This is really too much. It is tragic to know that people like Krishnaraj Raj can sink to such depths.
The problem is that RTI scene is too divided and too many people are giving bad advice on other Yahoo groups. This group (RTI_India) is the only group where practical and genuine advice is available but it seems too bitter for those Sarabjit calls "stupid little RTI activists their heads stuffed full of nonsense" to digest. Sarabjit-ji you are doing a fantastic job. You must carry on with running this group which is all that stands between order and chaos. Rao's "eminent lawyer Prashant Bhushan" (is this eminent person qualified to be be our next CIC ?) is under contempt notice issued recently 5th NOvember 2009 in Supreme Court for alleging that Supreme Court judges are corrupt. By "appointing" such a tainted advocate to plead their case these 6 jokers (!) have further damged their case and done a grave disservice to RTI movement. http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20091106/1416/tnl-sc-issues-contempt-notice-to-advocat.html Veeresh --- In [email protected], rti advice <rtiadv...@...> wrote: > > Dear Sarabjit, > > 'Que sera sera' > > We all feel your pain. Pls dont take this too much to heart. > We tried to help them as best we could. for eg you clearly > hinted that this case would be decided on basis of EC > precedents which Murali was hot on. > > I was present in Court today.The proceedings didnt pan out > the way KR Rao claims. If they had read old cases like > "S.S.Dhanao vs UoI" 1991 SCR (3) 159 (although there are > many better examples as Murali knows- I cant say more because > I shall now be against them in SC in all prob) they could easily > have opted to withdraw their matter sensing the Court's mood. > The fact that they persisted in demanding an order in the face > of several hints to PB to withdraw is strong evidence that the fix > (small and big) was in. > > --- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <sroy1947@> wrote: > > > > Dear RA and Sharmaji etc, > > > > This went exactly the way we predicted. Although Krisha Rao is > > now trying to make out that it is some kind of moral victory - > > the truth is that not only has he personally fucked up badly > > he has also mucked up the scene for other expert people, far > > better experienced and qualified better than him, to test > > this proposition. > > > > If Krishna Rao has any shame left, he should publicly apologise > > to the honest citizens of India for his betrayal of the RTI cause, > > and honestly admit THAT HE WAS WRONG. There is nothing to be > > ashamed of by admitting one is wrong. I also hope that his other > > co-Petitioners like Sunil Ahya, Mohammed Afzal etc stay on in our > > group and participate positively in our discussions. For the record > > I shall publicly state that my sources (hitherto impeccable moles within > > NCPRI) inform me that Krishna Rao was promised an IC-ship > > in Maharashtra to file this bakwaas (and very poisonous) PIL. > > > > For him, to now claim that RTI movement should not get divided, is > > the height of deception. With folded hands we beg him not to go to > > the Supreme Court. You have done enough damage to last a decade. > > > > In utter disgust. > > > > Sarbajit Roy > > > > --- In HumJanenge@, Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@> wrote: > > > > Friends, our case for Transparent Selection of Central Information > > Commissioners was heard today in Delhi High Court, and it was dismissed. We > > were represented by eminent lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who offered various > > arguments for our case to be admitted – violation of Section 12(5) and > > Constitution Article 16, transparent ways of making CIC appointments > > followed in other countries like Indonesia, relevant Supreme court verdicts > > etc etc. > > > > *The court dismissed the case because: * > > > > (a) It opined that "Selection" of CIC was different from "Appointment". If > > it was an appointment, then all our arguments would have been valid, but as > > it was a selection, it was solely within the discretionary powers of the > > Selection Committee, and the court could have no say in the matter. > > > > > > > > (b) As such, the court felt that it need not look into the credentials of > > the present CICs, who were predominantly DOPT secretaries, government > > spokespersons etc. > > > > > > > > (c) The court agreed that our cause i.e. transparency of CIC selections, > > was basically good, but it felt that it could not enter into this matter and > > issue any writ. > > > > > > > > On these grounds, our case was dismissed. > > > > *What next? We intend to go in appeal to Supreme Court*, fully aware that > > our chances of getting this order overturned are slim. We will do this > > because, as the saying goes, "We have nothing to lose but our chains." > > > > For this, we shall await the Speaking Order of the court, which will > > hopefully be detailed as to its reasoning. Advocate Rasheed Qureshi, who is > > handling the nitty-gritties of our case, informs us that this order may take > > 10 days. > > > > When we go in appeal, we cannot add any fresh material or arguments to our > > case. The case will be decided based on whatever arguments we have advanced > > before the High Court so far. > > > > Advocate Rasheed will send us a more detailed blow-by-blow account by > > evening. I shall email that to you at the earliest. > > > > Warm Regards, > > > > Krish > > > > 98215 88114 > > > > --- End forwarded message --- > > > ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
