email policy for Govt. employees for official communications
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/e-mail-policy-for-govt-employees-for-official-communications-centre/articleshow/23113282.cms

Govt. drafts policy to curb use of gmail, yahoo for official purposes.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/govt-drafts-policy-to-curb-use-of-gmail-yahoo-for-official-purposes/1174904/

Govt may restrict usage of Google's Gmail for employees
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Cyber-spying-fallout-Govt-may-restrict-usage-of-Googles-Gmail-for-employees/articleshow/22157309.cms

More on this later

Manoj Pai

--

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

Sarbajit Roy | 27 Sep 10:58 2013
Picon

[HumJanenge] NCPRI's suggestions on the RTI Amendment Bill

Dear Bhaskar / Anjali

NB: Please see why the group "rtitrainers" is not taking posts today
and bouncing emails back. (see footnote)

I think the view you circulated is very shortsighted / retrograde, and
ignores the present ground realities.It would be interesting to know
who attended that NCPRI meeting and who called it.

My own view is as follows

1) NCPRI submits that RTI Act urgently needs to be amended to tackle
many grey areas in the Act which are preventing citizens from
accessing information. This may include specifically defining that
political parties and PPPs etc are covered as "public authority".

2) NCPRI hardly thinks that persons who opposed death penalty for
Kasab, or who have consorted with/for foreign devils (in cozy illegal
govt. caucuses) for years have any right to speak on behalf of
citizens of India or on core anti-corruption tools like RTI whch are
used by
anti-corruption activists. Surely we all recall the mandate of May
2002 when so many eminent people came together in Delhi to form the
NCPRI and the objectives consistently listed on the NCPRI website
since 2002, which (see link below) eminent founding activists like
Ms.Maja Daruwalla or S.D. Sharma will doubtless attest to.

http://ncpri.org/blogs/archive-2002-national-campaign-political-reforms-india-ncpri-1704253

Sarbajit

National Campaign for Political Reform in India
www.ncpri.org

National Campaign to Protect RTI in India
http://ncpri.in

On 9/27/13, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@...> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Forwarding the suggestion that NCPRI has proposed for RTI Amendment bill.
> Can comment on for any further suggestions.
> Bhaskar
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From:
> Date: Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:33 AM
> Subject: NCPRI's suggestions on the RTI Amendment Bill
> To:
> Cc:
>
> Dear all,
>
> We had an NCPRI meeting yesterday to discuss and evolve NCPRI's suggestions
> to the standing committee on the RTI Amendment bill. At the meeting the
> following position was agreed upon-
>
> 1. The RTI Act should not be amended. This has been the consistent position
> of the NCPRI on the issue. As stated in the CIC order, political parties
> receive extensive benefits from the public exchequer in the form of tax
> exemptions, subsidized land etc. Further, they hold a great deal of
> information that it is in public interest to disclose. Given that the
> current framework governing the transparency of political parties (RP Act,
> IT Act etc.) is very inadequate, it is critical that political parties be
> covered as public authorities under the RTI Act.
>
> 2. There was a discussion regarding the concern expressed by political
> parties about disclosure of information which would harm their competitive
> position. It was felt that although this information is already exempted
> from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(d) but the language is a little
> ambiguous as it states- "the disclosure of which would harm the competitive
> position of third party". Therefore, it was decided that the NCPRI could
> suggest that a clarification can be made by way of rules to state that
> information related to the competitive position of political parties is
> exempted under Section 8(1)(d). In fact we can suggest that this can even
> be done by seeking a clarification from the Central Information Commission
> or the Supreme Court.
>
> If there are any comments/suggestions regarding this broad position,
> please send them as soon as possible so that the representation to the
> Standing Committee can be prepared and circulated in time.
>
> Best wishes and regards,
> Anjali
>
> --
> Yours in service of RTI
>
> Bhaskar Prabhu
> Convenor
> Mahiti Adhikar Manch
> Maharashtra RTI Council
> 9892102424
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  “Information is a source of learning. But unless it is organized,
> processed, and available to the right people in a format for decision
> making, it is a burden, not a benefit.”
>
>      William Pollard quotes
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "RTI Trainers Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rtitrainers@...
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rtitrainers+unsubscribe@...
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/rtitrainers?hl=en-GB

On 9/27/13, Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@...> wrote:
> Hello sroy.mb@...,
>
> We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact
> (rtitrainers) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages
> to the group. A few more details on why you weren't able to post:
>
>  * You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly.
>  * The owner of the group may have removed this group.
>  * You may need to join the group before receiving permission to post.
>  * This group may not be open to posting.
>
> If you have questions related to this or any other Google Group, visit the
> Help Center at http://groups.google.com/support/.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Google Groups

--

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

Vaghela B D | 22 Sep 08:02 2013
Picon

Re:: [HumJanenge] Redressal mechanism for Public Servants victimised for using RTI Act.


Dear All, I have the distinction to be the first RTI user - chargesheeted and suspended in 2006 for using RTI
in own Organisation - Oil PSU - in the initial days of RTI. In my openion based on the experince of decade long
harassment / torture / denial of dues / chargesheets / suspensions / victimisation / legal notices /
overnight police detention during PM visit to IIM Ahmedabad & most recent Court case, I find that largely
one is left to defend oneself as Rights Activist / Whistle Blower. Neither CVC nor Govt nor Bureaucracy nor
Corporates nor Mass Media nor Judiciary help the daredevils working hard to improve transparency /
accountability of public administration / governance to get some respite for crores of suffering
voiceless poor.
It is the hue & cry of the concerned and the vigilant Civil Society and their active protests that can,
through varieties of means including Social Media, can reduce the miseries of these new age freedom
fighters. One can look at the Snowden case. Let us make sincere efforts to help the RTI / Rights Activists &
Whisle Blowers. 
With warm regards, Babubhai Vaghela, Ahmedabad M - 9427608632. As  <at> BabubhaiVaghela on Twitter.

------------------------------
On Sat 21 Sep, 2013 9:48 PM IST Indranil Bhattacharya wrote:

>Dear all
> It is known to you Public Servants using RTI Act for seeking more
>transparency within an organization are often harassed and
>heckled and sometimes even  frivolous indiscipline and 'insubordination'
>charges are brought in.
>
>When redressal mechanism is not possible within the Public Authority for
>such grievances and CIC is unlikely to bring quick relief (given the high
>pendency), what is the most effective way that a Public Servant can protect
>himself?
>
>It is likely that detailed deliberations have already taken place on this
>topic. I am coming back to the group after a long gap, this time through
>google. Appreciate some views/suggestions from the group.
>Best regards
>I.Bhattacharya
>
>-- 
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HumJanenge Forum People's
Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HumJanenge+unsubscribe@...
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

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


Gmane