hi i was not making a case for 4(1)(c) (i 'might' pick that, as it has become favourite in explorations of 4; in a while i 'might' also pick exceptions in 8 or something from 25). the difference between the suo-motu enforceables and the 'or else' punishable enforceables is the question of choice (ours) that i was asking.
having mentioned 4(1)(c), i must say i differ with what has been said about it. in my view 4(1)(c) is NOT for the 'public-spirited' - the tenner biz is for those. 4(1)(c), and all other suo-motu enforcebales, are for The Public - ie ordinary chap like me who would rather have her rights home delivered without fuss or having to show 'spirit' as if i were some nautch girl. i posit that judiciary is designed to choose the 'or else' and that next gen would choose today ie when child the suo-motu. the choice of the child, in my experience, inclines to the choice of The Public, while the choice of the judiciary etc inclines to that of the public-spirited. (eg, i nearly fell of my chair laughing about disconnect after reading the scholarly judgment of Hon'J Bhatt that manoj posted link of, shortly after being rewarded with highly spirited reaction to my effort to draw-and-tell a learned MIB affair to a 4 year old wanting to know who closed her Appu Ghar) i posit that the misfortune of the unfortunate Current Info Regime, which we are all part of and solidifying as Info Regime For All Time, is that the child's choice that it would logically make (for all-round comfort) is being denied to it by choice of the public-spirited. i posit there is conflict / competition rather than harmony between the suo motu enforceables and the 'or else' enforceables. In any event, IMHO that if no one here can pick a most-favoured provision, which IMHO we need also to know which way the collective weight of our choice inclines in matrix-mode, then reference to S.4 from our code might need deleting and, for clarity and common understanding of private 'public' and private 'public-spirited', the phrases 'public interest' and 'petty private interest' may need defining. cheers - gita --- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" > <mpisgplanner@> 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. > > >
