Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: 123 Agreement

  1. #1
    Posts
    96
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    123 Agreement


    (H) "Information" means any information that is not in the public domain and is transferred in any form pursuant to this Agreement and so designated and documented in hard copy or digital form by mutual agreement by the Parties that it shall be subject to this Agreement, but will cease to be information whenever the Party transferring the information or any third party legitimately releases it into the public domain.


    This is clause 'H' of 123 Agreement between Govt of India and United States Govt and present subject matter of duel between Sings and Karats.

    I am only concerned with the use of the word INFORMATION in this agreement. I would like to know what does this "information" mean ?


    › Find content similar to: 123 Agreement



  2. #2
    Posts
    2,286
    Name:
    Col NR Kurup (Retd)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    5 Post(s)

    Re: 123 Agreement


    At least some of us will be grateful if you can post (only if it is legal and permissible) any more information on "123 Agreement " and " Hyde Act " if available with you. It may or may not directly affect RTI now but can be very useful. Kindly let us know as to where it is available.

  3. #3

    Re: 123 Agreement


    Do check it out 1st Basu , that can you ask for the same under RTI Act , I doubt ...

    Even In case you can , and use the same anywhere in any form , I think it would polarize the matter further...

    The 123 Agreement is at a very critical stage , as it seems from the Media reports and Party spokespersons briefings, Still Apart from knowledge and are future action, what else would any citizen gain from such Information that you wanna ask....I would like to know and appreciate that WHAT or HOW Would the information you are asking help Indian CItizen

    Still If you want , I would request you to go ahead and one way out is ...Wait for the Parliamentary debate on 123 Agreement (Last was scheduled on Aug 29th) and thn ask for the information in larger prospective ...

    For larger interest of the Citizen and additional to the knowledge
    Last edited by Abhinav Bohare; 02-09-07 at 05:34 PM. Reason: add

  4. #4

    Re: 123 Agreement



    123 Agreement / Nuclear deal continues to rock parliament,

    Political differences over the Indo-US civil nuclear deal continued to rock parliamentary proceedings Friday with ruling alliance MPs staging voluble protests leading to adjournments of proceedings over a senior opposition leader's virulent attack against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

    In the din, Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee rejected the opposition's demand for a debate on the nuclear deal under a rule that entails voting, suggesting that parliament had "no competence" to decide on operationalisation of an agreement with a foreign country.

    Chatterjee allowed a discussion on the deal Monday under rule 193 of the parliamentary proceedings, which will not entail any voting, contrary to the demand made by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

    This is subject to the availability of Manmohan Singh in the house.

    Left MPs, who have denounced the nuclear deal, were united Friday with the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) when Parliamentary Affairs Minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi demanded an apology from National Democratic Alliance (NDA) convenor George Fernandes for his remarks against the prime minister.

    Fernandes was quoted saying in a newspaper that if Manmohan Singh was China's head of government, he would have been shot for "bluffing" to the nation about the nuclear deal with the US.

    "He should apologise or the House should condemn (his remarks)," Dasmunsi said amid shouting from Congress MPs.

    Although Chatterjee said he could not force Fernandes to apologise for a statement he had made outside the Lok Sabha, the MPs continued to protest leading to an abrupt adjournment of the proceedings just before lunch.

    When the house reconvened, Congress MPs continued to insist on an apology and the house was again adjourned till 3.30 p.m., but only to take up the private members bills.

    The Rajya Sabha also witnessed repeated adjournments over the "insulting" remarks against Manmohan Singh.

    Earlier, Chatterjee clarified that it was the right of the central government to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign countries.

    "Any such treaty or agreement becomes effective without any intervention by parliament," Chatterjee said.

    His clarification came as a response to the opposition's notice for a discussion on 123 agreement between New Delhi and Washington under Rule 184 that requires voting.

    Rejecting the notices, the speaker said: "There has been no occasion where any treaty or agreement was ever discussed under Rule 184."

    The notice given by Bharatiya Janata Party leader L.K. Advani and Samajwadi Party leader Ramgopal Yadav wanted the government to "re-negotiate" the deal.

    Both the United National Progressive Alliance and BJP have been demanding voting on the issue to embarrass the government ever since the monsoon session of parliament got underway Aug 10.

    By asking the government to re-negotiate the pact, the motion "in effect seeks to disapprove the agreement entered into and to require the government not to give effect to the agreement in its present form and contents, which the house has no competence to do", Chatterjee said.

    He said: "It will clearly amount to the house rejecting the agreement in its present form."

    However, speaking in the Lok Sabha later, Advani, Leader of the Opposition, sought enactment of a law to make it obligatory that treaties and agreements should be ratified by parliament. The Left parties, which support Manmohan Singh's government from outside, also have made this demand earlier.

    Although Advani claimed that External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's remarks that Hyde Act would not binding on India was wrong, the latter reiterated that New Delhi was not bound by the act passed by the Congress

    Mukherjee said while Advani was quoting Nicholas Burns, US Under Secretary of State, he was talking on the basis of what US president George W. Bush said that India was not bound by Hyde Act.

    "Let us have a debate and let the country know what is right and what is wrong," he said. [/color] <!-- google_ad_section_end --> --- IANS
    Last edited by Abhinav Bohare; 02-09-07 at 05:40 PM. Reason: add

  5. #5
    Posts
    96
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: 123 Agreement


    I think I have raked the issue at much larger scale than I wanted.

    I had seen this entire 123 agreement after doing google search with 123 Agreement + Govt of India. US Govt has released the entire text on the web. I thought the "information" definition at the start of the agreement is quite camouflaged and funny ! Since we are information seekers - I had posted it on our site.

    We have very definite agenda on this RTI forum and request Kushal to remove this thread.

  6. #6
    Posts
    3,380
    Name:
    Dr. Pathak
    Blog Entries
    29
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    16 Post(s)

    Re: 123 Agreement


    Transferred to chit chat

  7. #7

    Re: 123 Agreement


    All Well If ends well



About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook youtube Tumblr RTI Microblog RSS Feed Apple App Store Google Play for Android