Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
skmishra1970

Whether Evidence Act 1872 is substitute of RTI Act 2005 ?

Recommended Posts

skmishra1970

Section 74 to 78 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872 regarding supply of certified copy of public documents. Concerned sections are given below :-

 

Section 76 - Certified copies of public documents : Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.

 

Further Section 74 - Public documents :- The following documents are public documents :-

(1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts—

(i) of the sovereign authority,

(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and

(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;

(2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents.

 

Now the question is -

 

Whether Indian Evidence Act 1872 is a substitute of RTI Act 2005 to get certified copy of any public documents ? whether Consumer Forums have jurisdiction on deficiency if certified copy of requested public documents not supplied u/s 76 of The I.E. Act 1872 ?

 

While recently a 3 member Bench of National Consumer Commission has denied jurisdiction of Consumer Forum on RTI deficiency (RP/3146/2012 decided on 8-1-2015).

 

Now above matter will be discussed in District Consumer Forum Ajmer (Rajasthan).

भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम के तहत सूचना के लिए ज्यादा वसूली पर राजस्थान सूचना आयोग को अजमेर कंज्यूमर फोरम का नोटिस।

 

सूचना क्रान्ति में एक नए अध्याय की शुरुआत के तहत अजमेर कंज्यूमर फोरम ने राजस्थान सूचना आयोग को नोटिस जारी किया है। राजस्थान सूचना आयोग ने अजमेर निवासी तरुण अग्रवाल से भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम के तहत बिना नियम बताये सूचना के सत्यापित प्रति के लिए ज्यादा पैसे की वसूली की, जिसकी शिकायत तरुण अग्रवाल ने फोरम को दी थी ।

परिवाद संख्या 162 / 2015 पर 5 मई 2015 को सुनवाई करते हुए फोरम ने राजस्थान सूचना आयोग को 17 जून 2015 के लिए नोटिस जारी किया है।

 

तरुण अग्रवाल ने भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम 1872 के धारा 76 के तहत राजस्थान सूचना आयोग से 20 दिसंबर 2014 को कुछ दस्तावेज के सत्यापित प्रति की मांग की। आवेदन के साथ 10 रूपये का भुगतान करते हुए निवेदन किया गया की चूँकि अधिनियम में फीस प्रेसक्राइब्ड नहीं है इसलिए अनुमानतः 10 रूपये भेजते हुए विनती की जाती है की फीस अगर ज्यादा है तो वापस कर दें अगर कम है तो बताये ताकि प्रार्थी उसका भुगतान कर सके। आयोग के दफ्तर से सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 के तहत सूचना के 2 पेज का 4 रूपये का डिमांड किया गया जिसका प्रार्थी तरुण अग्रवाल ने प्रोटेस्ट के तहत 27 जनवरी 2015 को भुगतान कर दिया। आयोग ने भी 6 फरवरी 2015 वांछित सूचना की सत्यापित प्रतिलिपि उपलब्ध करा दी। जब प्रार्थी ने आयोग से साक्ष्य अधिनियम के तहत वांछित फीस के बारे में पूछा की दो पेज की जानकारी के 14 रूपये का भुगतान कैसे लिया गया तो आयोग ने कोई जवाब नहीं दिया तो तरुण अग्रवाल ने साक्ष्य अधिनियम के तहत निर्धारित फीस नहीं लेने की शिकायत फोरम को दी।

 

 

NEWS PUBLISHED, CLICK AT BELOW LINK :-

 

à¤*ारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम के तहत सूचना के लिए ज्यादा वसूली पर राजस्थान सूचना आयोग को अजमेर कंज्यू

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koteswararaonerella

evidence act cannot be asubstitute of RTI act-2005 as both are meant for different purposes. evidence arises in courts and quassy judicial enquiries and those who are summoned can only give evidence while RTI any citizen seek information public authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

The enactment and adoption of the Indian Evidence Act was a path-breaking judicial measure introduced in India, which changed the entire system of concepts pertaining to admissibility of evidences in the Indian courts of law. Until then, the rules of evidences were based on the traditional legal systems of different social groups and communities of India and were different for different people depending on caste, religious faith and social position. The Indian Evidence Act introduced a standard set of law applicable to all Indians.

 

The law is mainly based upon the firm work by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, who could be called the founding father of this comprehensive piece of legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skmishra1970

In 1872 there was no any law like RTI Act under which certified copy of any documents can be asked and may be used either in Court or before any administrative officer to prove our correctness.

 

But at present, Evidence Act may be old, but I can use any documents certified copy of which is recd. either under Evidence Act or under RTI Act, not only this e-mail communication, SMS etc also is an authentic mode of communication acceptable in the court of law.

 

The discussion matter is - before 2005, there was only one law - Evidence Act under which certified copy can be asked and u/s 74 and 76 nowhere it is mentioned that this certified copy can be used only in the court of law, while at present, certified copy received under RTI is also acceptable in the court of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Congratulations for new idea, let us explore and use this. We may get them or not get them but nothing to sacrifice in following a new trend. Let us welcome good thoughts from all directions with open hands and open heart and try to explore them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Thanks for pointing this out.

 

I have been trying to tell all and sundry that RTI Act is nothing new....it only formalises a process of seeking information AND that even before the RTI Act, citizens could get the information they wanted from a public authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Have not NCDRC decided in Sholapur Court case, that non providing of certified copy of judgment (even when their own xerox machine was out of order) ruled that not providing certified copy after collecting fees amounts to deficiency of Service ?

Further payment of consideration for services is the only requirement for consumer complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Mr.Calcenjobs,

 

Please be kind enough to provide essence of attachment in main post, enabling the option to members view/download/skip the attachment on the basis of contents given in essence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
callcenjobs

Dear Prasad sir,

 

The essence in its totality is clearly mentioned in the orders of honble CIC.

 

I will try to do my best to elucidate the same.

 

CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
callcenjobs

1) The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision and, sometimes, the weight that may be given to that evidence. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation.

The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered. This includes such concepts as hearsay, authentication, admissibility, reasonable doubt, and clear and convincing evidence.

There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, ordemonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).

When a dispute, whether relating to a civil or criminal matter, reaches the court there will always be a number of issues which one party will have to prove in order to persuade the court to find in his or her favour. The law must ensure certain guidelines are set out in order to ensure that evidence presented to the court can be regarded as trustworthy.

The Indian Evidence Act,[1] originally passed by the Imperial Legislative Council in 1872, during the British Raj, contains a set of rules and allied issues governing admissibility of evidence in the Indian courts of law.

 

2) The Right to Information Act (RTI) is an Act of the Parliament of India "to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens" and replaces the erstwhile Freedom of information Act, 2002. The Act applies to all States and Union Territories of India except Jammu & Kashmir. Under the provisions of the Act, any citizen may request information from a "public authority" (a body of Government or "instrumentality of State") which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days. The Act also requires every public authority to computerise their records for wide dissemination and to proactively certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for information formally. This law was passed by Parliament on 15 June 2005 and came fully into force on 12 October 2005. The first application was given to a Pune police station. Information disclosure in India was restricted by the Official Secrets Act 1923 and various other special laws, which the new RTI Act relaxes. It codifies a fundamental right of citizens.

 

Central Government Act

 

3) Section 22 in The Right To Information Act, 2005

22. Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 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.

 

4) The honble IC has clearly indicated

i) Section 4(1) (d) does not apply to a judicial proceedings conducted by a Court or a Tribunal as it refers only to administrative and quasi-judicial decisions of public authorities.

ii) The non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the Right to Information Act does not,repeal or substitute any pre-existing law including the provisions of the Income Tax Act concerning dissemination of information

iii) The appellant cannot take recourse to the RTI Act to challenge a judicial decision regarding disclosure of a given set of information, which properly belonged to the jurisdiction of that judicial authority. If the appellant is aggrieved with the decision of the ITAT, the remedy lies elsewhere.

iv) It is reiterated and made clear that the RTI Act is not intended to come into conflict with a judicial decision regarding disclosure of information. Section 8(1)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 makes it very clear that the information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal cannot be

disclosed as any such disclosure is also within the exemption clause.

v) In a recent decision High Court of Madras in The Suprintendent, High Court Vs. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Information Commission and M. Sivaraj has held that “ 18. Therefore, Section 22 of the RTI Act cannot undoubtedly override Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.” The reading of the non obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act has to be so interpreted that preamble and enabling provisions of the RTI Act will be given plentiful and bountiful meaning

only when there is no statutory bar of any kind in providing the

information. The rule of Construction demands that so long as the provisions exist in the Statutes, they have to be given effect to by harmonious construction. Both the statutes will be allowed to have the space without contradicting each other. In the given facts, Para 14 and Para 15 of the 2007 procedure cannot be overwritten

by the RTI Act 2005 as it occupies the field in the way other subordinate legislations occupy the field. The Commission is also in agreement with the averments made by the CPIO that irrespective of the fact that the application is accepted or rejected by the Settlement Commission, it does not alter the character of the information.

 

 

5) In CIC decision CIC/AT/A/2009/000755, it has been held as follows:¬

Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act states that certified copies of public documents including public records of private documents shall be accepted as original evidence in courts of law and shall be presumed to be true

 

From this, it is quite obvious that certified copy has a definitive meaning as a legal expression defined in the Indian Evidence Act. The use of this expression in the RTI Act cannot be disconnected from its original meaning as contained in the Indian Evidence Act. It follows from it that the eligibility of an RTI-applicant to take certified copies of any information will have to conform to the definition of certified copy in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act and can relate only to such documents as mentioned in Section 74, i.e. public documents.

Section 2(j)(ii) of RTI Act speaks of an applicant’s right to “taking notes, extracts or certified copies...”. These workings make it clear that each mode of disclosure of information, viz. “notes”, “extracts” or “certified copies” is separate and independent. IT follows from it that,

given the type of documents demanded by an applicant, he shall be provided “extracts”, “notes”

or “certified copies” depending upon the nature of the documents, his right to take “certified

copies” has to be decided in terms of documents which are liable to be given out as “certified

copies” consistent with the definition of this expression as found in the Indian Evidence Act

(Sections 74, 76 and 79). “Certified Copies” is an exact legal expression and cannot be used

loosely as ‘attestation of documents’ or ‘true copy’ of any document. It is noteworthy that Section

2(j) of RTI Act does not authorize an applicant to receive “attested true copies” of a document but

only its “extracts”, besides allowing him to “take notes”. Since certified copies can be given out

only for certain category of documents as listed in the Evidence Act, it follows, that for all other

categories of documents, a citizen can only claim “extracts” or “notes” and not their “certification” as “true copy”.

 

 

6) It has to be kept in mind that each act has to be given harmonious interpretation keeping in mind the "mimansa" principles of interpretation . we may read the following blog for more details

 

SATYAM BRUYAT - Justice Katju : The Mimansa Principles of Interpretation — II

 

7) The beauty of both acts is that they complement each other in a way that it is only possible to give a "harmonious" interpretation to each act as "none" of them have "non-obstanate" clauses. Hence although the evidence act is 1872 and the rti act is much later, "evidence" helps to lay the foundation of "justice" and the RTI act sets to codify "justice" in the form of "evidence". They cannot be substituted, but cannot live without each other in an "ideal world".

 

CJ

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Mr Calcenjobs,

Do not misunderstand me. I feel those members who are interested only opens attachment as decision runs to several pages.

The caption, essence in one sentence is essential to create interest and give the option of reading the decision or not to members. Unless one reads entire decision, member may not know the essence and after all this exercise, the matter might have been known to him long back.

It is not again required to mention every thing about/in decision in post and simple sentence like the following.

 

Appellant's right to Certified copies and non-obstante clause in RTI Act vis a vis Indian Evidence Act (Sec.2f)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
callcenjobs

ok sir, I was only trying to explain the matter. since the topic is quite interesting.

 

I will keep in mind.

 

Thanks

 

CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skmishra1970

Please do not go in more deep, main purpose of discussions was whether citizen can get certified copy through Evidence Act on payment of certain legal fee, just similer to RTI Act by paying Fee and Further fee. It is well know that RTI Act is a later and version of Evidence Act with some latest and with some more clarification like from whom info. can be asked, quantam of fee, time limit for supply of info. and appeals etc. etc. but this is missing in Evidence Act. Although Certified copy received under Evidence Act for any public documents is more valuable compared to RTI document.

 

We all information seeker have no additional remedy if we choose RTI route, it would be interesting to see whether Consumer Forum accepting its jurisdiction if certified copy of any public document not supplied even after part payment of fee and promise to pay balance fee. If we success, it would be great achivment for info seeker and make accountable to any authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Just out of curiosity and genuine interest to know:

Is future consideration payable not consideration under CP Act ?

Is Sholapur NCDRC decision not enough (Seeking certified copy of court judgment) to show issue jurisdiction ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skmishra1970

Mr. GLN Prasad,

 

Whether Applicant for certified copy under Evidence Act, would be treated as a Consumer ?

 

Section 2(1)(d) of The C.P. Act 1986 provides -

"consumer" means any person who—

 

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any

commercial purpose; or

 

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;

 

As per above defination,persons who 'paid' or 'promised' or 'partly paid' and 'partly promised', is covered under the comprehensive defination of 'Consumer'.

 

Simply If any citizen paid Rs. 10/-, 20/- or 50/- as part payment with Request under Evidence Act and promise to pay balance fee applicable for such service under any system of deferred payment (i.e. u/s 76 of Evidence Act), I think it is covered under the defination of Consumer.

 

Please refer Full Bench (4 member) of Hon’ble National Commission in R.P. No. 2135 of 2000 (in Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone Vs. Supreintendent, Civil Court) decided on 08-07-2002 in which it has been held that -

 

11. Any person who pays money as the price or cost of goods and service is covered under the comprehensive definition of the word 'consumer'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

This promise of payment of consideration is my point and it need not be paid in full .

"(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, "

 

The other point of Sholapur court case of certified copy of judgment and delay in delivery was already decided by NCDRC as deficiency of services.

 

I am in agreement and have the same point of view and reiterated the stand further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
callcenjobs

Dear Mishra sir,

 

It is a well established fact that the hon'ble has categorically removed "deficiency of services under the RTI act" from its ambit, hence it would be a difficult if not a completly impossible feat to bring the fact of "only fees" under the ambit of the consumer court.

 

CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

R/all, i have no knowledge about CP Act so i could not discuss but today i have started to read CP Act!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koteswararaonerella

As rightly said by Mr.prasad any payment including RTI fee made by any applicant makes him eligible to be a consumer for protection under the Act.

But main thread is EVIDENCE ACT 1872 deals how to collect information from WITNESSES during process of cases in the courts only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

With due apologies,

I have never said now after Pundalika Judgment by NCDRC that RTI fee can be treated as consideration under CP Act.

Coming to Evidence Act, evidences must be collected well in advance before initiating litigation, as litigant has to prove prima facie evidence for initiating a litigation, and to convince his own Advocate. Though the enactment was done in 1872, several common citizens never bothered to use this as a tool to seek/get information and may be most of the Advocates are not aware of this facility even out of the Court proceedings.

The essence is that one can get required information on record from Public Authority through IEA also in addition to RTI. As every citizen that seeks information need not enter into litigation, RTI is cheapest and most powerful weapon time wise, cost wise, process wise as it is within reach of every common man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skmishra1970

Despite the Govt. order dated 28-4-2015 to State Info. Commission Punjab, I have not received certified copy of the information, hence on 1st June 2015 Notice under C.P. Act has been sent by Speed Post to PS DGR Punjab, Surinder Awasthi SIC Punjab and CO o/o Surinder Awasthi SIC Pb. giving 30 days time to supply certified copy of that Section of Law (RTI Act 2005) or Rules made thereunder empowering SIC Punjab to ban Info seeker to use RTI in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koteswararaonerella

WITH due respects to SKMisra and Sri Karira picture only when some one given EVIDENCE BEFORE A COURT or Commission and there you can get a copy but in all other normal cases of activity in govt.offices you cannot get such INFORMATION under Evidence act which has NO RELAVENVCE THERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skmishra1970

भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम 1872 के तहत पब्लिक दस्तावेज की सत्यापित प्रतिलिपि उपलब्ध नहीं करवाने पर अजमेर कंज्यूमर फोरम द्वारा राजस्थान माध्यमिक शिक्षा बोर्ड को नोटिस जारी।

 

 

 

आम आदमी के जानने के हक़ पर संज्ञान लेते हुए राजस्थान के अजमेर कंज्यूमर फोरम ने परिवाद संख्या 321 ऑफ़ 2015 को स्वीकार करते हुए प्रतिपक्ष माध्यमिक शिक्षा बोर्ड राजस्थान के सचिव को भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम 1872 के तहत पब्लिक दस्तावेज की सत्यापित प्रतिलिपि उपलब्ध नहीं करवाने पर 23 नवम्बर 2015 के लिए नोटिस जारी किया है (Notice Copy enclosed)

 

ज्ञात हो की उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम 1986 की धारा 2(1)(ओ) में वर्णित सूचना या खबर के संग्रहण एवं इसकी सप्प्लाई को एक सेवा माना गया है। लेकिन उपरोक्त सेवा हासिल कराने वाली सम्बंधित क़ानून - सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 को कंज्यूमर फोरम को अधिग्रहण से इंकार कर दिया ये कहते हुए की - उपरोक्त क़ानून में आपके अधिकार के संरक्षण के लिए सूचना आयोग बनाया गया है आप उनके पास ही अपनी शिकायत लेकर जाएँ एवं सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 23 में कोर्ट को शिकायत सुनने से मना किया गया है और हम एक कोर्ट ही हैं। 8 जनवरी 2015 को राष्ट्रीय उपभोक्ता आयोग नई दिल्ली के तीन मेंबर बेंच ने भी उपरोक्त कथन पर अपनी मुहर लगाते हुए पुनरीक्षण याचिका संख्या 3146 ऑफ़ 2012 सहित कुल छः याचिकाओं को खारिज कर दिया। जिससे आमजन का "जानने का हक़" उपभोक्ता क़ानून के किताबों में दफ़न होकर रह गया।

 

फ़ेस2न्यूज लगातार इसपर अपनी नजर रखते हुए इसके हर पहलु को आमजन तक पहुंचाया है। 21 अगस्त 2015 के अंक में फ़ेस2न्यूज ने अपने लेख

 

August 21, 2015 11:59 AM

…तो क्या आमजन का उपभोक्ता अधिकार "जानने का हक़" दफ़न कर दिया जाएगा? में आमजन के "जानने के हक़" का विस्तृत विश्लेषण किया और बताया की ये अधिकार किस तरह से हमारे संविधान निर्माताओं ने मुझे दिए है। यही नहीं क़ानून निर्माताओं में इसे एक उपभोक्ता अधिकार "सूचित होने के अधिकार" के रूप में हमें प्रदान किये है, जब हमारे क़ानून निर्माताओं को ये आभास हो गया कालान्तर में आमजन सूचित नहीं भी हो सकते है तो उन्हें सूचना मांगने का हक़ दिया गया और इस प्रक्रिया को 2(1)(ओ) में समावेशित कर दिया। ये भी बताया गया की - विधि निर्माताओं ने तो अपना काम कर दिया लेकिन अब जब बारी आई उन अधिकारियों की जिनके ऊपर उपरोक्त अधिकारों को सुनिश्चित करने की जिम्मेवारी है तो वे इसे आमजन को देने में किस तरह गुरेज कर रहे है।

 

फ़ेस2न्यूज ने पुनः 6 सितम्बर 2015 को अपने अगले लेख सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 से निराश है तो आजमायें भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम 1872 में बताया की - अगर आप सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 से निराश है? यदि इसके तहत आपको वांछित सूचना नहीं मिल पाई? सूचना आयोग ने भी आपको समुचित राहत नहीं दी बल्कि आपकी अपील को ही खरिज कर दी? तो निराश मत होईये,अगली बार आप सूचना मांगने के लिये सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 को नहीं बल्कि भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम 1872 को आजमाईये। क्योंकि भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम 1872 की धारा 76 मे यह प्रावधान है कि आप लीगल फीस देकर किसी भी जन अधिकारी से उनके पास उपलब्ध किसी भी पब्लिक दस्तावेज की सत्यापित प्रतिलिपि मांग सकते है। इस अधिनियम में आरटीआई की तरह शिकायत सुनने के लिए न तो कोई आयोग बनाया गया है और न ही किसी कोर्ट या ट्रिब्यूनल को शिकायत सुनने से मना किया गया है।

 

उपरोक्त कानूनी बातों को समझते हुए अजमेर फोरम ने शिकायतकर्ता तरुण अग्रवाल की शिकायत पर आमजन के जानने के हक़ पर संज्ञान लेते हुए प्रतिपक्ष यानि राजस्थान माध्यमिक शिक्षा बोर्ड को भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम के तहत सत्यापित प्रतिलिपि नहीं देने पर सेवा में कमी मानते हुए 23 नवम्बर 2015 के लिए नोटिस जारी कर दिया। उम्मीद करते है की देश के अन्य फोरम भी आमजन के जानने के हक़ को क़ानून की किताबों में दफ़न नहीं होने देंगे और साक्ष्य अधिनियम के तहत उनको इस अधिकार का प्रयोग करने में उनकी मदद करेंगे।

 

to see Complete News Published at Face2News.com, click the link below :-

 

सत्यापित प्रतिलिपि न देने पर राजस्थान माध्यमिक शिक्षा बोर्ड को नोटिस

Notice by Ajmer Forum.jpg

Edited by skmishra1970

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Kindly post a brief in English, as I have to contribute some thing. (This is not new and there is NCDRC decision on some certified copy of judgment not delivering ..(May be sholapur case)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • manjoo
      By manjoo
      Is RTI my fundamental rights? Is there a chance that Government can take away my fundamental rights? What I mean is if there is a change in Government can a new Government take away my fundamental rights like Right to Information.
    • njit
      By njit
      Hello,
       
      In the past during CIC hearing when I insisted that action be taken against FAA, I was told that RTI Act does not have such provision.
       
      But in the light of RTI Rules 2012 can the prayer that "action be taken against FAA" be ignored?
       
      I am referring to rule 11(iv) and 11(vi) of the RTI Rules 2012.
       
      Please elaborate with CIC decisions/ High court judgements.
       
      Thanks and Regards.

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy