Request to Karira Sir for a pending reply on J&K status

[vikrambakshi67]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>
Respected Sir,

I have lodged some RTI applications on seeking corrupt issues of an officer on certain corrupt issues which happend in J &k. However PIO has given reason that he cannot give meinformation by use of text of Section 1 (2). it is so important that section 1 (2) is resolved as corrupt are having a good time for being non accounatble in J &K

2 We all are seeing the change CIC and his team are getting with RTI ACT. However the corrupt still find ways to beat the RTI Act. Example despite CIC direction in this case, they are not giving information





Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/WB/C/2007/00636-SM dated 20.05.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 3.02.2009
Complainant : Ms. Veena Kohli
Respondent : Ministry of Defence
On behalf of the Appellant Shri Naresh Ghai is present.
On behalf of the Respondent the following are present:-
(i) Brig. Ved Parkash, DDG
(ii) Col. Amarjeet, PIO Northern Command
(iii) Maj. Manisha Gahlot, GSO-1 (Legal)
(iv) Maj. M.S. Jaswal, DJAG
(v) Maj. Ravinder Kumar, 15 Corps

The brief facts of the case are as under.

2. The Complainant had requested the CPIO in a letter dated 20 May 2007 seeking copies of a number of documents concerning the untimely death of her son. Her request for information was forwarded to the CPIO concerned in the Army Headquarters for further necessary action. Much after the stipulated period, she received a reply on 28 August 2007 denying the information on the ground that the Right to Information Act was not applicable to the state of Jammu and Kashmir and, further, that since the Complainant was not subject to the Army Act, the copies of the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry could not be given to her as per Rule 184 of the Army Rules. She has complained to us against this denial in her complaint dated 10 September 2007.

3. We heard the submissions of both the Complainant and the Respondent and carefully examined the complaint memo as well as the documents enclosed therewith. We do not agree with the Respondent that the Act would not apply to the Central Government establishments within the State of Jammu and Kashmir merely on the ground that this enactment does not extend to that State. Central Government establishments, wherever located, would squarely come under this Act and cannot get exemption merely because they are located in some areas of the country to which this enactment does not extend.

4. This leaves only one ground as stated by the Respondent on which the information has been denied. The Appellant is obviously not a person to whom the Army Act would apply. Therefore, as provided in rule 184 of the Army Rules, the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry cannot be disclosed. The Section 22 of the Act, however, provides that it would have an overriding effect on all other enactments. Thus, irrespective of any restriction imposed by Rule 184, the information would not be debarred to a citizen. In view of this, we direct the CPIO





3 PIO in Army Formation have used a Delhi High Court order to deny information under misinterpretations of RTI Act 1(2).


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 7604/2009, C.M. No. 3739/2009 (Stay Application)

UOI and ORS. .....
Petitioners
Through : Col. R. Balasubramanian, Advocate.


versus

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

O R D E R
20.03.2009

At request of the learned counsel, Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are hereby
deleted from the Memo of Parties. Let amended Memo of Parties be filed within
three days.
Issue notice to Respondent No.2, returnable on 18.08.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points to Section 1 (2) of the Right
to Information Act, 2005 which indicates that it is not applicable to the State
of Jammu and Kashmir. Having considered this submissions and other averments,
the operation of the impugned order of the Central Information Commission (CIC)
dated 03.02.2009 is hereby suspended till the next date of hearing.


S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J
MARCH 20, 2009








4 Kindly confirm what action is to be taken to nullify their evasive attempts to hide corrupt issues.

5 Can we also attend the High Court hearing on behalf of the CIC.

6 Can i lodge a counter writ in Mumbai High Court challanging Delhi High Court that RTI act is admissable in state of J &K 7 In same writ can i seek reforms in the Indian ARMY AND TIME BOUND REPLIES FROM THEM as State of J &K excuse will not work in a legal notice from Mumabi High Court.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

8 Next option is to go for second appeal cum complaint.

9 Karaia sir kindly guide me.

10 Also how do we seek CIC changes in the text as some kind of circular/notification.

Similar Threads which you may be interested into:

• Question: How to request answer/reply to RTI application via ordinary or register or speed post? And what is the material required in case of register post
• Status of EPF Withdrawal Request
• Tax refund status request - NOW RECEIVED AFTER FILING RTI !

[chanda_s]

the act is very clear in this matter.
section 1(2) says It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir

it does not say that it is not applicable only to the state govt of j&k. the bottom line is rti act does not extend to the geographical area of teh state of j&k. no distinction is provided in the act between state govt or central govt offices.

it requires a very liberal interpretation to prove the contrary.

[vikrambakshi67]

Sponsorer

The problem is when one is guilty an offical will try every trick to evade information.

I only feed sad it is being used to abet the corrupt


Under RTI Act 2005, The policy decisions have to be disseminated by ADG PI under confirmation from DoPT and the Parliament under Section 28 and 29. Any orders contrary to enactment of RTI Act 2005 have to be in a Gazette form by a Competent Authority.

In this case it has not happened

[SomeGuy]

I am vey much an interested party in the case and wish to submit my arguments.

Section 1(2) states that - It [the act] extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

You [through your Advocate] could attempt a claim that Parliament's intent in introducing this section was merely to avoid contradicting the autonomy given to J&K by Art 370 of the constitution, and not to shield the actions of organs of the Central Govt. from public scrutiny. Hence the exclusion applies only to elements of the state govt.

You might consider an RTI application to the law ministry asking for deliberations during the drafting of this act, seeking documents supporting this argument.

If the court decides that the word State in the section refers to the geographical boundaries of J&K rather than the institution of the state govt., I still see multiple interpretations -
1. The act does not extend to information created in J&K.
2. The act does not extend to information available in J&K.

You could try and argue that interpretation 2, and not interpretation 1 is the correct one and that copies of the information you seek, if available at Army HQ in Delhi, or other stations outside J&K should be made available to you.

Of course as to how that argument is to be made, I don't have a clue. That would be one way for your HC advocate to earn his fees. It will probably depend on the opponent's argument justifying the geographical interpretation.

PS: IANAL - I am not a Lawyer. It's possible that my legal prognostications are wrong.

[vikrambakshi67]

Thanks for the good advise sir despite not being a lawyer. Any lawyer in the forum please help.

[sandeepbaheti]

For better understanding, let us divide the public authorities under three categories:
a) PAs under J&K government
b) PAs under Central govt. established in J&K
c) All other PAs

PAs under (a) above are clearly excluded from RTI Act 2005 but are covered under J&K RTI Act.
PAs under (c) above are clearly covered under RTI Act 2005.
It is very clear that the laws do not intend to leave out a special category of PAs (under (b) above) from the liability of disclosing information. They must be covered under one of the two Acts. Since the PAs are under Central govt. they cannot be subject to an Act of State legislature. They must be covered under the Central Act.
You may present these arguments before the High Court if you decide to become a party to the case.