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
D.T.RATHAVA

landmark judgment for deleted voters name to voter list

Recommended Posts

D.T.RATHAVA

hon/commissioner directed to pio (chief election officer)to pay compensation to appellant for not given any response to his RTI application within stipulated*time limit

CIC_SA_C_2015_000157_M_160487 voterlist.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

with due respects, Is this all required under RTI--16 pages decision on deemed denial...a Lecture by a Professor.....Has PIO has the time to read and understand the implications and ponder whether such big lecture is required only when the simple query is provided with response from PIO within statutory stipulated period.

Due to this, several citizens misunderstand IC, and may even think that he is showing his command over the subject and teachnical jargon when it is not required in a simple issue to decide whether information was provided or not . (Remember PA officials know about the trend of his decisions, and they have not even cared to attend hearing, but I could not find such mention of their absence as serious by Hon IC)

 

Further, kindly note that Hon IC has ordered PIO to provide information, though it is a complaint and also ordered for inquiry. (is this not violation of SC decision in Union of india Vs.Sikkim Govt)

So even this apex court judgment that complainant has no right for information is ignored. I have yet to see his prayers before IC for information as to whether appellant has sought information or not through his complaint.

 

Experts, Hon IC SA has opened a Pandora's box by ordering for providing of information against a complaint, and many ICs are not mentioning the prayers made in appeals/complaints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
(is this not violation of SC decision in Union of india Vs.Sikkim Govt)

 

Just one technical correction....the SC judgment was State of Manipur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Hon. Karira , and other experts:

Please provide your opinion on the Law Professor's decision with specific reference to his order for providing information on complaint to CIC."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Although the order is "noble", it is against the SC judgment that you mentioned (State of Manipur).

Information Commissioner has no powers to order disclosure of information while deciding a complaint.

 

That SC judgment was infact also incorrect, but no one challenged it - so it stands as it is. Whether wrong or right, everyone has to abide by that judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANOTHER - AIR 2012 SC 864 has held that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power under Section 18 to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. Remedy for such person, who has been refused information is provided under Section 19 of the Act. Nature of power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas procedure under Section 19 is appellate procedure and a person, who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving information, which he has sought for can only seek redress in manner provided in statute, namely, by following procedure under Section 19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rameshverma
Although the order is "noble", it is against the SC judgment that you mentioned (State of Manipur).

Information Commissioner has no powers to order disclosure of information while deciding a complaint.

 

That SC judgment was infact also incorrect, but no one challenged it - so it stands as it is. Whether wrong or right, everyone has to abide by that judgment.

 

The Ld. IC has decided the issue under the illusion as if he has the mandate of a Constitutional Court (like HC/SC) constituted for enforcing statutory rights of citizens. Besides his erudite legal acumen, he chose to indulge in judicial indescipline by ruling against the law settled by Hon'ble SC in the judgment quoted in earlier part of this thread. He should have restricted himself to decide the issue of imposition of penalty or recommending desciplinary action against the PIO as is the mandate of Section 18 while deciding a complaint. It is rather curious that he, apart from directing providing of information, proceeded to award compensation while deciding the instant complaint which clearly is beyond his authority as compensation can only be awarded while deciding an appeal under Section 19. This decision, by all means, is illegal and it can not stand test of scrutiny before a superior court even in the first hearing. May good sense prevail on the Ld. IC.

 

I am also unable to fathom the approach of PIO in not responding to the the RTI query. The PIO simply should have supplied the relevant provision of RP Act and Rules, as they are existing on the Statute, in relation to deletion of names from the voter list and any reason in this specific case, if held in material form. Matter would have ended there and if carried in appeal or complaint before IC, his apprroach was bound to succeed. This, I say in the capacity of acting as a PIO for the last 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

R/rameshverma sir is totally right as this decision, by all means, is illegal and it can not stand test of scrutiny before a superior court even in the first hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

I am also unable to fathom the approach of PIO in not responding to the the RTI query. The PIO simply should have supplied the relevant provision of RP Act and Rules, as they are existing on the Statute, in relation to deletion of names from the voter list and any reason in this specific case, if held in material form. Matter would have ended there and if carried in appeal or complaint before IC, his apprroach was bound to succeed. This, I say in the capacity of acting as a PIO for the last 10 years.

 

The reason for PIO not replying is not so simple.....

EROs have outsourced the updation of electoral rolls. That is where political parties use "inducements" to block out voters en masse. That is where also mistakes are made.

Both the outsourcing of such work and the inducements are illegal and disclosing information would have brought that to light.

Hence, the PIO chose simply not to reply.

 

(I came to know all this from our member Late Mr Sharad Phadke. He was diligently following up on the large numbers of voters deleted, including himself, in Pune & Mumbai during the last Lok Sabha & Assembly elections in Maharashtra. Unfortunately there is no one after him to carry on his good work on this issue).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

The same procedure was adopted by AP Govt in weeding out white ration cards (below poverty line). When there is a programme involving several officials with door to door survey and preparation of display etc., involving huge funds, without strictly adhering to that plan, they have disclosed their pass words to Ration Shop owners, and in turn they have passed it on to internet centers and gave the list to be weeded out and thus thousands of cards were deleted, without any record or reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrilliantsSingh

Appreciate you Sir for bringing this to us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

They will not compensate the applicant and will file W.P. against the order of IC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Hon IC knows that and so he has given umpteen number of citations and authority can never go to HC, as they may also pass strictures as decision was so pucca to make it a land mark decision.

Now they will circulate this information to all their state counterparts and ask them to avoid such kind of problems. They have already done and what IC has stated is the procedure laid down by them only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Two threads on the same subject have been merged.

 

REQUEST TO ALL MEMBERS

 

Before starting a new thread PLEASE make sure that the same subject is not there in a existing thread.

 

It is very easy to post a new thread saying , Moderator will find the old thread and merge it.

It takes the Moderator nearly 3 minutes to merge two threads, after finding the old thread.

 

If any members memory is not good, please take the help of your "best friend" - Google !

 

Personally, if all of you help me in saving 3 minutes, the beneficiary will be some new RTI query poster, whom I can then guide for those 3 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sppataskar

A very good order passed by the CIC which will serve as guide for the voters as the summary revision of Electoral Rolls is going on.

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

    • sidmis
      By sidmis
      A huge electoral fraud involving tampering of the voters’ list and census figures, as well as wilfully distorting the procedure for reservation of electoral wards, has been unearthed in the Pune Cantonment Board (PCB).
       
      This puts under a cloud the future of the poll process under which residents of the cantonment are to exercise their democratic right in local governance after a gap of 10 years.
       
      The PCB has been accused of suppressing facts related to the 2001 census figures and provision for reservation of wards for candidates belonging to the schedule casts and schedule tribes (SCs/STs).
      In reply to an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by former PCB vice-president Krishna Divekar, the PCB in September stated that the number of SCs/STs in Pune Camp are 8,061 out of the total population of 79,965 or 10.08% of the total figures. Of these, SCs are 7,719 and STs form 342.
       
      The highest number of SCs/STs is in ward number six (1,932), followed by ward number four (1,693) and ward number five (1,427).
      In contradiction to the Cantonments Electoral Rule 2007 and the Cantonments Acts 2006, which directs that wards with the highest number of reserved category voters should be earmarked for reservation, the PCB had on September 21 notified ward number four, having reserved voters less than number six, as reserved for SC candidates.
       
      Asseem Sheikh - activist and cantonment laws expert - said the board has blatantly violated the rule of law clearly specified in the books. "By violating the rules, the PCB has wilfully deprived the weaker sections from exercising their rights envisaged under the laws," said Sheikh, who has a copy of the reply sent under the RTI to Divekar. Divekar is seriously ill and is in hospital.
       
      The PCB refused to furnish data sought by Sheikh under the RTI relating to data and maps provided to the board by the Directorate of Census Bureau in Mumbai. "The board told Divekar that the census office has supplied them with figures of 91 enumeration blocks in the cantonment which has a total 146 blocks. Twenty more are in the military area, while nothing is mentioned about the rest," he said.
       
      According to him, the board multiplied the official figure of 8,061 by hundred before bifurcation and reservation of wards, while the census rules state that reserved category figures cannot be bifurcated, unlike the overall population figure. "Besides, the census maps and local block figures are classified under government rule and no local body can access them.
       
      My queries to the board have not been answered more than a month after I sought them under RTI," said Sheikh.
       
      At the same time, the PCB gave a very different explanation to former PCB member Shashi Puram when he sought the same details regarding SCs/STs voters. "In reply to my RTI appeal, the board replied on November 13 that no figures of SCs/STs voters in individual wards are available. This is totally different from what they told Divekar," said Puram.
       
      Interestingly, ward number six, which has highest SCs/STs voters, is the ward of PCB vice-president Vinod Mathurawala who would have lost his seat if the ward had been declared a reserved one. In addition, the legal validity of reserving the seat even before receiving the final electoral rolls notification, which came only this week, has also raised eyebrows in Camp.
       
      S.K. Sardana, PCB chief executive officer (CEO), accepted the argument of standard procedure of maximum SCs/STs population in reservation. "However, we rounded off the figure after only considering the additional ward number eight which has been newly created, while their argument is based on the old demarcations," he said.
       

      PUNE: 17 Nov 2007
      Pranjal Bhuyan,TNN


    • lohitl
      By lohitl
      It is really sad that we see Media saying the percentage of voter's who turned out for polling this time. However does media try to find out if that list is 100% Correct. Also I have tried writing emails to EC to understand how I could get my name in voters list. Government of India has given me Indian Passport, they want me to pay taxes on time (they give me PAN no and the government will come behind if u dont pay taxes), however I dont have the right to vote and make a difference the governance policies in my own country. It is the biggest irony of Democracy.
       
      If you can guide me so that i can atleast make a difference during next election it will be helpful.
       
      Lohit

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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