Dear Group, FYI : This post is not directly connected to Vickram Simha's post belo.
I (and many other "silent" - and very knowledgeable - members who keep writing / phoning me about this) am getting increasingly irritated by the low depths the RTI discourse on this group is plumbing. It is increasingly clear that there are a few members here who are highlighting here the self inflicted problems they are facing in using RTI. So let me abuse my Moderatorship privileges and say a few home truths. 1) By the Constitution of India, *citizens* have a right to "informed" free speech & expression. 2) Prior to the various RTI enactments, citizens like me used to go to the Superior Courts to enforce this right and other rights thereby - and we would normally win. 3) The GoI to *frustrate* "troublemaking" citizens like me who could access judicial systems easily, enacted this pathetic RTI Act 2005 so that every frustrated middle class citizen with Rs.10 in his pocket can file 200 "questions" to harass his chosen Govt victim. 4) The victims would retaliate by waylaying these citizens travelling on deserted roads on scooters and smashing their heads wide open to make it look like accidents. Then the dead man's friends go running to their very same Govt victims and demand "security". In the only case of security being provided which I know of till date - it consists of 1 unarmed guard hired from a private security agency. 5) And still citizens flock to RTI like moths to a flame, egged on by people who should know better. SO what should enlightened / educated / knowledgeable / public spirited citizens like our Group Members do? Here is a short A-Z A) RESOLVE not to use RTI to seek information with which would directly benefit "me" alone. B) RESOLVE to FIRST seek from the public authority a CD containing the "catalogue" duly indexed of all records of the P/A maintained in a manner and the form to facilitate the right to information. (PLEASE READ section 4(1)(a)). Once you have this document, you shall inspect and "specify" the exact documents you require in section 6 process to be given against payment upon a DETAILED section 7 fee computation. C) RESOLVE not to ask "questions" from the P/A D) RESOLVE not to seek "opinion" from the PIO E) RESOLVE not to seek "reasons" from the PIO F) RESOLVE not to ask for "action taken" from the PIO G) RESOLVE not to use RTI as a grievance redressal mechanism H) RESOLVE not to SPAM this group with emails cc'ed to President of India and other high officers. I) RESOLVE to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps, to be self reliant, to disregard all the free (and mostly garbage) advice dished out on groups such as this. etc. etc till the letter "Z" (reserved for Post no.2) Sarbajit --- In [email protected], Vikram Simha <vikramsimh...@...> wrote: > > Dear freinds , > I Have not cut the tail of this link only That every body should Known Why > This Ammendement to Rules Was introduced .The First Mail by Leslie From > Mumbai Creats Lots of apprehensions as it does not give Exactly what the Rule > Ammended is . > Yes Our Group is also One along With Mr YGM and CHRI who Have Continiously > opposing this ammendement . > A Few Clarifications , There were a few RTI Applications Before KIC which Had > More than 180 Questions (3 in particular - 1 on Blore University &2 on > Village Pancyaths) ,All the 3 RTI requesters were very perfect in That They > wanted to known In go Everything > Think of an Grama Pancyath with one Secrtary & One bill Collector Providing > All documents for the past 5 years of Subsidy , meetings , salary etc etc in > Go . > The pother thing is 150 Words in One query (see Parlimentary Procedure -- > shakdars) Which means as Nayak has said You got be precise . > Yes we are following this even Today and we only provided the news that this > Ammendement has become infructous as it is not tabled in the Legistlature as > Per The Section in RTI Act .We Met Our Law Minister also in the matter > Please also note that with rule 14 Your request For info is not summarily > rejected But , the PIO has to request you Reply to your first query and then > request for Making Another RTI request if You ask For Two matters in the Same > RTI Request . > So to avoid We Have and Are adopting Mentioning -- SUBJECT -- working of > Village pancyath and Regarding Right to information -- how can the PIO Reject > under Rule . > There are certain tricks they can play on us and we have to do some Counter > tricks > finally We as Policy do not Want any ammendements any where -- to the Act --- > to the rules or an fresh Act to Nullify the Power of RTI > > N vikramsimha , Trustee RTI Study Centre & KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N > Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004. > > --- On Wed, 29/7/09, Jitendra P. Shah <jpsha...@...> wrote: > > > From: Jitendra P. Shah <jpsha...@...> > Subject: RE: [rti_india] Fw: Karnataka has changed the RTI Act, 2005! > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, 29 July, 2009, 11:50 AM > > > > > > > Even CIC is also thinking on getting such amendments to Central RTI rules. > > J. P. Shah Junagadh-Gujarat 09924106490 > MY BLOG: www.jps50. blogspot. com > > --- On Wed, 29/7/09, Venkatesh Nayak <venkat...@humanrigh tsinitiative. org> > wrote: > > From: Venkatesh Nayak <venkat...@humanrigh tsinitiative. org> > Subject: RE: [rti_india] Fw: Karnataka has changed the RTI Act, 2005! > To: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com > Date: Wednesday, 29 July, 2009, 10:54 AM > > > > Dear all, > This is just to clarify, Karnataka had added a new Rule 14 to the existnig > RTI Rules. They have not changed the Act as they do not have the legislative > competence to do so. It is an Act that parliament passed, only Parliament > can amend it. We have strongly opposed Rule 14 from day one. Some activists > in Karnataka like Mr. Y G Muralidhar and his network are amongst the few > people who protested vociferously against this new Rule. I am not aware if > other activists also took up this matter as strongly as Muralidhar and his > group. The funny thing is this Rule has not been table in the legislatrue I > am told. We wanted to oppose it there, however there has been an unusual > delay in its tabling. Sadly the Karnataka Rule has been replicated in > Chhattisgarh recently according to media reports. Some activists have > opposed it there also. but others have not taken it seriously. > My own applications rarely cross the 150-200 words as it is important to be > brief and precise in drafting RTI applications. However that is a personal > standard I have chosen. I do not think it is fair for the government to > impose similar limits through subordinate legislation. > Thanks > Venkat > > _____ > > From: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:rti_ in...@yahoogrou ps.com] On > Behalf > Of LESLIE ALMEIDA > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:46 AM > To: undisclosed recipients: > Subject: [rti_india] Fw: Karnataka has changed the RTI Act, 2005! > > Dear RTI Activists > > Recently, I was shocked and left speechless to hear > that karnataka has changed the RTI Act, 2005 by enacting their own RTI Act, > 2006 in which one can ask only single question or query besides teh words > cannot exceed more then 150 words! > What was more shocking and eeric that it was drafted by the CIC > of Karnataka Mr.Misra(former Chief Secretray) and cleared by > the Karnataka Govt to help hide the illegalities of the > Government besdies sealed the unknown skeletons which would > have tumbled out of the closet! > > I hope the trend does not catch up with the Maharashtra or other state > Government! it may come out with one word per application! > however we in Maharashtra specially Mumbai are strong body of activists > who will oppose such move tooth and nail should some thing like this happens > here. > > Leslie Almeida > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > See the Web's breaking stories, chosen by people like you. Check out > Yahoo! Buzz. http://in.buzz. yahoo.com/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See the Web's breaking stories, chosen by people like you. Check > out Yahoo! Buzz. http://in.buzz.yahoo.com/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
