Proposed amendments to RTI Rules of Central Govt

[bapuji]

Sir ,
I have posted different posts for different issues under proposed amendments . I believe it would be more systematic if we discuss each issue separately , otherwise sweeping surge of emotions will confuse the issues labelling everything as bad . I have not given any analysis as yet but have opened issues for you all to exercise your neurones and analyze the issues bare thread .

If others feel this single post is alright for every issue , we may go ahead here only .

It is better we discuss each issue seperately

" DO OR DO NOT> THERE IS NO 'TRY' " - YODO

[sarbajit]

Sponsorer

the stalwart is just into precis writing to show that it is difficult to fit the matter into 250 words - therefore objections - therefore 2nd appeals .

Y'aar I'm not such a doddering buddha as yet.

As per me, if section 4(1)(a) disclosure is complete, I can ask for about 200 separate files (all specified individually) in a single RTI application with 250 word limit. So I for one am very very glad if a 250 word limit is imposed. {Hint a URL or FileReference would be counted as a single word since it has no spaces}

Secondly, as all the info I usually ask for is section 4 stuff in any case, they can't put a limit on my requests.

Thirdly, why should I waste my time (like Ambrish) specifying what I want, let the PIO decide what he must give me from the subject I specify.

Fourthly, As long as you frame your info request in terms of section 4 they cannot deny you anything.

[Pulivarthi Narasimhulu]

It is better to scrap the Act than the proposed amendments.

[sarbajit]

I have started an alternative (complementary) objection to the draft RTI rules .

I think the emphasis now should be on getting a formal PUBLIC NOTICE inviting "Objections and Suggestions" to the Draft rules, instead of merely "comments to draft RTI rules.

Since my javascript is off whenever I use this forum, here is the direct external link also.

To:
The Government of India, by

1) President of India,
2) Prime Minister,
3) Law Minister,
4) Cabinet Secretary/GoI,
5) Secretary Law/GoI,
6) Secretary Personnel/GoI,
7) Under-Secretary (RTI)/DoP,

Dear Sir / Madam

Sub: Office Memorandum "Amendment to RTI Rules " dated 10/12/2010 File:1/35/2008-IR, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel.

I am given to understand from the above cited Office Memorandum that the Govt of India proposes to notify RTI rules in supercession of the existing Rules. Comments have been invited on e-mail by 27-Dec-2010.

I am therefore submitting, distinctly and without prejudice to each other, my objections, suggestions and comments as follows:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS:

1) That I am only submitting this communication upon being informed by the office of Jt.Secy/DoPT Shri Rajiv Kapoor that members of the public can also submit their objections / suggestions / comments on the draft Rules published vide the referred OM on website of Personnel Ministry. I spoke to JS/DoPT's office only after reading
reports in reputed newspapers that the Govt had invited comments from the public on these Rules. In this context I wish to object that device of Office Memorandum cannot be utilized to invite comments / objections / suggestions from the public at large. I object that this highly irregular practice of using Office Memorandum (instead of a formal and statutory Public Notice) to disclose draft Rules and seek comments has been corruptly done at behest of Shri Rajiv Kapoor so as to facilitate a network of non-Govt employees, former IAS officers, touts and Maoists who are ensconced within an extra-statutory body which I describe and specify as "National
Advisory Council" to gain access to privileged and confidential drafts of Govt. and interfere with government process. I suggest and require that all the officers of Government who are implicated in the usage of this unlawful procedure be prosecuted under departmental vigilance rules and/or the Official Secrets Act and/or
Prevention of Corruption Act etc., and that all members of the public (except me) who cite or quote any portion of these draft rules to which they are not authorised to have access be likewise prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act read with the Indian Penal Code. For ready reference I set out below the definition of "Office
Memorandum" in the current Manual Of Office Procedure used by Parliament.

"6.19(Use of different forms of Communications --- Different forms of communications are to be used for correspondence with different offices/organizations, etc. as detailed below:
:
(2) Office Memorandum: This form is generally used for correspondence with other Divisions of the Secretariat or in calling for information from or conveying information to employees. This is also used in communicating instructions/decisions in certain cases. It is written in the third person and bears no salutation except the name and designation of the officer signing it."

Hence also I say there is no provision to utilise an Office Memorandum to call for information from the public (ie. civilians).

[RajeevK1979]

Dear All
present proposed amendment is an attack on RTI seekers. This amendment will encourage holding back information. and the dictatorship of PIO will rise. The citizens will be suppresed again.
In few words I will say, it is not the progression in democracy, but it is regression for corrupt state.
RTI activist will be harrassed more. as they are still being harrassed.
I personally suffered the harrassement.
This amendment is pro-burocracy and anti citizen. it is not in favour of democratic country...
It is really ruthless proposal

Kindly oppose it

Regards

Rajeev