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
  • 0
avdhesh

Can I know what advice the cabinet has given to the President?

Question

avdhesh

This is a nice place for getting information regarding right to Information. I had one question as of now:

Can I know what advice the Cabinet has given to president and also is it possible to know the correspondence between President and Ministry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Shrawan

No. It is only after the decision is made by the cabinet, that you will be able to know. But that too with many riders:

1. You will get so much material which constitute the basis for the cabinet decision.

2. If the subject matter relates to matter not permissible to be disclosed otherwise under any provision of law under this Act, the particulars cannot be disclosed to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
aparna
You will get so much material which constitute the basis for the cabinet decision.

 

What do you mean by this? Does it mean that we cannot have full access to cabinet decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Shrawan

Yes! The citizen is entitled to know not all what is called the Cabinet Papers but only so much of material which constitute the basis for the cabinet decision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Yogi M. P. Singh

Hon'ble member-Whatever information can be sought by legislatures from public authority same information can be sought by citizens under subsection 1 of section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005 from public authority.

 

Sent from RTI INDIA Mobile App

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
RAVEENA_O

No. You cannot get the advice given by the Ministers to the President of India, much less under RTI Act. Article-74(2) of the Constitution of India provides that any and what advice was tendered by the Ministers shall not be inquired into. RTI Act cannot override the provisions of Constitution of India.

 

What is 'cabinet'?. Where is it defined in the Constitution of India?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Yogi M. P. Singh

Those information which can't be denied to parliament or state legislatures shall not be denied to Information seekers under transparency act as quoted in section 8(1) J of Right to Information Act 2005.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
koteswararaonerella

Your point of discussion appear to be TRUE but there are CHECKS And BALANCES and we cannot only see RTI Act,2005 and its provisions and what Constitution says is also need to be taken into consideration.What Raveenaji said is Correct to the best of my knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Please remember as to what happened when one RTI Applicant solicited information of PM's recommendation on declaration of emergency reports (PM Indira Gandhi regime) even after 20 years ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Yogi M. P. Singh
Your point of discussion appear to be TRUE but there are CHECKS And BALANCES and we cannot only see RTI Act,2005 and its provisions and what Constitution says is also need to be taken into consideration.What Raveenaji said is Correct to the best of my knowledge.
Hon'ble Member-my view point which appears to be true is Undoubtedly true. If you have any confusion may take the perusal of aforesaid section,.This is my humble request to senior member of this forum to quote what actually says aforesaid article. Under Right to Information Act 2005,nothing is exempted from disclosure if matter is concerned with allegation of corruption, human rights violations or in larger public interest requires to be disclosed. Our citizenry wants to know what is going on in the system and transparency act provides such facility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

Please read this detailed decision of the CIC FULLY !

It covers all aspects of the points being discussed in this thread and even more.

 

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2013_001798_M_127802.pdf

 

(You will have to open the "cached copy" since rti.india.gov.in is not working for quite a few days)

 

Note: This is a very old thread and the last post was in Sep 2006, till a new post was made today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
RAVEENA_O
Those information which can't be denied to parliament or state legislatures shall not be denied to Information seekers under transparency act as quoted in section 8(1) J of Right to Information Act 2005.

 

According to you, which is supreme - the Constitution of India or the RTI Act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Yogi M. P. Singh
According to you, which is supreme - the Constitution of India or the RTI Act?
Article 74 (2) in the constitution of India 1949

(2)-The question whether any, and if so what advice was tendered by ministers to the president shall not be enquired into in any court.

Whether this provision of constitution of India bars court to entertain such conversations or intended to keep confidential the conversation. These conversations can't be subjected to scrutiny of court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

"The provision that "information that can be given to the Parliament can be given to the application is meaning less. The commission has not accepted it even once. In this case, if even asked for cause and reason which is not allowed in the Act (02/IC/(a)/CIC/2006 dt 22.02.06

(Extract of decision - not of this member)

 

@yogesh

Penalty can be imposed on all officers, not only PIOs. An officer whose assistance has been taken under Se. 5(5) by the PIO may be penalized if he fails to provide such assistance (adjunct CIC/WB/2006/000018 dt. 28.09.2006)

(CIC extract - not individual opinion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
RAVEENA_O
Article 74 (2) in the constitution of India 1949

(2)-The question whether any, and if so what advice was tendered by ministers to the president shall not be enquired into in any court.

 

Whether this provision of constitution of India bars court to entertain such conversations or intended to keep confidential the conversation. These conversations can't be subjected to scrutiny of court.

 

 

When Article 74(2) of the Constitution applies and bars disclosure, information cannot be furnished. RTI Act cannot and does not have the ability and mandate to negate the constitutional protection under Article 74(2). The said Article refers to inquiry by courts but will equally apply to CIC.

 

Seven Judges of the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta and others Vs. President of India and others (AIR 1982 SC 149) have examined and interpreted Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. The majority view of six Judges is elucidated in the judgment of Bhagwati, J. in para 55 onwards. It was observed that the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to whether any and if so what advice was tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President.

 

Since such advice is beyond the purview of judicial scrutiny, there shall also be no remedy in case of denial.

 

We only give suggestions. You may file an RTI Application and get the experience and share the practical regime with our members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
koteswararaonerella

Anyway the posts above by Kariraji has answered the point.

Coming to my post that your comments appear to be true but there are CHECKS and BALANCES I am to add a simple point Sec8(1)(h) authorise the PIO/CPIO to reject the INFORMATION if it "IT IMPEDES THE INVESTIGATION,APPREHENSION, PROSECUTION" which is mostly meant for CBI/POLICE but all the CPIOs are using this even in DEPARTMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS which are DOMESTIC and not involving any PROSECUTION/APPREHENSION.They are citing the same as reasons U/S 4(1)(d).Suppose of the state legislature/Parliment ask the particular department to tell who are the officials ahgainst whom the investigations is going on and what are the allegations/charges, the PIO/CPIO will have to GIVE but he is DENYING TO US.But RTI says the INFORMATION which cannot be denied to legislature/parliament should not be denied to the Citizen.Thus PIO/CPIO is only taking temporary shelter under 8(1)(h0 eventhough his denial is INCORRECT and he thinks let him go to FAA or CIC then we will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Yogi M. P. Singh
When Article 74(2) of the Constitution applies and bars disclosure, information cannot be furnished. RTI Act cannot and does not have the ability and mandate to negate the constitutional protection under Article 74(2). The said Article refers to inquiry by courts but will equally apply to CIC.

 

Seven Judges of the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta and others Vs. President of India and others (AIR 1982 SC 149) have examined and interpreted Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. The majority view of six Judges is elucidated in the judgment of Bhagwati, J. in para 55 onwards. It was observed that the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to whether any and if so what advice was tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President.

 

Since such advice is beyond the purview of judicial scrutiny, there shall also be no remedy in case of denial.

 

We only give suggestions. You may file an RTI Application and get the experience and share the practical regime with our members.

Hon'ble Raveena Ji information commissions are quasi-judicial bodies. Here courts means whose function is secured under the provision of independence of judiciary. Here provision of constitution only shields the interaction between ministers and president from interference of judiciary as obvious from your quotes. These conversations don't come under the ambit of courts. This is sheer corruption in the system and incompetency which compels the accountable functionary to misinterpret the law. Architect of constitution never guessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
koteswararaonerella

There appears to be multiple threads/posts

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
Answer this question...

×   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

    • sngupta
      By sngupta
      From the day start the RTI is not getting favour of so many person and so many persons trying to get it modified. Actually these fellows are the real criminals having good set up at present. Some time this man will in `Q` he will feel need of RTI. In my opinion if the retirement age in Govt services have been done 55 years no will oppose the RTI. The fellows who is sitting in Govt. so long is only interested to effective implementation and they are in position to purchase these politicians also. I am sorry to say that there is a provision in constitution that any group B or above officer recruitted before age of 35 must retire on age of 55 and rest all on age of 58. The retirement age of class IV was 60 from very begining. The beaurocrats are so much power ful person who made these politician foolish and made the age of retirement from 55 to 60. I am seeking the opinion of other fellows if they are supporting my opinion that to run the fair Govt it is neede to refresh the Govt. At present our independence is only to elect the 545 MP`s or MLA`s. The beuracrats having such a talent to manage the elected MP`s and MLA`s. The real indepence is only there must be fast change in beuracrats also. 20 to 25 years is to be allowed to work in Govt.
    • sidmis
      By sidmis
      Calcutta, Oct. 14; The government has admitted that the minutes of a cabinet meeting cannot be kept secret and ordinary citizens have a right to know them.
       
      Co-operation secretary Rajiv Sinha, the appellate authority of his department in matters relating to the Right to Information Act, 2005, has instructed the state’s principal information officer to provide an information on a cabinet decision, a request that had been turned down earlier.
       
      This is the first time such an instruction has been given in Bengal under the 2005 law.
       
      “We had sought an information on March 30 regarding the procedures in the re-appointment of retired IAS officer N.G. Chakraborty as the registrar of co-operative societies,” said R. Agarwal, a Delhi resident and right to information crusader.
       
      The principal information officer of the department, H.P. Roy, informed Agarwal on April 30 that the government could not provide the details of the appointment as the decision was taken in a cabinet meeting chaired by the chief minister.
       
      The officer also told Agarwal that as the proceedings of cabinet meetings were classified information, they did not come under the purview of the right to information act.
       
      Agarwal challenged the reply and moved the appellate authority, Sinha, for a hearing. Sinha ruled that the principal information officer’s decision was not correct and that Agarwal should be provided with a copy of the minutes of the meeting.
       
      “We checked and found that we had committed a mistake in denying Agarwal the copy of the minutes earlier,” said Sinha.
       
      He also admitted that procedures were not followed while re-appointing Chakraborty.
       
      An official said Agarwal’s questions to the co-operation department had pointed to irregularities while re-appointing Chakraborty after his retirement on January 31, 2006.
       
      “Chakraborty was re-appointed for a year, but some basic procedures like issuing a gazette notification were not followed.”
       
      Right to information crusaders in the city said the case proves that officials handling the information act in the state are ill informed.
       

      SOUMEN BHATTACHARJEE
      The Telegraph - Calcutta : Bengal


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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