Dear All, Is this a RTI group or name to be changed to "RTIallegation group". Bhaskar
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:15 PM, S.D. Sharma <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Mr. Ashish Kumar, > > I say again is certainly time for all the ant-national person like > Venktesh Nayak of CHRI and other NCPRI also to be expeled from > the forum. > > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SS-08122009-04.pdf > Venkatesh Nayak vresus Home Affairs > > In this recent order IC Susma Singh admonshes Nayak > "*In passing, I may also observe that the plea advanced by the > appellant that the Manual under reference is mandated to be disclosed > u/s 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act is based on gross misunderstanding and > misappreciation of the provisions of RTI Act*. By no stretch of > imagination, can it be conceived that this Act would permit disclosure of > any information which may adversely impact on India’s security > concerns. The provisions of clause (a) of section 8 (1) bears testimony to > the security concerns of the law makers. Hence, this plea is > misconceived and needs to be discarded." > > Nayak had asked for the top secret and confidential security manual > which contained military plans, vulenarabilities and capabilities of > systems, > intelligence activities, nuclear programs, cryptology etc. > > The CPIO had object to giving info because "may, indirectly, reveal the > security policy/strategy of the Govt. and if the same falls into the hands > of Anti Nation persons, > like naxals and other terrorists group, it may compromise the security of > India." > > IC Susma singh fully upheld the view of CPIO. But just think if this matter > had been assigned to Shailesh Gandhi he would have given all the > information > to his NCPRI partner. Previously also this Venkatesh is helping spies and > traitors lodged in Tihar jail who had compromised Indian Armys secrets with > pen drives and cryptology. Head of CHRI is daughter of a famous Indian > general > against whom many allegations of spying for Pakistan had surface > regulalrly. > > S D Sharma > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:53 PM, ashish kr1965 <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Dear group moderators >> >> I am pleased that the new moderation policy is >> evidently quite successful in arresting the menace of >> frivolous postings to the group. >> >> Another development is that the NCPRI members >> here now appear reluctant to post on a public frequency >> where their puerile logic and "ngo-speak" will >> be exposed by the many RTI "experts" here. >> >> For instance Mr Venkatesh Naik is now posting >> on Hum Janenge. Of his 2 recent posts, the first >> on the DDA HC decision is plagiarized from the >> private legal opinion A.K.Chakravarthy of the C.I.C >> put up to the Information Commissioners for >> their fortnightly meeting. Somehow NCPRI has >> obtained a copy of this (Gandhi-giri :-)) and Mr Naik >> has the gall to palm off this work as his own >> research (right down to the case law). The second post >> of Mr Naik's claims that there is no basis in RTI Act 2005 for the >> competent authority to prescribe fees for 2nd appeals. >> This betrays a complete disregard (or perhaps ignorance) >> for the letter of the law, and I am strongly inclined >> towards seconding Sharma's suggestion to expel >> NCPRI (and other NGOs) from this group so that our >> group members are not deceived.. >> >> Ashish > > > >
