Re: [HumJanenge] AID obtains IB's list of RTI activists with suspected terrorist links

Dear Sarabjit,

 

There is no question of mischieiously evading any point and if any such decision has been given, by any Information Commisisoner, be Shri Shailesh Gandhi or some one  else, he has in my opinion, committed an error and u should file an appeal in the High Court. 

 

I have only tried to state for the information of Mr Rajeshwar Rao that if some information is obtained officially, there is no bar or ban to circulate the same freely.

 

If some IC has an direct or indirect interest in some case, he should not hear the same and shoud write to Chief IC requesting for the transfer of case to some other IC.

---

From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 22 November, 2010 10:08:08 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] AID obtains IB's list of RTI activists with suspected terrorist links

Dear Guptaji (and Ravindranji) and other members

You seemed to have missed 2 points

1) As per cyberindian there is no appeal, or decision on the CIC
website. He claims that there is only a letter of CIC giving its
approval u/s 24(1) to disclosure of human rights violations by
scheduled security organisation.

2) You have evaded entirely my point about a CIC decision holding that
information obtained from public authority cannot be reproduced freely
/ automatically. You have mischievously evaded my point because this
CORRUPT decision was given by your favourite IC Mr Shailesh Gandhi to
shield members of his corrupt former organisation  NCPRI. If he had
had any shame / decency he would have recused himself from hearing
that case. What is worse is that while that case was being heard
(deliberately delayed by him over 6 months and 3 hearings) he was busy
seeking the help of NCPRI leading lights on how to get out of the
situation where 2 members of NCPRI could be prosecuted for violation
of Official Secrets Act. Could anything be more unethical or unworthy
? And this is the same IC who you say dictates his orders in front of
appellants and hands them the printout on conclusion of hearing !!

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:11 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Respected Ravindran ji,
>
> I endorse your decision to file another RTI application if the list is not
> disclosed in another 2 days. Kindly send a copy of your application as I
> also intend to file one.
>
> However, the decision of CIC with its date and names of the appellant and
> respondent should be made known so that it can be retrieved from the CIC web
> site. Though I presume that the second party should be Intellegence Bureau.
>
> Mr. Rajeshwar has said that AID has/ is loading this on wiki...... site and
> will be avaiable in two-three days.
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 22 November, 2010 8:26:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] AID obtains IB's list of RTI activists with
> suspected terrorist links
>
> Dear Mr Ravindran
>
> If you feel that the advocate is idiotic and has given bad advice,
> what would you say about a Central Information Commissioner who has
> given precisely the same decision, namely that information obtained
> from a public authority cannot be "privately reproduced" for wider
> distribution but can only be provided suo-moto u/s 4 or given u/s 6.
>
> The facts of the case were as follows, an NGO obtained a copy of an
> important plan well in advance of its suo-moto publication by some
> arrangement with the authority and published it to its partners. An
> aggrieved citizen coming to know of this discrimination approached the
> public authority u/s 6 to obtain the copy of the same plan with same
> right to publish it privately. The Information Commissioner after 3
> hearings said upheld the P/As right to deny the information to
> applicant if further private publication was anticipated
>
> Sarbajit