Both H & SG must restrain themselves. CIC almost tried to do a 'La Navin chawla' on IC SG. Chief H must have given his tacit support to what SG is doing, allowing him a free rein in the begining. Otherwise it is not just possible for outsiders into the hallowed portals of CIC.
Now CIC going to press on these & bad mouthing SG is absolutely unwarranted and absurd. Thank god many mainstream press ignored him on this. IC SG has his own self imposed agenda based upon a false premise. For him end justifies the means regardless of consequences. India's first ACTIVIST IC has some 'Out-of-the-Box' ideas on what is ailing the RTI and he is hell bent on repairing the same in his own way. Bending/creating norms and rules could be a part of his action plan. Now coming to these so called interns appointed by SG. Many questions have remained unanswered. Just who are they? Why they are called interns? What job they are handling? Who is paying them and how much they are getting out of their association from IC SG and other ICs. What business they have to mistreat RTI Applicants? If they can roughen up a RTI stalwart like Sarbajit then just imagine the kind of terror they must be unleashing on ordinary mortals. I too am curious about these so called assistants & interns of IC SG & other ICs. IC SG is quite opaque on these. The CIC is duty bound to proactively disclose information on these fellas u/s 4. I could not find anything on them in the website. Respected Shailesh Sir, plz tell us more about them. We are curious to know. Enlighten us. It's our fervent prayer before you. Thanks & Regards, Sidharth Misra On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:32 PM, sroy1947 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sid > > Mr H's disapproval is oblique. > > 1) IC (SG) has breached OSA by allowing his private interns to have access > to CIC documents WITHOUT the approval of CIC. > > 2) On of his interns (a lady lawyer) was extremely rude to me (and > incidentally attempted to teach me RTI Act) when I had some cause to visit > IC(SG)'s office to enquire about his cause list for the day and 3rd party > participation in hearings. IC(SG) backed up this lady, refuses to take note > of the procedural Rules and and refuses to allow 3rd parties to have their > say before him - quite unlike the approach of other ICs like C'IC, IC(AT) > and IC(MLS) etc. where we have repeatedly demonstrated the necessity of 3rd > party intervention to prevent miscarriages of law > > 3) The fact that IC(SG) does not allow 3rd parties to speak (in violation of > duly notified Rules) is clear evidence that he is a scofflaw, corrupt and/or > insecure individual. > > 4) BTW: Who really pays for these interns ? What is the official CIC policy > now on all those private consultants who the ICs hired and though whom the > PIOs route their bribes ? > > Sarbajit
