For many years this group has stood for a certain brand of RTI which included ALL the following pre-requisites
a) Filing RTIs only if absolutely necessary, b) Filing RTIs only after throughly checking out the PA's proactive disclosure (especially on their website), c) Filing RTIs in the larger public interest, d) Filing RTIs after anticipating and considering all the PIOs potential exemptions / tactics, e) OPPOSING disclosure of "file notings" and victimisation of honest officers by RTI etc. This philosophy was evolved after observing that ALL the 'haraamis' of RTI were proposing the exact opposite ie, a) File as many RTIs as you want - there is no bar in the RTI Act b) Section 4 and section 6 operate in 2 different/ distinct spheres (section 4 is what "they" GIVE you - section 6 is what "we" TAKE from "them"). c) File RTIs to sort out your private grievances against Municipality, Police, service matters etc etc. d) You dont need to read RTI Act, just keep asking "questions", "queries" etc to the PIO and he must "reply" to you in 30 days or else be penalised. e) It is only through seeing file notings that you will be able to identify the dishonest and corrupt officers. The most public proponent of this other brand of RTI was the late Prakash Kardaley - founder of HJ (who incidentally claimed never to have filed an RTI in his life). At the end of the day - it is upto you to choose what style of RTI you wish to practice - for this reveals what kind of person you are. I have made my choice a long time back. Sarbajit
