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

Dear Guptaji

The decision was delivered by Shailesh Gandhi to protect Centre for
Civil Society. This was discussed previously on [RTI_India]
http://www.mail-archive.com/rti_india@yahoogroups.com/msg01294.html
I was not a party there, and in any case I hold that CIC decisions are
not binding on non-parties. that CIC cannot decide questions of law
etc.

Shailkesh Gandhi should have recused himself but didn't. In another
matter I had asked Mr Habibullah to transfer a case away from Mr
Shailesh Gandhi where Shailesh's NCPRI Working Committee colleagues
were also appearing. Mr Habibullah forwarded my email to SG who said
that he would not be influenced. The final order was a disaster and
quite biased.

I am glad to see here that all of us citizens are working in our own
ways to ensure that the RTI process is transparent open and fair, even
if we may strongly disagree on the methods and language to be adopted.

Sarbajit

M.K. Gupta wrote:
> 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 !!
>