Dear Mr./Ms. CPIODelhi, I have not claimed anywhere in my email that the RTI Act makes it mandatory for public servants to disclose their assets. The purpose of the email was to show that where a public servant occupying a position of command is positively inclined towards disclosure of assets related information, such ifnormation can be made publicly available even in the absence of a statutory obligation. I think when information is publicly available and when one is living within one's known sources of income, there need be no fear of the consequences of such disclosure. To the best of my knowledge no busybody has started any litigation against the officials of the Karnataka Lok Ayukta using their assets-related information from the website. However under the RTI Act the Central Information Commission has ruled against the disclosure of such information. Some Information Commissions have ruled on occasion that property statements of officers must be disclosed, but these have been stayed by the respective High Courts. This is where the matter stands I think. However readers may please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks Venkat
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jitendra P. Shah Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka Pl refer following decisions: CIC decision No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00134 dated 0-07-2006 and in Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00189 dated 14-05-2008 and judgement dated 16-07-2008 of hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in writ petition No. 7953/2007. These may be available on respective websites. J. P. Shah Junagadh-Gujarat 09924106490 <http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/13.gif> MY BLOG: www.jps50.blogspot. <http://www.jps50.blogspot.com/> com --- On Thu, 22/10/09, ysingh rajput <[email protected]> wrote: From: ysingh rajput <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, 22 October, 2009, 10:48 PM There is no personal information so far acquisition of assets is concerned. Even a citizen has to declare with the Income Tax Authorities. Anybody could get such information under RTI Act - at the most the IT authority may have to serve a notice to the third pary why such information could be given to information seeker. A public servant has added responsibility - he has to declare his assets whenever acquired and in annual returns. Judges or any public authority/servants can have no excuse in submission of these details departmentally or to the public at large. Unless of course one has to hide something. Personal information, in my view, covers only information pertaining to person's health and moral turpitude. If a person has acquired assets by his hard earned money - why he should hesitate in declarations? Y Singh N Rajput 22-10-09 _____ From: cpiodelhi <cpiode...@yahoo. com> To: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com Sent: Thu, 22 October, 2009 5:20:44 PM Subject: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka Dear Mr Nayak Can you kindly enlighten us concerning the specific provisions of RTI Act (as it presently stands) which makes disclosure of assets of public servants mandatory. Would you not also agree with me that RTI Act actually, and specifically, exempts disclosure of such personal information by section 8(1). --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou <http://in.mc943.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com, "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkat...@. ..> wrote: > > Dear friends, > Much water has flown down the Yamuna since a single judge bench of the Delhi > High Court gave its judgement on the case related to disclosure of judges' > assets. In the southern parts of India including my home state of Karnataka > entire villages were washed away by floods. But the much promised action on > disclosure of assets has not seen the light of the day except in the case of > a few High Court judges who declared their intent to be transparent. The > Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided to challenge the order of the Delhi High > Court. At least one High Court is said to have resolved not to disclose such > information in the public domain. While these developments and the attendant > debate hits the headlines every now and then, a public authority in > Karnataka has publicised on its website assets decalartions of functionaries > from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy without making any fuss. > > The public authority in question is the Lok Ayukta of Karnataka established > under a 1984 law. The Lok Ayukta bears close resemblance to the institution > of Ombudsman found in many Commonwealth and Scandinavian countries and has > specific jurisdiction over corruption-related matters also. The declarations > of assets and liabilities made by the Lok Ayukta, Upa Lok Ayukta, one police > officer of Additional Director General of Police rank, two police officers > of Superintendent of Police rank and 19 officers of Police Inspector rank > have been disclosed. Declarations of 19 other officers associated with other > wings of the Lok Ayukta have also been uploaded in the website. These > decalarations may be accessed at: http://lokayukta. kar.nic.in/ assliab.htm <http://lokayukta.kar.nic.in/assliab.htm> (I > thank Prof. B K Chandrashekar for alerting me about this good practice.) > > The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta Justice (retd.) N. Santosh Hegde has disclosed assets > owned by his spouse as well. Details regards shares, debentures, fixed > deposits, immovable property and loans taken from banks and relatives have > been disclosed. To his credit Justice (retd.) Hegde has even disclosed the > source of funds that were spent on the purchase of a residential flat in > Bangalore. The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta has not only led by example, he has > ensured that all officers and officials working with him comply with this > high standard of probity. It remains to be seen whether his successors will > carry on this noble tradition. Not one of these officers is complaining > that they are being harassed or blackmailed on account of the size or value > of assets they have disclosed. It must be mentioned here that there is no > statutory requirement on the Lok Ayukta or his officers to disclose their > assets. Instead the political executive including the Chief Minister all the > members of the State Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council are > duty bound to disclose details of assets and liabilities for self, spouse > and close family members to the Lok Ayukta. Without saying anything more, > one ought to simply stand up and applaud loudly for the institution of the > Karnataka Lok Ayukta and hope that every public servant with the duty to > disclose assets is doing so as required by law. Where there is a will there > is a way (even if there is no statutory obligation). > > Going back to the case that has hogged the headlines we know that the assets > disclosure related matter has not been settled as the Supreme Court has > challenged the Delhi High Court order. We do not expect the matter to end > with the decision of the division bench because a further appeal may be > filed before the Surpeme Court itself. The Government of India could not > table a Bill on assets disclosure during the last session as many MPs > opposed its limited scope.The Honb'le Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has > also said that judges are free to voluntarily disclose their assets-related > information. The decision of all judges who have volunteered to disclose > information about their assets is to be welcomed. > > However voluntary disclosure is the same as pious charity. Charity is > anathema to the language of rights especialy fundamental rights guaranteed > by our Constitution. The citizen's right to know has acquired the status of > a fundamental right since 1975. Fudamental rights are enforceable against > the State and its functionaries, charity is not enforceable. The voter's > right to know the background of candidates contesting elections to > Parliament and State Legislatures has acquired the status of a fundamental > right and is now well-established. This right to know is enforceable in a > court of law. What is important is- the voter's right to know is enforceable > against private individuals many of whom do not hold public office (some may > be sitting legislators seeking re-election) . There is no reason why a system > ought not to be created for disclosure of assets and liabilities information > of career public servants in all organs of the State. > > The purpose of assets disclosure by public functinoaries in mature > democracies is not to provide sensational fodder to satiate voyeuristic > appetites. It is a necessary mechanism for ensuring probity of such > functionaries who have chosen to pursue a career in public life. Rather than > single out the members of the judiciary for disclosure of assets, the > Government must come up with a comprehensive assets disclosure Bill that > will cover all public servants. Such a Bill must have an effective mechanism > for investigating false declarations within a reasonable period of time and > where proven there must be sanctions against the errant public servant. > Anything lesser than this will merely be an eyewash. > > In order to access our previous email alerts please click on: > <BLOCKED::blocked: :BLOCKED: :http://www.humanrig htsinitiative. org/programs/ <http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai> ai > /rti/india/national .htm> > http://www.humanrig htsinitiative. <http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national.htm> org/programs/ ai/rti/india/ national. htm You > will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to > receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your > refusal to receive email alerts. > > > > Thanks > Venkatesh Nayak > Programme Coordinator > Access to Information Programme > Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative > B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave > New Delhi- 110 017 > tel: 91-11- 2686 4678/ 2685 0523 > fax: 91-11- 2686 4688 > website: www.humanrightsinit iative.org > alternate email: <mailto:nayak. venkatesh@ ...> > nayak.venkatesh@ ... > _____ Now, send attachments up to 25MB with Yahoo! India Mail. Learn how <http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_galaxy_2/*http://in.overview.mail.yahoo.com/ photos> . _____ Keep up with people you care about with Yahoo! India Mail. Learn how <http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_galaxy_1/*http://in.overview.mail.yahoo.com/ connectmore> .
