All who had been till now drum beating about ANT's right morals beat this. More than shocked am amazed that CIC has attached posting on this group. I think this what they call 'Kuladi pe paav marna'. Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
-----Original Message----- From: "umapathi" <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:41:14 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: [rti_india] Re: Complaint of misbehaviour against cic inforamation commissioner AN TIWARI [2 Dear All, the issue has taken new dimension. CIC has now issued me a notice of "Contempt proceddings" for posting the matter on this site. I have started a new Thread on this today. please let us know wheteher CIC can initiate such actions? should we post only the positive aspects of IC performance ? can our Fundamental right of speach and expression be curtailed by CIC ? PL ADVISE. regards --- In [email protected], VB Singh <vijay_bsi...@...> wrote: > > Thanks for enlightening. > > VB Singh > “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but > because of those who look on and do nothing.â€� - Albert Einstein > > > --- On Fri, 20/8/10, sarbajitr <sroy1...@...> wrote: > > > From: sarbajitr <sroy1...@...> > Subject: [rti_india] Re: Complaint of misbehaviour against cic inforamation > commissioner AN TIWARI [2 > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, 20 August, 2010, 5:33 PM > > >  > > > > Dear Vijay > > 1) High Courts / SC are "courts of record". Hence their decisions may be > "reported" after specific permission is given by the bench concerned. The CIC > is decidedly not a court of record, and its decisions have no precedentary > value legally speaking - and so PIOs / FAAs are not bound by them. For eg. > IC(MLS) has now openly started disagreeing with Mr Habibullah's decisions and > specifies "*this* Commission ...." > > 2) The RTI Act says things like 4(1)(d) "provide reasons for its > administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.". By this > only the affected persons are entitled to copy of the CIC decisions. 4(1)(c) > "publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or > announcing the decisions which affect public;" does not help us because CIC > decisions do not affect the "PUBLIC". > Similarly 4(1)(a) clearly specifies that records of CIC (which includes its > decisions) are to be connected over a network throughout India ... (which > excludes internet), So taking all this into consideration certain ICs in > their infinite wisdom have virtually stopped posting decisions online NOW > THAT THE CIC MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS 2007 ARE STRUCK DOWN. > > 3) Certainly as an affected person you are entitled to receive a copy of > ANT's decisions in your matters. The way to get info about CIC decisions > involving other people is to file an RTI request u/s 6. > > 4) Except for Shailesh Gandhi hardly any other IC is levying penalty. So this > is not unique to IC ANT. A very strong case can be made out for not levying > penalty indiscriminately. Read IC ANT's decision in that LIC Chennai lift > matter to note how penalties should be levied. > > 5) Look, despite what you believe or have been led to believe, the RTI Act is > not about exposing corruption or redressing one's grievances. If you insist > on using it for that purpose, you must be prepared for the consequences and > stone-walling that follows. > > Sarbajit > > --- In [email protected], VB Singh <vijay_bsingh@> wrote: > > > > Dear Sarbajitji, > >  > > I am confused by the last para of your mail "where is it written in RTI > > Act that decisions of the CIC are to be published on the internet (computer > > network) so that the whole world can read them ?." > >  > > Do you mean that we are not entitled to decisions delivered by Information > > Commissioners and if that is so, why the judgements of High Courts and > > Apex Court are uploaded? RTI Act is intended to facilitate information > > which were / are under cover and if the decisions of Information > > commissioners, are kept under cover and not uploaded as it is not in > > the statute, then how we are going to get information about descisions > > delivered by Information Commissioner. > >  > > The decisions delivered by Shri AN Tiwari in my cases have not been > > uploaded and link can't be provided. It is observed that decisions > > regarding others have also not been uploaded. I have filed more than 50 > > application under RTI since then, but CPIO and or FAA deny the information > > ignoring judgement BUT, it is a fact that the CPIOs and FAAs of department > > deny information under Section 8 without giving reasons and in appeals FAAs > > confirm the decision of CPIOs. This is delibereately done as they know that > > no penal action under Section 20 (1) is going to be taken against them by > > ANT. > >  > > Whistleblowers like me who have faced a lot including murder of own > > brothers, feel dejected by the attitude of ANT, when he pounce on us during > > video conferencing and threaten us. Is he empowered to threwten us who > > are victim of corrupts in the department and want to use RTI to expose them > > and thus redress our grieavances?  > >  > > With warm regards > > VB Singh > > â€Å"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, > > but because of those who look on and do nothing.� - Albert Einstein > > > > > > --- On Fri, 20/8/10, sarbajitr <sroy1947@> wrote: > > > > > > From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@> > > Subject: [rti_india] Re: Complaint of misbehaviour against cic inforamation > > commissioner AN TIWARI [2 > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Friday, 20 August, 2010, 4:02 PM > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > Dear Vijay > > > > My intentions insofar as the RTI_India e-group is concerned are > > publicly accessible. > > http://old.nabble.com/Important-Announcement-to29279795.html#a29279795 > > > > quote: > > > > "primary purpose of this group is to facilitate information exchange > > between the stakeholders in RTI process, so that responsible citizen users > > get maximum information in RTI without delay, and that PIOs and FAAs deny > > maximum information to irresponsible applicants / appellants without fear > > of penalty. > > > > The secondary (but equally important) purpose is to expose all the > > 'harami' RTI activists, and Information Commissioners who are killing > > the RTI movement to the detriment of responsible RTI users." > > > > PS: If you have specific problems with orders of Mr Tiwari in your cases, > > please post the links, so that we can analyse the problem. > > > > Sarbajit > > > > --- In [email protected], VB Singh <vijay_bsingh@> wrote: > > > > > > It is not understood� what are the intentions of� Sarbajit > > > > > > VB Singh > > > â€Å"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, > > > but because of those who look on and do nothing.� - Albert Einstein > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 19/8/10, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@> > > > Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Complaint of misbehaviour against cic > > > inforamation commissioner AN TIWARI [2 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: Thursday, 19 August, 2010, 10:21 PM > > > > > > > > > � > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Satishji > > > > > > 1) The very fact that you are a member of this group means that you are > > > not a common information seeker. Conversely if after so many years here > > > you still feel that you are a common information seeker then obviously we > > > have failed. > > > > > > 2) Common information seekers will have no problems using RTI Act if they > > > ask for common (ordinary) information, in fact ICs go out of their way to > > > assist such people - as one IC says "aapko aam khaana hain ya gutli ginna > > > hain" going out of their way to use the moral power of their office to > > > help ordinary people to achieve results even if it means going beyond > > > RTI� .The problems start when so-called common information seekers > > > start using RTI to settle scores, rake up dead personal issues, to > > > "fight" corruption, to do low intensity social reform, to blackmail etc > > > etc. The Information Commissioners are not fools and identify� such > > > people within a minute. In such situations, the ICs must assist the P/A > > > (PIOs) to ensure that the letter and spirit of the RTI Act is adhered to > > > insofar as exempted information is not given to undeserving (not acting > > > in larger public interest) applicants. > > > > > > 3) IC ANT is actually one of the most honest ICs, and this is what makes > > > him so universally (un)appreciated. Many people would be very happy if he > > > was not there so that corrupt, legally bankrupt and dishonest decisions > > > are given (as some of the other ICs are doing). and the institution of > > > the CIC is thereby weakened. Privately even Mr Habibullah's staff who > > > have been with him for many years admit that Mr H is not a patch on Mr > > > Tiwari insofar as procedure and respect is concerned. > > > > > > 4) Lastly, where is it written in RTI Act that decisions of the CIC are > > > to be published on the internet (computer network) so that the whole > > > world can read them ?. (Read this statement carefully). Our other star > > > finalist in the poll IC(MLS) has also started pulling his decisions off > > > the CIC website. This is also proving to be a blessing to citizens who > > > are getting fed up with receiving huge quantities of SPAM from foreign > > > financed spies. > > > > > > Sarbajit > > > > > > > > >
