Well our great touts of RTI have a reply for that too (or should I say "2"). As per ToI (Delhi) today, Mr Arvind Kejariwal and Kabir etc. have requested the public authority not to deny their request citing relevant exemptions, but to use 8(2) instead which calls for over-riding larger public interest.
Since the public authority in this case is our honest Speaker, the PIO of the LS would be well advised to cite 8(1)(d) instead - ie. "commercial confidence" involving protected interests of third parties, so that the over-riding public interest, if any, can be decided by calling all these people into the chamber of the Speaker as third parties- where transactions can be discreetly carried out avoiding the glare of TV cameras. We also have 8(1)(h) available to the PIO, now that an FIR is being registered. In any case, the sting tape /CD is private property of the TV channel. They are free to broadcast it at any time (is there any stay?). --- In [email protected], Manoj Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And you can also demand the Section 8(1)(c) be deleted from the RTI Act. > > Manoj Pai > Ahmedabad >
