Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 10/15/2006 in all areas

  1. Incitement of Violence is now understood in criminal Jurisprudence as such degree of incitement which when applied, result in actual committal of violence by the victim of the incitement. Such is not the case with incitement of violence referred to here. This has to be understood as only expression, which is capable of exciting even a simple person to resort to violence by oral or written communications.
    2 likes
  2. ON thursday RTI will be one year old. Has it performed as was expected? "more of a disappointment than a weapon of mass empowerment" I read in Hindustan Times: The RTI Act allows appointment of 10 commissioners. Most of the 19 states in which the survey was conducted by CMS have only two information commissioners housed in temporary offices with very little fund and manpower. States like Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh and Maharashtra have only one information commissioner. How can we expect the Act to work with so less Information Commissioners. The survey says appointment of retired government officials as information commissioners has been the rea son behind the failure of the law. In Assam, a retired IPS officer heads the commission whereas a retired judge is at the helm in Uttar Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh is the only exception where the three commissioners are from different professions. I agree with this, there should be plural involvement. There is the high processing fee charged by some states in violation of the Act, which stipulates Rs 10 for an application. States like Haryana and Tamil Nadu charge Rs 50, whereas Maharashtra and Orissa charge Rs 25 for an appeal. Andhra Pradesh scores as it charges no fee at the village level. The mandals and the district-level organizations charge a slightly higher amount. How can at a village level this high fee motivate people to ask for information. Information commissioners’ reluctance to use the penalty clause against officials providing wrong or no information, is another big deterrant factor. If there is no penality, how would the Act which at one end motivating citizens to ask but at other end providing a sword will act if this is not implimented. Offcourse indiscriminate use of the clause might led to the collapse of the administrative machinery, but on deserving cases it should be used. The CMS survey had this mentioned: Let's not the feeling prevail that Information Commissioner will protect the Government Servants rather than punish them. Even though I think it was really not successful, but I still am optimistic that one day it will surely catch up and do some real good to society.
    1 like
  3. I found there are many sites listed in link segment of RTI India: http://www.rtiindia.org/links Some international sites should able be listed.
    1 like
  4. Besides Aruna the other leading RTI personalities are: Anna Hazare Arvind Kejriwal Sandeep Pandey Shailesh Gandhi Prakash Kardaley Maj.Gen. SCN Jatar Manish Sisodia Vijay Kumbhar Col. Ramesh Wasudeo The above are just few on the scene at the moment. But there are hundreds of others too, who believe in keeping low profile.
    1 like
  5. yes . free time of 1hr need to be reduced to 10 minutes .People are just turning our files for one hr whereas information can be seen in 10 minute.They use our office at churchgate just like rest room .unfortunately our office is AC .where else one get AC ROOM to relax free of charge
    1 like
  6. Currently there is no fee for first hour of inspection, but after that, you have to pay Rs. 5 for every subsequent hour or fraction thereof. Do You mean the current time of file inspection beyong one hour should be reduced to 10 minutes?
    1 like
  7. RTI act certainly is an important tools in hand of public which keeps govt official on toes .impact will come slowly . However some people are misusing the act. in one of the case one gentalmen asked the copy of all correspondence since 1990 between his company & railways including his own letters.It is just voluminous record including about 2000 pages .certainly own letters should not have come in information catagory .It was a big company but application was given by watchman People are asking any information & call for inspection of record for one hr free of charge resulting our office as rest room for visitors waiting for inspection of record .even if 5 visitors comes whole day is lost .There must be some charge for inspection beyand 10 minutes. Recently there was a news item that 1cr case are pending in courts of maharastra but no information is available to public .RTI act is not implimented in judiciary in Maharastra & a PIL is pending in high court Act is good but deterrant is required againt misuse for just as pass time
    1 like
  8. Section 4 is an enabling and is prepatory. It is mandatory on all public authorities to record and publish all information available with them. It means all such information which according to the public authorities needs to be recorded and published and be ready to release it in favour of the citizens whenever such information is asked for. So far as the information not recorded and published in terms of section 4, the Information Officer is the authority to allow the public authorities to release the un-recorded and unpublished information. It may be that the public authority may consider that some information available with them need not be published, and shall be kept secret. If any citizen having interest in such information applies thorough the public information Officer, the public authority may not have any interest either to withhold it or release it. In such cases there is no difficulty for the information Officer to release the information straight away. In case the public authority claims the secrecy he has the jurisdiction to decide whether information asked for can be released. Thus, the contents of section 4 doesnot in any manner restrict the powers of the Information Officer to release information which is claimed as secret.
    1 like
  9. self-attested copies of the Orders or documents against which the appeal is being preferred; copies of documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in the appeal; and an index of the documents referred to in the appeal.
    1 like
  10. Name and address of the appellant; Name and address of the Cenral Public Information Officer against the decision of whom the appeal is preferred; particulars of the order including number, if any, against which the appeal os preferred; brief facts leading to the appeal; if the appeal is preferred against deemed refusal, the particulars of the application, including number and date and name and address of the Central Public Information Officer to whom the application was made; prayer or relief sought; grounds for the prayer or relief; verification by the appellant; and any other information which the Commission may deem nessessary for deciding the appeal.
    1 like
  11. No. The person applying must be an identifiable natural person. Anonymous applications will not be entertained.
    1 like
This leaderboard is set to Kolkata/GMT+05:30
  • Tell a friend

    Love RTI INDIA- Online RTI? Tell a friend!
  • Most Contributions

    1. karira
      karira
      43915
    2. Prasad GLN
      Prasad GLN
      32056
    3. RAVEENA_O
      RAVEENA_O
      18992
    4. ambrish.p
      ambrish.p
      16009
    5. jps50
      jps50
      15720
  • Most Solved

    Nothing has been solved this week.

  • Our picks

    • सड़क निर्माण में भ्रष्टाचार ना हो और पारदर्शिता के लिए आप चाहे तो निर्माण स्थल से #RTI के तहत निर्माण कार्य का सैंपल लेकर लैब में टेस्टिंग के लिए दे सकते है। http://rtiindia.org

       

      : https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/road-work
      • 0

        Reputation Points

      • 0 replies
    • Instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof
      Information Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha held that seeking citizenship proof in case of demand of sensitive information is justified but seeking a signed copy of the application does not seem appropriate as the online portal does not mandate uploading of signatures.
       
      Sinha was hearing the plea of an Odisha-based RTI applicant who had sought from the Army information regarding implementation of rules under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in all defence establishments.
      The Army did not provide any information to the applicant, the CIC noted. Akhand approached the Commission with a complaint that the central public information officer (CPIO) of the Army has demanded a signed copy of his online RTI application as well as identity proof before providing him the records.
      “In this regard, it may be noted that as far as CPIO’s request for citizenship proof is concerned, the same is not questioned as Commission in its prior decision(s) has held the view that Armed Forces stand on a slightly different footing as there may be instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, and for such reasons it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof,” Sinha noted.
      Originally posted here!
       
      • 0 replies
    • Some of you -- at least CJ Karira, who helped me years ago in one crucial step, getting SEBI to acknowledge its own circular! -- know of a 15-year quest among desi academics to get SEBI to release its stale masked FII data for academic research. At one point years ago a parliamentary query by Shyam Benegal, then Rajya Sabha MP, sought the release of this data for academic research. He then made a subsequent RTI query asking what had done about his complaint about the terrible answer he got to his parliamentary question. We thought we had succeeded when in response to that SEBI did put in public domain that FII data and promised to update. And to  their credit, they did update it from time to time, even if a bit fitfully. But thanks to a question by a curious IIT-Madras undergrad, we realized that what SEBI gave with one hand they took away with another. While the idea was that the FII IDs would be masked to preserve privacy, without telling anyone, SEBI changed the masks each month, drastically reducing the value for academic research (since you can't even tell how many distinct FIIs are there in the data base, and whether anyone traded over time). It also caused mistakes in academic research since no one imagined that SEBI would use changing masks, when no other regulator or exchange on the planet does so.

      To get SEBI to finally agree to not hide by changing masks, but to keep a stable mask, has taken many years. But at least per the ruling received yesterday, it has been achieved, with no violence to anyone. I attach the ruling. I can also post the various submissions made at the Second Appeal hearing if there is any interest (need to scrub email-IDs, per the policy of this site).

      Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdfThis RTI site, in particular Karira-ji, has been very helpful to me in the course of this long episode thru countless RTI queries. And I am grateful for that from the bottom of my heart. I am confident we will see quite a few PhD dissertations using this database within the next few years.

      Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdf
      Second_Addendum_w_Appendices_29th_Feb_2020.pdf
      CIC-SEBIH-A-2017-139953-BJ.pdf
      Third_Addendum to Additional Submission for RTI Second Appeal_2nd_March_2020.pdf
      To_CIC_2nd_appeal_27th_February_2020_Redacted.pdf
      Draft_Talking_Points_for_the_Hearing.pdf
      From_SEBI_Written Submiissions - Murugappa Krishnan 139953.pdf
      thanking_CIC_post_decision_Redacted.pdf
      • 3 replies
    • There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of transparency.
      • 2

        Reputation Points

      • 0 replies
    • LUCKNOW: The Central government has provided categorized security cover to 308 persons, out of which 24 have been provided the highest Z-plus cover, according to the answer to an RTI query.


      As per information provided by S.C.L. Das, Joint Secretary in the Union Home Ministry to city-based activist Nutan Thakur, two dozen persons have been given Z-plus security, 59 persons have been given Z security, 109 have been given Y-plus, 34 have been given Y and 82 persons have been given X category security.

       
      • 2

        Reputation Points

      • 1 reply
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      Prasad GLN
      Prasad GLN
      7
    2. 2
      vijay_13
      vijay_13
      2
    3. 3
      afzalphatan
      afzalphatan
      1
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      119.8k
    • Total Posts
      428.3k
  • Blog Statistics

    • Total Blogs
      2,814
    • Total Entries
      2,926
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      489,753
    • Most Online
      12,211

    Anand 85100 09989
    Newest Member
    Anand 85100 09989
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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