By Atul Patankar
As reported by CJ SUbhash Chandra Agarwal at merinews.com
THE CHIEF Justice of Delhi High Court AP Shah deserves compliments for his welcome initiative to rectify the wrong, by reviewing RTI rules at Delhi High Court which contradict the Right-To-Information Act as passed by the Parliament and given assent by the President of India. It is regrettable that the then competent authority at Delhi High Court allowed such rules which could even be tantamount to contempt of Parliament.
Administrative action is needed against those responsible for framing such rules at Delhi High Court which deprived users of the RTI Act from seeking information from Delhi High Court.
Observations by Justice AP Shah pleading for replacing the oath of secrecy into an oath of transparency making the judicial system accountable and transparent are worth appreciating. It is regretted that a judge with such noble thoughts could not be elevated to the Apex Court despite intervention by the Prime Minister’s Office. He has rightly observed the highlights of RTI Act in a judicial system like a check towards filing of false affidavits
Source : Delhi HC reviewing RTI rules
By Atul Patankar
As reported at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 13 March 2009
NEW DELHI: Should the assets of ministers and their kin be available for public scrutiny? The Central Information Commission (CIC) will take up the issue for consideration on Friday.
The controversial matter comes at a time when the Delhi High Court has overturned the CIC order for assets of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts to be made public.
Applicant Subhash Chandra Agarwal had demanded information related to the assets owned by Union ministers and their kin in the past two years.
Incidentally, the Prime Minister's Office had initially forwarded the application to the cabinet secretariat asking for information to be disclosed. In his appeal, Agarwal pointed out that in a letter on May 19, 2008, the PMO had provided details of assets and liabilities of Union ministers to cabinet secretariat to deal with such RTI applications. However, Agarwal was later informed by the PMO that the information sought was exempt under section 8 of the RTI Act.
After six months, PMO in a letter dated December 17, 2008, told Agarwal that the information sought could not be provided as it was exempt under the RTI Act. The PMO sought exemption under clauses 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) which relate to immunity granted to "documents fiduciary relationship" and "Cabinet documents" under the RTI Act.
Source: CIC to take up issue of making public assets of ministers & kin-India-The Times of India