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
karira

Debate over Right to Information Act

Recommended Posts

karira

As reported by Statesman News Service in thestatesman.net on 02 June 2008:

The Statesman

 

Debate over Right to Information Act

 

BHUBANESWAR, June 1: A seemingly innocuous note from the chief minister's office to the parliamentary affairs department requesting the concerned officer to seek views of the designated public information officer of the High Court has triggered a debate on whether it is a violation of statutory provisions under the Right to Information Act or not.

 

Reliable sources said Mr Janardhan Samantray, an applicant for information had requested for proceedings and procedure regarding consideration of appointment of Orissa High Court judges. His application was rejected by the concerned PIO. Mr Samantary moved an appeal to the appellate authority which in this case was an officer of the parliamentary affairs department.

 

Mr Samantray claimed that his appeal on grounds that the information sought for does not come under any exempt category was upheld by the appellate authority. But instead of providing the information or opting for procedures to set the order aside, the CMO advised the PIO of parliamentary affairs department to seek views of the PIO of Orissa High Court and act accordingly.

 

This is, in fact, a violation of the RTI Act, charged rights activist Mr Biswapriya Kanungo. The law is clear, once an order to provide necessary information is given by the concerned statutory authority, the options for the concerned office is to give the information or to challenge it before the information commission. One cannot adopt a mid path and say that providing the information will depend on the views of the PIO of the High Court, he remarked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sagginyou

who is RTI activist mr kanungo???

who has certified him as ACIVIST.....

how many RTI applications he has filed????

how many replies he has given..

i want these answers...

Can i file an RTI application before president of india

 

h

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
who is RTI activist mr kanungo???

who has certified him as ACIVIST.....

how many RTI applications he has filed????

how many replies he has given..

i want these answers...

Can i file an RTI application before president of india

 

h

 

1. You can get Mr Biswapriya's Kanungo's address from here:

http://orissasoochanacommission.nic.in/decisions/jul-sep06/d83_23_07_06.pdf

 

2. He will be able to directly clarify to you as to who certified him as an activist.

 

3. Regarding replies given, please ask him directly.

 

4. You can file your application to the Office of the President.

Do you know who is the PIO or do you want some member to find it for you ?

 

If you need help in drafting the application, please post your request in the section "Ask for a RTI query" and members will be glad to help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sidmis

>> He will be able to directly clarify to you as to who certified him as an activist.

 

 

I think instead of Biswapriya, this Question should be asked to the Statesman Editorial Team, why they have called Biswapriya an ACTIVIST and why they have left out other worthy contenders?

 

Sidharth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sagginyou

thanks dear

i would now always add the word activist whenever i file any RTI aplication, PIL, consumer court.....

SO i will very soon become RTI activist, PIL Activist, consumer activist, green activist, blue activist, air activist...so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
thanks dear

i would now always add the word activist whenever i file any RTI aplication, PIL, consumer court.....

SO i will very soon become RTI activist, PIL Activist, consumer activist, green activist, blue activist, air activist...so on.

 

That's really nice of you !

As long as you keep the French Beard type of activism out of it !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taurus

The PIO may be doing so under sec 11 of the Act {third party info}.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • momita
      By momita
      Eleven years after a lawyer sought details under the Right to Information Act from the Gujarat high court, the HC directed its public information officer (PIO) to furnish the details to the applicant.
      According to the commission's advocate, Shivang Shukla, an advocate, Kamlesh Bhavsar, had in 2007 sought information regarding appointment of judges to the Gujarat judiciary since 1990. The PIO supplied information regarding corruption charges against judicial officers and about their convictions within the time limit.

      However, the PIO refused to supply information on Bhavsar's request to furnish the names of all the judges - from the rank of judicial magistrate first class in the lower courts to the justices of the high court - appointed between 1990 and 2007. The PIO told the lawyer that he has asked for the information from the branches concernedand collating the details would take more time. He said he would supply information about the appointments as and when he got the details.

      On the PIO's refusal to part with the information at the same time, citing the delay in collating the details, Bhavsar filed an appeal before the state information commission, seeking a reply from the HC PIO about the applicant's grievance. In reply to commission's query, the HC's PIO explained his position and sent the details that had been collated to the commission, for it to supply to the lawyer. The PIO sent the information to the commission and requested it to supply the details to advocate Bhavsar, if it thought it fit.

      The commission ordered the HC PIO to supply the information to the lawyer. This did not go down well with the HC authorities and the registry challenged the commission's order on the judicial side in 2011. The HC last week dismissed its own petition.
      While directing the PIO to supply the information to the lawyer under RTE laws, Justice A J Desai dismissed the petition filed by the high court itself, in which it had challenged the directions issued to the HC by the Gujarat Information Commission, for furnishing the required information to the lawyer.

       

      View full entry
    • momita
      By momita
      According to the commission's advocate, Shivang Shukla, an advocate, Kamlesh Bhavsar, had in 2007 sought information regarding appointment of judges to the Gujarat judiciary since 1990. The PIO supplied information regarding corruption charges against judicial officers and about their convictions within the time limit.

      However, the PIO refused to supply information on Bhavsar's request to furnish the names of all the judges - from the rank of judicial magistrate first class in the lower courts to the justices of the high court - appointed between 1990 and 2007. The PIO told the lawyer that he has asked for the information from the branches concernedand collating the details would take more time. He said he would supply information about the appointments as and when he got the details.

      On the PIO's refusal to part with the information at the same time, citing the delay in collating the details, Bhavsar filed an appeal before the state information commission, seeking a reply from the HC PIO about the applicant's grievance. In reply to commission's query, the HC's PIO explained his position and sent the details that had been collated to the commission, for it to supply to the lawyer. The PIO sent the information to the commission and requested it to supply the details to advocate Bhavsar, if it thought it fit.

      The commission ordered the HC PIO to supply the information to the lawyer. This did not go down well with the HC authorities and the registry challenged the commission's order on the judicial side in 2011. The HC last week dismissed its own petition.
      While directing the PIO to supply the information to the lawyer under RTE laws, Justice A J Desai dismissed the petition filed by the high court itself, in which it had challenged the directions issued to the HC by the Gujarat Information Commission, for furnishing the required information to the lawyer.

       

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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