Dear Venkat, 1) Let me express my sadness that you have chosen not to participate in the discussion here. As a member of this group, you would have doubtless observed the steps taken by us to ensure that the decks here are kept clear for a high level of civilised discourse / debate on pure RTI.
2) I hope that you will participate in taking this discussion to a logical conclusion notwithstanding our individual public positions. There are no winners or losers in such discussions - just a desire to ensure that our members get exposed to all possible viewpoints on the interpretations involved - and reach their own independent conclusions. 3) As I have oft stated, including on this platform, by the RTI Act 2005, the court conferred Fundamental Right to Information has been downgraded to an ordinary right enforceable only under the provisions of the Act. If I was to take this stand in a superior court, there is no court in the country which would disagree with me, for with the passage of the Act all the previous decisions of the Courts have been rendered obsolete. 4) On your position on jural duties as the opposite of right, The Indian Constitution clearly specifies the duties of citizens (separate chapter) in addition to their Fundamental Rights. While citizens (and NGOs) are quick to defend the "rights" how many are aware of their duties ? 5) In conclusion, I wish to (reluctantly) touch upon a concept known a "NGO-speak". This involves distorting law (selective citations usually out of context), airbrushing judgements, superimposing "wish lists" using misleading language AND running away when confronted by facts and logic. NGO-speak is rapidly exposed when required to conform to the conventional legal methods of para-wise reply and denial. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkat...@...> wrote: > > Dear Sarbajit, > You seriously need to revisit the rights versus duty discourse from the > fundamental rights point of view. Where a duty exists it is intended to do > something to benefit somebody. Especially in the context of fundamental > rights the jural opposite of duty becomes a right. You seem to miss this > point entirely. I will not comment on the acumen of any commissioner as that > is not my purpose. My purpose is to point out what is bad law and what is > good. But I can't help you see it if you refuse to see it. I end my > contribution to this discussion chain as any more time spent on this will be > pointless. > Thanks > Venkat >
