Answer: Justice K G Balakrishnan Sarabjit, now, OBC standards or OBC discount, please give good grade.
Regarding the rest of your views, I completely agree. Total Transparency and no need for RTI Act. Regards, RTIWanted sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Group This is to all the people whose messages are appended below. Govt can amend the Act at any time and in any way. What is going on now is an orchestrated media campaign by the Mir Jafars - the same ones who take crores of rupees from foreigners. First they were secretive now they take it openly to dilute the RTI Act for corporate business. These are also the same arseholes who provide private "consultancy" to corporates to get them out of RTI while wearing their holier than thou masks in public. What we want DEMAND is for the RTI Act to be SCRAPPED and for ALL "relevant" information to be PROACTIVELY PUBLISHED- in other words Complete Transparency. Once we understand this (which is very difficult and counter-intuitive for brainwashed "silly little RTI activists" brought up to believe that RTI is a great AK-47 to attack corruption) then we can start the real fight against the corruption and degeneration in our midst. This is the Mantra of this Group. Follow it or leave. Quiz Time: Who was the First Dalit Chief Justice of India? Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "Bimal Khemani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If this is allowed then tomorrow some other departments even the Parliament may ask for certain concessions and so on. > May I suggest to held a meeting of all the activist to meet at DELHI and if required stage DHARNA to save this act. > > > On Thu, 01 May 2008 colnrkurup wrote : > > > >Why our Parliament want a pound of flesh ? At least let the RTI Act > >remain a model granting equity of justice. Any attempt to dilute this > >act should be resisted with tooth and nail. Neither our Parliament > >nor the judiciary has sustained any previleges due to the RTI Act > >since last 30 months. If at all any amendment to be made on RTI Act > >it is only to bridle the CIC and SICs with accountability > > > > > >--- In [email protected], "Myth Kumar" <fightin498a@> > >wrote: > > > > > > PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE - 'Parliament RTI query must specify the > >reasons' > > > By PARUL CHANDRA > > > New Delhi > > > Parliament may want the judiciary to come under the Right to > > > Information (RTI) scanner. But it wants certain concessions while > >coming > > > under scrutiny by the common man under the very same act. > > > > > > This is evident in the suggestion made by the Lok Sabha privileges > >committee > > > which has suggested that the RTI Act 2005 be amended so that an > >applicant > > > seeking information or documents from Parliament will have to > >specify the > > > reasons for asking thus. Under the present rules, applicants do not > >have to > > > state the reasons for seeking information which also includes the > > > Parliament. > > > > > > In the case of judiciary, the standing committee on personnel, > >public > > > grievances and law and justice's report was tabled in Parliament on > >Tuesday. > > > It clearly states that the judiciary comes under the purview of the > >RTI. It > > > had observed that "all three wings of state executive, legislature > >and > > > judiciary - are fully covered under this act, since all organs of > >the state > > > are accountable to the citizens of India in a democratic state". > > > > > > With regard to the Parliament, the privileges committee has also > >said that > > > if the Speaker feels that the information or documents sought under > >the RTI > > > "has the potential to call in question the proceedings of the House > >or of > > > any committee of the House in any court, he may be empowered to > >refer such a > > > request to the Committee of Privileges for examination and report". > > > > > > In yet another concession to Parliament, the committee has > >suggested that if > > > a reference is made to it, the time limit of 30 days for furnishing > >a reply > > > under the RTI may not applicable to it. And that the information or > > > documents sought may be provided "only if so recommended by the > >Committee of > > > Privileges and agreed to by the House". > > > > > > http://epaper.asianage.com/ArticleText.aspx? > >article=01_05_2008_005_003&mode=1 > > > > > > -- > > > Keep Fighting 498A > > > Keep Fighting Legal Terrorism > > > Keep Fighting Inequality in Justice > > > > > > http://legalterror.wordpress.com/ > > > http://society.indianskeptic.com/ > > > > > > "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. > > > Then they fight you. Then you win." --- M.K.Gandhi > > > > > > If "con" is the opposite of "pro", then what is the opposite of > >progress? > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > BIMAL KUMAR KHEMANI > Saha-Prant Sangathan Mantri, > AKHIL BHARATIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT BRAJ PRANT, > 2/40D, Janakpuri, Marrish Road, > ALIGARH-202001. INDIA > Phone:0571-2401557, MOB:-093597BIMAL > e.mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
