Records submitted to him in what capacity?
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of sroy1947 Sent: 12 January 2009 11:37 To: [email protected] Subject: [rti_india] Re: Remarks from CJI on CIC decision The CJI obviously knows the legislative mandate better than silly little RTI activists. The CJI's view is that the concerned records are submitted to him and not to the SC (which is the public authority). In any case the CIC and SC are tangoing on this one, because the CIC is equally concerned that their own asset disclosure and qualifications (to be an IC) are not available to citizens in RTI. --- In [email protected] <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rakesh Agarwal" <rak...@...> wrote: > > Does the CJI want to file an "appeal" against the decision of CIC? I suggest > he better read the RTI Act first. Someone also ought to tell him RTI Act is > "the legislative mandate" that he thinks does not exist. > > Rakesh Agarwal > > > -----Original Message----- > From: On Behalf Of sridhar chakravarthy > Sent: 11 January 2009 15:19 > To: humjane...@... > Subject: [HumJanenge] Remarks from CJI on CIC decision > > http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/10/stories/2009011052131100.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Main Snippets > -------------- > Do you have any comments on the controversy over the Central Information > Commission seeking details on disclosure of assets of judges? > > > The Central Information Commission says any information [that is] > with the Chief Justice of India would be with the Registry also. No > Chief Justice, whether [it is the] Chief Justice of India or the Chief > Justices of the High Courts, shares information on judges with the > Registry. The information about declaration of assets by judges is > personally kept with the Chief Justice of India and the [High Court] > Chief Justices. The public will have a right to know these details if > there is a legislative mandate. But at present there is no such > legislation. > We don't share most of the information, whether it is related to > appointments or declaration of assets, with the Registry as we want to > maintain strict confidentiality. We don't agree with the CIC's order > and we may have to file an appeal. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
