Dear Sarbajit, Thanks for clarifying the law on that. But your statement that such information cannot be provided under section 6 even if it is based on what you call 'settled law' is wrong. If there is a decision that ousts a citizen's right to seek such information under section 6(1) then that is bad law. It does not take into account what section 7(1) says. I am certainly not aware of any High Court decision on this which would probably amount to settled law. Even High Courts have ignored some crucial provisions of the RTI Act while interpreting others and I say this with utmost respect to their wisdom. Some such lacunae were pointed out in my analysis of the Delhi High Court's decision in the judges' assets declarations case sent around last year. When ADM Jabalpore case was decided by the Supreme Court it became settled law that under a state of emergency, the right to life and the right to move courts in such matters stood suspended. That was settled law until the constitution was amended the 44th time. But Jurists wrote about it extensively shocked by the inability of the Supreme Court to stand up to teh GOvernment of the day and defend that fundamental right. The High Courts issued habeas corpus writs protecting the right to life despite this judgement. So if something is settled law it is not written in stone for all time to come. if there are valid grounds, settled law can be turned upside down. The starting point for such initiatives is discussions and writing of the kind that this chain of mails has seen. Even Asokan inscriptions written on stone were settled law for a short while, once upon a time. Today they are of historic value and I feel proud to belong to that heritage. But the law has moved way ahead of Asokan times and I respect and recognise that. Thanks Venkat
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of sarbajitr Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [rti_india] Re: interpreation of Section 2(f) and 2(J) Our views are not important, it is the law - and settled interpretations - which are. You and Venkatesh are missing my point. The fact that information has been placed in public domain does not preclude it from being provided under RTI Act. In fact there is the "double bench" decision in my case against DDA (where Venkatesh was also present) which reaffirmed that if information has been
