Dear Sir, I acknowledge receipt of your subject communication seeking comments.
My comments in the matter are as under: In the absence of any norm, any criteria, any policy on marking documents as Confidential or Strictly Confidential or Secret or Top Secret, discretionary power to mark documents can be easily misused and abused by any Govt functionary thereby unduly & in an unauthorised manner increasing non-transparency which is not in larger public interest and that is also against the spirit of the Right to Information Act 2005. *Therefore, in the first instance, the Govt must publish the crystal clear and objective policy guideline on marking documents as Confidential or Strictly Confidential or Secret or Top Secret & the authorities empowered to do so with in-built check to control & curb possible misuse of this officially delegated power.* Further, *I strongly demand that the DoPT must forthwith withdraw the undemocratic, autocratic, outrageous, dictatorial circular issued in a high-handed manner in shear abuse of power without consulting the stakeholders.* And, withdrawal of this circular be given wide publicity. Regards, -- (Babubhai Vaghela) C 202, Shrinandnagar V, Makarba Road Vejalpur, Ahmedabad - 380051 M - 94276 08632 http://twitter.com/BabubhaiVaghela http://www.esnips.com/user/vaghelabd http://www.youtube.com/user/vaghelabd (Administrator - Google Group - Right to Information Act 2005) http://groups.google.com/group/Right-to-Information-Act-2005/about?hl=en On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 7:48 AM, sarbajitr <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Motion for discussion / adoption: > > "RTI_India welcomes DoPT's clarification that when one Govt body ("Y") > sends confidential information (say interdepartmental consultations) to > another Govt body ("X"), the PIO of the receiving body X cannot disclose the > information under RTI Act 2005 without issuing mandatory 3rd party notice to > originating P/A Y." > > > http://persmin.gov.in/WriteData/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/RTI/8_2_2010-IR.pdf > > (Note: the logic of this statement may not easily understood by our > members, so it would be good if queries / views are posted which I shall > reply to / explain. Otherwise, the motion will deemed as adopted.) > > Sarbajit > Moderator > > >
