Dear Gita, As you can see, the majority of vocal members of this list are lost cases. They have been corrupted by the nonsense they are exposed to on other Yahoo / Orkut groups which mislead them and where they congregate.
Section 4(1)(c) is a clause of tremendous importance for "public spirited" citizens -which the everyone here claims to be- but most are not. Unfortunately the current information regime is not prepared to "enforce" this clause, allegedly on the grounds that there are no enforcement provisions in the Act for this (which there are!!!). Till then it is one (probably the best) of those "potentially" enabling provisions in the Act. My personal favourite though is 4(1) "Every public authority shall—" the implicit "or else" being left dangling for future generations of citizens (and judiciary). Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "Gita Dewan Verma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i have simpler curiosity: what would everyone pick if they had to pick > one (potentially) best provision in the Act? > > I might pick 4(1)(c). bridges neatly from 4(1)(b) through 4(1)(d) to > 6, provides by contrast handle on 8, is amenable to urgency and reco > etc provisions that otherwise seem decorative; can give info when it > counts most, can connect nicely to PA laws for PA accountability, can > make peace in S.6 bombarded warzone and blow away most of the mess. > > cheers, > -gita > > --- In [email protected], RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs2@> wrote: > > > lastly, i want to know, which part of RTI is not needed as per your > > assessment and why. >
