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

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

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Ravindran P M <pmravindran@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not want to use the term that the advocate, who gave such idiotic
> advice, deserves, but the least that I should say is he should be debarred
> from practising. As a class they are well aware of the consequences if the
> RTI Act is effectively implemented. The most affected will be the judge
> -advocate nexus.
>
> Also I am shocked by the distorted information and contorted logic I have
> highlighted in the mail below (posted on Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM, by
> young cyber indians). The distortion in the information is highlighted in
> yellow and the contorted logic is in red.
>
> If this 'source' is acting like another 'secretive govt organisation'
> the other altenative is for someone to file another application under RTI
> with the IB and get the list afresh. Time consuming, but with the precedence
> there it cannot be more than 30 days.
>
> If the list is NOT disclosed by the receipient in another two days, I shall
> file the fresh application from here and see what happens. Even that could
> be educative.
>
> regards n bw
>
> ravi
>