Dear Mr Bhushan Kumar I have filed many (many) petitions in Supreme Court - always as Petitioner in Person. It is not my fault if very very soon after I file my petitions the opposite parties (invariably the State) act swiftly to remove my "cause of action" - enabling me thereby to withdraw my Petitions at the Registry stage itself. A case in point being when TRAI /DoT fined Reliance and Airtel for statutory violations.
In the few rare cases when I have had to appear before a bench to argue my matter I have always been accorded the respect which a properly drafted / crafted Petition deserves. In fact the process of filing / appearing in person at SC is so easy that even my (then) 3 year old son could argue his own case and the Hon'ble Court (Justice Santosh Hegde) conferred upon him the title of "Ld. Counsel" in orders for his brilliant submissions (TV channels were restricting him from viewing cartoons) in Sept-2004 (WC 377/2004). My only pending matter now in SC is "CC 117/2006" A Contempt Petition against Secy DERC in M.C.Mehta matter. Incidentally it is petitions like these which have kept Delhi's electricity tariff in check for so many years now. Insofar as your arguments about role of PoI for SC judges selection is concerned you would be well advised to read (and understand) the Constitution of India properly (a prerequisite for anyone filing Petitions in SC or HC). Finally, this group - of which I am the Moderator / Founder does not exist to serve / publicise anyone's "strategic moves". If you have statutory remedies open to you then use them. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "Bhushan Kumar" <b4bhus...@...> wrote: > > Dear Mr. Roy, > > > > It appears that you are living under the impression that you are only 'smart > + intelligent' man on this earth and know RTI act well. > > > > I have seen your posts, rather 'nonsense', where you keep on wasting your > time, heavily stressing, on the interpretation of the words and wasting the > valuable time of this group. Spare some try to file one writ petition in SC > as petitioner in person. After being banged by judge, you will be ashamed of > your interpretations and will never talk on that lines. > > > > For your knowledge, the final decision on SC judges' selection is taken by > President of India. So, the intent of RTI application to PoI, is to obtain > the action taken report on various letters regarding irregularities in > Judges' selection is highlighted. > > > > Even if we had made an attempt to obtain anything from SC, the answer is > known. SC will never reveal the details of collegium based selection > process. And, we don't have time to wait of 2 years (at this stage), like it > happened in Judge's assets case. SC has already shortlisted few candidates. > > > > I would suggest you to think, before you speak. And, if possible try to > understand the practical/ground realities and others' strategic moves, > rather than reading the 'words' time and again. > > > > Bhushan > > > > > > > > _____ > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of sroy1947 > Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 10:41 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [rti_india] Re: RTI Application for information of ILLEGAL > selection of supreme court judges. > > > > > > Dear Mr Gurmeet Singh / Bhushan Kumar > > While your intentions may be noble, it appears that you are > ignorant (!!!) of (not only the RTI Act but also) the triangular > Constitutional scheme whereby our glorious Republic is structured. ie, > Parliament / Executive / Judiciary. > > In this context you would be well advised to read the RTI Act's > definition of "competent authority" and file your RTIs to the > concerned authority rather than wasting the precious time / money of > Govt and also our group members by posting such nonsense here. > > FYI, in the present case (by your wrong choice of public authority) paying > the application fees prescribed by the President of India does not permit a > transfer u/s 6(3) to SC or Parliament. > > "g) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act by the > appropriate Government or the competent authority, as the case may be;" > > Sarbajit > > --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com, > "Bhushan Kumar" <b4bhushan@> wrote: > > > > RTI MATTER/ Most Urgent > > > > September 2, 2009 > > > > To > > > > > > > > The Public Information Officer, > > > > O/o the President of India, > > > > New Delhi > > > > > > > > Subject: Request for information within 48 hours as per section 7 (1) of > > the RTI Act. > > > > > > > > References: > > > > 1. 34th report on the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (salaries and > > Conditions of Service) amendment bill, 2008 prepared by the parliament > > committee headed by Dr. E.M. S. Natchiappan, Rajya Sabha M.P. and > > subsequently passed by Parliament of India. > > 2. Five new vacancies of Supreme Court judges created recently. > > 3. Selection of five Supreme Court judges through collegium based > > system. > > > > > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > It has been in newspapers that SC panel is proceeding with the collegium > > based selection process for filling the newly created five positions. > > Whereas, the parliament committee headed by Dr. E.M. Sudarsana > Natchiappan, > > Rajya Sabha M.P., recommended 'scrapping of the present procedure for > > appointment of judges' and the same was subsequently approved by > Parliament > > of India on 18th February 2009. So, it appears that CJI is not honoring > the > > recommendations approved by parliament regarding the selection of the > Judges > > earlier this year. > > > > Please provide the complete information (scope and definition of > > 'information' is same as given in RTI act 2005) in respect of the > following; > > > > 1. Information pertaining to the on-going collegium based selection of > > five new Supreme Court Judges > > 2. Information pertaining to the reason as why Chief Justice of India > > is not honoring / adhering to the recommendations passed by Parliament. > > 3. Information pertaining to the hasty action in the selecting the > > judges prior to appointment of Judicial Commission as per the > recommendation > > passed by Parliament. > > 4. Copies of the letters or petitions or any submissions received for > > stopping the Chief Justice headed collegiums from making the selection of > > supreme court judges. > > 5. Information pertaining to appointment of Judicial Commission as > > parliament's recommendations. > > > > Please supply this information with 48 hours because wrong selection of > > Judge poses a threat to life and Liberty. So, this information would > require > > response as per section 7(1) of RTI act. > > > > Please supply the requested information in CD diskette as per the RTI act. > > The requisite fee of 10/- is attached in the shape of IPO with this > > application. > > > > I will be very thankful to you. > > > > > > > > Yours Truly, > > > > > > > > Gurmeet Singh > > > > #14/6, Third floor, > > > > West Patel Nagar, > > > > New Delhi - 08 > > > > 011-25883286 > > > > > > > > PS: IPO of Rs.10/- towards application fee will follow through post. > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > See the Web's breaking stories, chosen by people like you. Check out > Yahoo! > > Buzz <http://in.rd. > <http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_buzz_1/*http:/in.buzz.yahoo.com/> > yahoo.com/tagline_buzz_1/*http:/in.buzz.yahoo.com/> . > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
