- 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
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'gazette'.
Found 7 results
arnavpatel posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportDear Sir / Medam, I Arnav Jagdishbhai Sorathiya From Rajkot (Gujarat). I Previously Known As Lakhan Jagdishbhai Sorathiya And I Change My Name In Government Of Gujarat Gazette Procedure. I Change My Name In My All Documents But I Can't Change My Name In My Birth Certificate And My S.S.C. And H.S.C. Mark sheet. Because Our Officers Tell Me It Can't Change In Whole Life. So I Am Very Confused. So Please Sir Tell Me Legal Procedure Of Change My Name In My Birth Certificate And S.S.C. And H.S.C. Mark Sheet. Please Sir I Am Waiting For Your Answer. Yours Faithfully, ARNAV J. SORATHIYA RAJKOT (GUJARAT)
From an email received from Mr Venkatesh Nayak: Dear all, The Government of India has published in the Official Gazette the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Special Investigation Team it has set up to investigate the issue of black money stashed abroad by Indians (2nd attachment). The setting up of the SIT amounts to a welcome reversal of previous government policy on this subject. The previous Government had opposed this direction despite a clear order from the Supreme Court in 2011. The SIT will be headed by Justice (Retd.) M B Shah with Justice Arijit Pasayat as Vice-Chair. The rest of the members are the same ex officio senior bureaucrats who were part of the High Level Committee set up by the previous Government to look into the cases of persons who were said to have stashed away money in foreign banks abroad. The Joint Secy. (Revenue) has been added to this list as Member Secretary of the SIT. This SIT is an outcome of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Ram Jethmalani and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 1- judgement delivered in July 2011. It is also interesting to note that with the exception of the retired judges and bureaucrats of the Finance Ministry, all other members are representatives of organisations notified under the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) which are not required to furnish any information other than that pertaining to allegations of corruption or violation of human rights.However, in my opinion, as the SIT has been set up by a notification of the Central Government and as it will be wholly financed by the same Government, it will be a public authority under the RTI Act. Terms of Reference seemingly omit an important Court direction: While going through the ToR, I found that a crucial direction given by the Supreme Court in July 2011 is missing form the Gazette notification published by the Central Government. On page 66 of its judgement the Apex Court had ordered two more things to be done by the SIT in addition to what it said on pages 38-42 (1st attachment): 1) that the SIT must take over the investigation of individuals with bank accounts in Liechtenstein as disclosed by Germany to India and expeditiously conduct the same; and 2) SIT should review concluded matters also to assess whether investigations have been thoroughly and properly conducted or not and if they conclude that there is scope for further investigation they should proceed further. On 01 May this year the Central Government had said that investigations had been concluded against 18 of the 26 individuals that had bank accounts in Liechtenstein. These names were received from Germany and investigation had concluded in 17 cases. No evidence was found against 8 individuals and the investigation had been concluded against them. You will find this information in the daily order of the Apex Court at: http://judis.nic.in/temp/17620093152014p.txt So technically the ToR should have included reopening of these cases also to assess whether everything was properly done and if there is any need to proceed further. The current ToR published in the Gazette do not explicitly refer to these two directions. However I hope the SIT in its wisdom will interpret its mandate broadly to cover these directions as well and make up for what probably is an omission due to oversight. Importance of this case to RTI Readers who have gone through the Supreme Court's judgement and those who may like to read it now, will notice that this appeal case arose from an RTI application made by the Petitioners to disclose the names of the bank accountholders that Germany handed over to the Central Government. The previous Government adamantly refused to follow the directions of the Court to hand over to the Petitioners the names of individuals against whom investigations had been completed wholly or partially. Last month the Government handed over two sealed envelopes containing the names of the accountholders to the Court. The Court again directed that the names be handed over to the Petitioners. These names have not been made public by the Government, officially, till date. There is no reference to this direction in the ToR of the SIT either. The NDA Government could change policy in this regard as well and publicise the names contained in the sealed envelopes, as it would only be dutifully following the directions of the Court. Such a step would demonstrate the NDA Government's commitment to transparency as a real one going beyond mere public relations exercises. This case is also of great use for all RTI users and activists who receive rejection orders from Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities on the ground that contracts with private parties contain confidentiality clauses and cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. In this case also the Government of India, under the United Progressive Alliance, refused to make the names of the accountholders public saying that Germany had handed over their names to Indian authorities under a tax agreement that contains a 'confidentiality' clause. The Apex Court examined the relevant clause of the treaty and came to the following conclusion: 1) that the tax agreement did not prohibit disclosure of information provided by one signatory to another if it was required in a judicial proceeding; and 2) that confidentiality clauses contained in international treaties and agreements are not to be interpreted as set in stone. Instead they must be tested against the concept and practice of the rule of law guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and most importantly the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) and the right to seek redress for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The confidentiality clause would be tolerated only if it matched any of the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) for imposing reasonable restrictions on the citizens' right to freedom of speech and expression. As RTI is a deemed fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), it can also be restricted only on grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) and the RTI Act but no other ground would be valid. Readers will recognise that the Indian Government signs bilateral or multilateral treaties and agreements in exercise of its sovereign functions. When confidentiality clauses contained in such agreements are subject to the fundamental right to free speech and expression and consequently RTI, confidentilaity clauses contained in commercial agreements with private parties that public authorities enter into during the routine course of government business must also be interpreted along the same lines. The mere existence of a 'confidentiality' clause in a contract with one or more private parties is not enough to reject a request for copies of the contract under the RTI Act. This is a landmark interpretation of the Apex Court and if applied in letter and spirit can open up to public scrutiny a whole range of contracts and agreements that the Government signs with private parties. Public-Private Partnership (PPPs) agreements would have to meet this test before the public authority concerned can refuse access to such agreements. I hope readers will watch with great interest how transparently the SIT will be functioning in the days to come. Kindly circulate this email widely. Thanks RamJethmalni-v-UnionofIndia-SCI-Jul11.pdf BlackMoney-SIT-ToR-May14.pdf
Joseph devanathan posted a question in Ask for Non RTI SupportRespected friends this is Joseph S/O G.Yacob, a senior citizen. The property owned by our forefathers was illegally registered by Political influenced real estate men , a retired Air force employee with his sons. The Retired Air force person has changed his name during his service from G.Daniel to G.Dayanithi in his Gazette. But during land registration he used both the names to sign and in some places (majority) he used his old name G.Daniel; When we applied to get his personnel and gazetted details Air force is not giving the sorted information.. here are the questions, 1. Copy of all documents produced by Mr.Dayanithi, Moulder ‘Hs’ Personnel No – 18420, when he joined in Indian Air force, Avadi Station. 2. State fathers name of Mr.Dayanithi, Moulder ‘Hs’ Personnel No – 18420,with his father’s initial and give copy of all related supporting documents. 3. If Mr.Dayanithi, Moulder ‘Hs’ Personnel No – 18420 had transferred /changed his name means. Please state his earlier name with his father’s name and give copy of all documents. 4. Please give copy of Gazette copies which were submitted by Mr.Dayanithi, Moulder ‘Hs’ Personnel No – 18420 at your office while changing his name. 5. Copy of community certificate produced by Mr.Dayanithi, Moulder ‘Hs’ Personnel No – 18420 at your office. 6. Please state the number of time Mr.Dayanithi, Moulder ‘Hs’ Personnel No – 18420 had changed his name and give the copy of documents. 7. State the dependents name of Mr.Dayanithi, Moulder ‘Hs’ Personnel No – 18420 and give copy of documents. 8. Copy of request submitted by Mr.Dayanithi, Moulder ‘Hs’ Personnel No – 18420 to change his name as per Gazette in the service record. 9. State the date of name changed by Mr.Dayanithi, Moulder ‘Hs’ Personnel No – 18420 THE REPLY: The information is protected from disclosure under section 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act 2005; Now they asked us to appeal to Appellate Authority, Can anyone kindly guide us how to appeal to get the details which i mentioned above....thank you so much ; [emails not permitted here]
Hi, My name was changed in gazette once by my parents and want to rechange it back to the original name. Whereas all my current documents and certificates are with Oldname and did not used the changed gazette name. Example: 1. My name in Birth certificate is Mr. X 2. I learned that my parents have changed my name to Mr. Y in the gazette 3. Whereas my name as Mr. X is used legally in all the certificates and correspondes. Query: Please advise how do I change my name to Mr. X as official name Thanks in advance for any help !!! Raj Kumar
Section 23 of RTI Act says: "No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act." Here, what does "order" mean? The term is used in two different contexts within the act: In section 19, and in section 30. (Quoted below) Which of them is protected from jurisdiction of the courts? Thanks Mumbai Civic Section 19 "2. Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order." Section 30 "1. If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removal of the difficulty: Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act. 2. Every order made under this section shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before each House of Parliament. "
As reported by Mahendra Kumar Singh of TNN in The Times of India, Hyderabad Edition on 21 May 2008: Welcome CLICK AWAY Govt gazette now at the click of a mouse Mahendra Kumar Singh | TNN New Delhi: Now, a simple click of the mouse will lead you to all central government gazette notifications with the urban development ministry developing an e-gazette system. The website will also contain Delhi government’s notifications relating to subjects under the Centre’s jurisdiction. The system, to be maintained by the department of printing and publication of the ministry, will ensure date-wise, month-wise and subjectwise availability of all notifications which contain government policy and directives. A senior ministry official said the online system was devised to reduce the time lag as well as to facilitate easy accessibility for users all over the country. “It will also ensure transparency,” he added. Presently, gazette notifications are available to the public only after 10-15 days of the date of publication and people across the country have to travel to the state capital to get a copy of the document. The e-gazette process will also help users for other purposes like research, court cases and settlement of legal documents. A ministry official said that the printed version would continue to remain in vogue while the e-gazette would have its own usefulness. The system, in tune with the ministry’s egovernance concept, will ensure uploading of all notifications on the e-gazette website and will be available to users on payment of the prescribed price. At present, the department of publication houses all the central government gazette notifications dating back to 1962 and the number of gazette notifications in the record room runs to around 61,71,000, an official said. Gazette notifications prior to 1962 are available in National Archives, he added. The official said that the earnings of the government through sale of gazette notifications was around Rs 5 crore every year and the egazette was expected to bring in more revenue.