Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka

[Venkatesh Nayak-2]

Dear friends,
Much water has flown down the Yamuna since a single judge bench of the Delhi
High Court gave its judgement on the case related to disclosure of judges'
assets. In the southern parts of India including my home state of Karnataka
entire villages were washed away by floods. But the much promised action on
disclosure of assets has not seen the light of the day except in the case of
a few High Court judges who declared their intent to be transparent. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided to challenge the order of the Delhi High
Court. At least one High Court is said to have resolved not to disclose such
information in the public domain. While these developments and the attendant
debate hits the headlines every now and then, a public authority in
Karnataka has publicised on its website assets decalartions of functionaries
from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy without making any fuss.
 
The public authority in question is the Lok Ayukta of Karnataka established
under a 1984 law. The Lok Ayukta bears close resemblance to the institution
of Ombudsman found in many Commonwealth and Scandinavian countries and has
specific jurisdiction over corruption-related matters also. The declarations
of assets and liabilities made by the Lok Ayukta, Upa Lok Ayukta, one police
officer of Additional Director General of Police rank, two police officers
of Superintendent of Police rank and 19 officers of Police Inspector rank
have been disclosed. Declarations of 19 other officers associated with other
wings of the Lok Ayukta have also been uploaded in the website. These
decalarations may be accessed at: http://lokayukta.kar.nic.in/assliab.htm (I
thank Prof. B K Chandrashekar for alerting me about this good practice.)
 
The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta Justice (retd.) N. Santosh Hegde has disclosed assets
owned by his spouse as well. Details regards shares, debentures, fixed
deposits, immovable property and loans taken from banks and relatives have
been disclosed. To his credit Justice (retd.) Hegde has even disclosed the
source of funds that were spent on the purchase of a residential flat in
Bangalore. The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta has not only led by example, he has
ensured that all officers and officials working with him comply with this
high standard of probity. It remains to be seen whether his successors will
carry on this noble tradition.  Not one of these officers is complaining
that they are being harassed or blackmailed on account of the size or value
of assets they have disclosed. It must be mentioned here that there is no
statutory requirement on the Lok Ayukta or his officers to disclose their
assets. Instead the political executive including the Chief Minister all the
members of the State Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council are
duty bound to disclose details of assets and liabilities for self, spouse
and close family members to the Lok Ayukta. Without saying anything more,
one ought to simply stand up and applaud loudly for the institution of the
Karnataka Lok Ayukta and hope that every public servant with the duty to
disclose assets is doing so as required by law. Where there is a will there
is a way (even if there is no statutory obligation).
 
Going back to the case that has hogged the headlines we know that the assets
disclosure related matter has not been settled as the Supreme Court has
challenged the Delhi High Court order. We do not expect the matter to end
with the decision of the division bench because a further appeal may be
filed before the Surpeme Court itself. The Government of India could not
table a Bill on assets disclosure during the last session as many MPs
opposed its limited scope.The Honb'le Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has
also said that judges are free to voluntarily disclose their assets-related
information. The decision of all judges who have volunteered to disclose
information about their assets is to be welcomed.
 
However voluntary disclosure is the same as pious charity. Charity is
anathema to the language of rights especialy fundamental rights guaranteed
by our Constitution. The citizen's right to know has acquired the status of
a fundamental right since 1975. Fudamental rights are enforceable against
the State and its functionaries, charity is not enforceable. The voter's
right to know the background of candidates contesting elections to
Parliament and State Legislatures has acquired the status of a fundamental
right and is now well-established. This right to know is enforceable in a
court of law. What is important is- the voter's right to know is enforceable
against private individuals many of whom do not hold public office (some may
be sitting legislators seeking re-election). There is no reason why a system
ought not to be created for disclosure of assets and liabilities information
of career public servants in all organs of the State.
 
The purpose of assets disclosure by public functinoaries in mature
democracies is not to provide sensational fodder to satiate voyeuristic
appetites. It is a necessary mechanism for ensuring probity of such
functionaries who have chosen to pursue a career in public life. Rather than
single out the members of the judiciary for disclosure of assets, the
Government must come up with a comprehensive assets disclosure Bill that
will cover all public servants. Such a Bill must have an effective mechanism
for investigating false declarations within a reasonable period of time and
where proven there must be sanctions against the errant public servant.
Anything lesser than this will merely be an eyewash.
 
In order to access our previous email alerts please click on:
<BLOCKED::blocked::BLOCKED::http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai
/rti/india/national.htm>
http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national.htm You
will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
refusal to receive email alerts.

 

Thanks
Venkatesh Nayak
Programme Coordinator
Access to Information Programme
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi- 110 017
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org
alternate email:  <mailto:nayak.venkatesh@...>
nayak.venkatesh@...

[cpiodelhi]

Dear Mr Nayak

Can you kindly enlighten us concerning the specific provisions of RTI Act (as it presently stands) which makes disclosure of assets of public servants mandatory.

Would you not also agree with me that RTI Act actually, and specifically, exempts disclosure of such personal information by section 8(1).


--- In rti_india@..., "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@...> wrote:

>
> Dear friends,
> Much water has flown down the Yamuna since a single judge bench of the Delhi
> High Court gave its judgement on the case related to disclosure of judges'
> assets. In the southern parts of India including my home state of Karnataka
> entire villages were washed away by floods. But the much promised action on
> disclosure of assets has not seen the light of the day except in the case of
> a few High Court judges who declared their intent to be transparent. The
> Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided to challenge the order of the Delhi High
> Court. At least one High Court is said to have resolved not to disclose such
> information in the public domain. While these developments and the attendant
> debate hits the headlines every now and then, a public authority in
> Karnataka has publicised on its website assets decalartions of functionaries
> from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy without making any fuss.
>  
> The public authority in question is the Lok Ayukta of Karnataka established
> under a 1984 law. The Lok Ayukta bears close resemblance to the institution
> of Ombudsman found in many Commonwealth and Scandinavian countries and has
> specific jurisdiction over corruption-related matters also. The declarations
> of assets and liabilities made by the Lok Ayukta, Upa Lok Ayukta, one police
> officer of Additional Director General of Police rank, two police officers
> of Superintendent of Police rank and 19 officers of Police Inspector rank
> have been disclosed. Declarations of 19 other officers associated with other
> wings of the Lok Ayukta have also been uploaded in the website. These
> decalarations may be accessed at: http://lokayukta.kar.nic.in/assliab.htm (I
> thank Prof. B K Chandrashekar for alerting me about this good practice.)
>  
> The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta Justice (retd.) N. Santosh Hegde has disclosed assets
> owned by his spouse as well. Details regards shares, debentures, fixed
> deposits, immovable property and loans taken from banks and relatives have
> been disclosed. To his credit Justice (retd.) Hegde has even disclosed the
> source of funds that were spent on the purchase of a residential flat in
> Bangalore. The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta has not only led by example, he has
> ensured that all officers and officials working with him comply with this
> high standard of probity. It remains to be seen whether his successors will
> carry on this noble tradition.  Not one of these officers is complaining
> that they are being harassed or blackmailed on account of the size or value
> of assets they have disclosed. It must be mentioned here that there is no
> statutory requirement on the Lok Ayukta or his officers to disclose their
> assets. Instead the political executive including the Chief Minister all the
> members of the State Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council are
> duty bound to disclose details of assets and liabilities for self, spouse
> and close family members to the Lok Ayukta. Without saying anything more,
> one ought to simply stand up and applaud loudly for the institution of the
> Karnataka Lok Ayukta and hope that every public servant with the duty to
> disclose assets is doing so as required by law. Where there is a will there
> is a way (even if there is no statutory obligation).
>  
> Going back to the case that has hogged the headlines we know that the assets
> disclosure related matter has not been settled as the Supreme Court has
> challenged the Delhi High Court order. We do not expect the matter to end
> with the decision of the division bench because a further appeal may be
> filed before the Surpeme Court itself. The Government of India could not
> table a Bill on assets disclosure during the last session as many MPs
> opposed its limited scope.The Honb'le Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has
> also said that judges are free to voluntarily disclose their assets-related
> information. The decision of all judges who have volunteered to disclose
> information about their assets is to be welcomed.
>  
> However voluntary disclosure is the same as pious charity. Charity is
> anathema to the language of rights especialy fundamental rights guaranteed
> by our Constitution. The citizen's right to know has acquired the status of
> a fundamental right since 1975. Fudamental rights are enforceable against
> the State and its functionaries, charity is not enforceable. The voter's
> right to know the background of candidates contesting elections to
> Parliament and State Legislatures has acquired the status of a fundamental
> right and is now well-established. This right to know is enforceable in a
> court of law. What is important is- the voter's right to know is enforceable
> against private individuals many of whom do not hold public office (some may
> be sitting legislators seeking re-election). There is no reason why a system
> ought not to be created for disclosure of assets and liabilities information
> of career public servants in all organs of the State.
>  
> The purpose of assets disclosure by public functinoaries in mature
> democracies is not to provide sensational fodder to satiate voyeuristic
> appetites. It is a necessary mechanism for ensuring probity of such
> functionaries who have chosen to pursue a career in public life. Rather than
> single out the members of the judiciary for disclosure of assets, the
> Government must come up with a comprehensive assets disclosure Bill that
> will cover all public servants. Such a Bill must have an effective mechanism
> for investigating false declarations within a reasonable period of time and
> where proven there must be sanctions against the errant public servant.
> Anything lesser than this will merely be an eyewash.
>  
> In order to access our previous email alerts please click on:
> <BLOCKED::blocked::BLOCKED::http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai
> /rti/india/national.htm>
> http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national.htm You
> will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
> receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
> refusal to receive email alerts.
>
>  
>
> Thanks
> Venkatesh Nayak
> Programme Coordinator
> Access to Information Programme
> Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
> B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
> New Delhi- 110 017
> tel: [phone]
> fax: [phone]
> website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org
> alternate email:  <mailto:nayak.venkatesh@...>
> nayak.venkatesh@...
>

[ysingh rajput]

There is no personal information so far acquisition of assets is concerned. Even a citizen has to declare with the Income Tax Authorities. Anybody could get such information under RTI Act - at the most the IT authority may have to serve a notice to the third pary why such information could be given to information seeker.

A public servant has added responsibility - he has to declare his assets whenever acquired and in annual returns. Judges or any public authority/servants can have no excuse in submission of these details departmentally or to the public at large.  Unless of course one has to hide something.

Personal information, in my view, covers only information pertaining to person's health and moral turpitude. If a person has acquired assets by his hard  earned money - why he should hesitate in declarations?

Y Singh N Rajput
22-10-09




________________________________
From: cpiodelhi <cpiodelhi@...>
To: rti_india@...
Sent: Thu, 22 October, 2009 5:20:44 PM
Subject: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka

 
Dear Mr Nayak

Can you kindly enlighten us concerning the specific provisions of RTI Act (as it presently stands) which makes disclosure of assets of public servants mandatory.

Would you not also agree with me that RTI Act actually, and specifically, exempts disclosure of such personal information by section 8(1).

--- In rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com, "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@. ..> wrote:

>
> Dear friends,
> Much water has flown down the Yamuna since a single judge bench of the Delhi
> High Court gave its judgement on the case related to disclosure of judges'
> assets. In the southern parts of India including my home state of Karnataka
> entire villages were washed away by floods. But the much promised action on
> disclosure of assets has not seen the light of the day except in the case of
> a few High Court judges who declared their intent to be transparent. The
> Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided to challenge the order of the Delhi High
> Court. At least one High Court is said to have resolved not to disclose such
> information in the public domain. While these developments and the attendant
> debate hits the headlines every now and then, a public authority in
> Karnataka has publicised on its website assets decalartions of functionaries
> from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy without making any fuss.
>
> The public authority in question is the Lok Ayukta of Karnataka established
> under a 1984 law. The Lok Ayukta bears close resemblance to the institution
> of Ombudsman found in many Commonwealth and Scandinavian countries and has
> specific jurisdiction over corruption-related matters also. The declarations
> of assets and liabilities made by the Lok Ayukta, Upa Lok Ayukta, one police
> officer of Additional Director General of Police rank, two police officers
> of Superintendent of Police rank and 19 officers of Police Inspector rank
> have been disclosed. Declarations of 19 other officers associated with other
> wings of the Lok Ayukta have also been uploaded in the website. These
> decalarations may be accessed at: http://lokayukta. kar.nic.in/ assliab.htm (I
> thank Prof. B K Chandrashekar for alerting me about this good practice.)
>
> The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta Justice (retd.) N. Santosh Hegde has disclosed assets
> owned by his spouse as well. Details regards shares, debentures, fixed
> deposits, immovable property and loans taken from banks and relatives have
> been disclosed. To his credit Justice (retd.) Hegde has even disclosed the
> source of funds that were spent on the purchase of a residential flat in
> Bangalore. The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta has not only led by example, he has
> ensured that all officers and officials working with him comply with this
> high standard of probity. It remains to be seen whether his successors will
> carry on this noble tradition.  Not one of these officers is complaining
> that they are being harassed or blackmailed on account of the size or value
> of assets they have disclosed. It must be mentioned here that there is no
> statutory requirement on the Lok Ayukta or his officers to disclose their
> assets. Instead the political executive including the Chief Minister all the
> members of the State Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council are
> duty bound to disclose details of assets and liabilities for self, spouse
> and close family members to the Lok Ayukta. Without saying anything more,
> one ought to simply stand up and applaud loudly for the institution of the
> Karnataka Lok Ayukta and hope that every public servant with the duty to
> disclose assets is doing so as required by law. Where there is a will there
> is a way (even if there is no statutory obligation).
>
> Going back to the case that has hogged the headlines we know that the assets
> disclosure related matter has not been settled as the Supreme Court has
> challenged the Delhi High Court order. We do not expect the matter to end
> with the decision of the division bench because a further appeal may be
> filed before the Surpeme Court itself. The Government of India could not
> table a Bill on assets disclosure during the last session as many MPs
> opposed its limited scope.The Honb'le Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has
> also said that judges are free to voluntarily disclose their assets-related
> information. The decision of all judges who have volunteered to disclose
> information about their assets is to be welcomed.
>
> However voluntary disclosure is the same as pious charity. Charity is
> anathema to the language of rights especialy fundamental rights guaranteed
> by our Constitution. The citizen's right to know has acquired the status of
> a fundamental right since 1975. Fudamental rights are enforceable against
> the State and its functionaries, charity is not enforceable. The voter's
> right to know the background of candidates contesting elections to
> Parliament and State Legislatures has acquired the status of a fundamental
> right and is now well-established. This right to know is enforceable in a
> court of law. What is important is- the voter's right to know is enforceable
> against private individuals many of whom do not hold public office (some may
> be sitting legislators seeking re-election) . There is no reason why a system
> ought not to be created for disclosure of assets and liabilities information
> of career public servants in all organs of the State.
>
> The purpose of assets disclosure by public functinoaries in mature
> democracies is not to provide sensational fodder to satiate voyeuristic
> appetites. It is a necessary mechanism for ensuring probity of such
> functionaries who have chosen to pursue a career in public life. Rather than
> single out the members of the judiciary for disclosure of assets, the
> Government must come up with a comprehensive assets disclosure Bill that
> will cover all public servants. Such a Bill must have an effective mechanism
> for investigating false declarations within a reasonable period of time and
> where proven there must be sanctions against the errant public servant.
> Anything lesser than this will merely be an eyewash.
>
> In order to access our previous email alerts please click on:
> <BLOCKED::blocked: :BLOCKED: :http://www.humanrig htsinitiative. org/programs/ ai
> /rti/india/national .htm>
> http://www.humanrig htsinitiative. org/programs/ ai/rti/india/ national. htm You
> will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
> receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
> refusal to receive email alerts.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Venkatesh Nayak
> Programme Coordinator
> Access to Information Programme
> Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
> B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
> New Delhi- 110 017
> tel: [phone]
> fax: [phone]
> website: www.humanrightsinit iative.org
> alternate email:  <mailto:nayak. venkatesh@ ...>
> nayak.venkatesh@ ...
>

   


      Connect more, do more and share more with Yahoo! India Mail. Learn more. http://in.overview.mail.yahoo.com/

[Jitendra P. Shah]

Pl refer following decisions:
 
CIC  decision No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00134 dated 0-07-2006 and in Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00189 dated 14-05-2008 and judgement dated     16-07-2008 of hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in writ petition No. 7953/2007. These may be available on respective websites.


 
J. P. Shah Junagadh-Gujarat 09924106490
MY BLOG: www.jps50.blogspot.com 

--- On Thu, 22/10/09, ysingh rajput <ysingh_rajput@...> wrote:


From: ysingh rajput <ysingh_rajput@...>
Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka
To: rti_india@...
Date: Thursday, 22 October, 2009, 10:48 PM


 





There is no personal information so far acquisition of assets is concerned. Even a citizen has to declare with the Income Tax Authorities. Anybody could get such information under RTI Act - at the most the IT authority may have to serve a notice to the third pary why such information could be given to information seeker.

A public servant has added responsibility - he has to declare his assets whenever acquired and in annual returns. Judges or any public authority/servants can have no excuse in submission of these details departmentally or to the public at large. Unless of course one has to hide something.

Personal information, in my view, covers only information pertaining to person's health and moral turpitude. If a person has acquired assets by his hard  earned money - why he should hesitate in declarations?

Y Singh N Rajput
22-10-09





From: cpiodelhi <cpiodelhi@yahoo. com>
To: rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com
Sent: Thu, 22 October, 2009 5:20:44 PM
Subject: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka

 

Dear Mr Nayak

Can you kindly enlighten us concerning the specific provisions of RTI Act (as it presently stands) which makes disclosure of assets of public servants mandatory.

Would you not also agree with me that RTI Act actually, and specifically, exempts disclosure of such personal information by section 8(1).

--- In rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com, "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@. ..> wrote:

>
> Dear friends,
> Much water has flown down the Yamuna since a single judge bench of the Delhi
> High Court gave its judgement on the case related to disclosure of judges'
> assets. In the southern parts of India including my home state of Karnataka
> entire villages were washed away by floods. But the much promised action on
> disclosure of assets has not seen the light of the day except in the case of
> a few High Court judges who declared their intent to be transparent. The
> Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided to challenge the order of the Delhi High
> Court. At least one High Court is said to have resolved not to disclose such
> information in the public domain. While these developments and the attendant
> debate hits the headlines every now and then, a public authority in
> Karnataka has publicised on its website assets decalartions of functionaries
> from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy without making any fuss.
>
> The public authority in question is the Lok Ayukta of Karnataka established
> under a 1984 law. The Lok Ayukta bears close resemblance to the institution
> of Ombudsman found in many Commonwealth and Scandinavian countries and has
> specific jurisdiction over corruption-related matters also. The declarations
> of assets and liabilities made by the Lok Ayukta, Upa Lok Ayukta, one police
> officer of Additional Director General of Police rank, two police officers
> of Superintendent of Police rank and 19 officers of Police Inspector rank
> have been disclosed. Declarations of 19 other officers associated with other
> wings of the Lok Ayukta have also been uploaded in the website. These
> decalarations may be accessed at: http://lokayukta. kar.nic.in/ assliab.htm (I
> thank Prof. B K Chandrashekar for alerting me about this good practice.)
>
> The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta Justice (retd.) N. Santosh Hegde has disclosed assets
> owned by his spouse as well. Details regards shares, debentures, fixed
> deposits, immovable property and loans taken from banks and relatives have
> been disclosed. To his credit Justice (retd.) Hegde has even disclosed the
> source of funds that were spent on the purchase of a residential flat in
> Bangalore. The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta has not only led by example, he has
> ensured that all officers and officials working with him comply with this
> high standard of probity. It remains to be seen whether his successors will
> carry on this noble tradition. Not one of these officers is complaining
> that they are being harassed or blackmailed on account of the size or value
> of assets they have disclosed. It must be mentioned here that there is no
> statutory requirement on the Lok Ayukta or his officers to disclose their
> assets. Instead the political executive including the Chief Minister all the
> members of the State Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council are
> duty bound to disclose details of assets and liabilities for self, spouse
> and close family members to the Lok Ayukta. Without saying anything more,
> one ought to simply stand up and applaud loudly for the institution of the
> Karnataka Lok Ayukta and hope that every public servant with the duty to
> disclose assets is doing so as required by law. Where there is a will there
> is a way (even if there is no statutory obligation).
>
> Going back to the case that has hogged the headlines we know that the assets
> disclosure related matter has not been settled as the Supreme Court has
> challenged the Delhi High Court order. We do not expect the matter to end
> with the decision of the division bench because a further appeal may be
> filed before the Surpeme Court itself. The Government of India could not
> table a Bill on assets disclosure during the last session as many MPs
> opposed its limited scope.The Honb'le Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has
> also said that judges are free to voluntarily disclose their assets-related
> information. The decision of all judges who have volunteered to disclose
> information about their assets is to be welcomed.
>
> However voluntary disclosure is the same as pious charity. Charity is
> anathema to the language of rights especialy fundamental rights guaranteed
> by our Constitution. The citizen's right to know has acquired the status of
> a fundamental right since 1975. Fudamental rights are enforceable against
> the State and its functionaries, charity is not enforceable. The voter's
> right to know the background of candidates contesting elections to
> Parliament and State Legislatures has acquired the status of a fundamental
> right and is now well-established. This right to know is enforceable in a
> court of law. What is important is- the voter's right to know is enforceable
> against private individuals many of whom do not hold public office (some may
> be sitting legislators seeking re-election) . There is no reason why a system
> ought not to be created for disclosure of assets and liabilities information
> of career public servants in all organs of the State.
>
> The purpose of assets disclosure by public functinoaries in mature
> democracies is not to provide sensational fodder to satiate voyeuristic
> appetites. It is a necessary mechanism for ensuring probity of such
> functionaries who have chosen to pursue a career in public life. Rather than
> single out the members of the judiciary for disclosure of assets, the
> Government must come up with a comprehensive assets disclosure Bill that
> will cover all public servants. Such a Bill must have an effective mechanism
> for investigating false declarations within a reasonable period of time and
> where proven there must be sanctions against the errant public servant.
> Anything lesser than this will merely be an eyewash.
>
> In order to access our previous email alerts please click on:
> <BLOCKED::blocked: :BLOCKED: :http://www.humanrig htsinitiative. org/programs/ ai
> /rti/india/national .htm>
> http://www.humanrig htsinitiative. org/programs/ ai/rti/india/ national. htm You
> will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
> receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
> refusal to receive email alerts.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Venkatesh Nayak
> Programme Coordinator
> Access to Information Programme
> Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
> B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
> New Delhi- 110 017
> tel: [phone]
> fax: [phone]
> website: www.humanrightsinit iative.org
> alternate email: <mailto:nayak. venkatesh@ ...>
> nayak.venkatesh@ ...
>

Now, send attachments up to 25MB with Yahoo! India Mail. Learn how.















      From cricket scores to your friends. Try the Yahoo! India Homepage! http://in.yahoo.com/trynew

[M K Singhal]

Dear Sri Shah
Could you kindly inform on which website could I view bare acts like the Consumer Protection Act etc. You ave indeed giving very useful info on your blogs. Best wishes,
mksinghal




________________________________
From: Jitendra P. Shah <jpshah50@...>
To: rti_india@...
Sent: Fri, 23 October, 2009 8:43:47 AM
Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka

 
Pl refer following decisions:

CIC  decision No.CIC/AT/A/2006/ 00134 dated 0-07-2006 and in Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/ 2007/00189 dated 14-05-2008 and judgement dated     16-07-2008 of hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in writ petition No. 7953/2007. These may be available on respective websites.


 
J. P. Shah Junagadh-Gujarat 09924106490
MY BLOG: www.jps50.blogspot. com 

--- On Thu, 22/10/09, ysingh rajput <ysingh_rajput@ yahoo.com> wrote:

>From: ysingh rajput <ysingh_rajput@ yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka
>To: rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com
>Date: Thursday, 22 October, 2009, 10:48 PM
>
>
> 
>There is no personal information so far acquisition of assets is concerned. Even a citizen has to declare with the Income Tax Authorities. Anybody could get such information under RTI Act - at the most the IT authority may have to serve a notice to the third pary why such information could be given to information seeker.
>
>A public servant has added responsibility - he has to declare his assets whenever acquired and in annual returns. Judges or any public authority/servants can have no excuse in submission of these details departmentally or to the public at large. Unless of course one has to hide something.
>
>Personal information, in my view, covers only information pertaining to person's health and moral turpitude. If a person has acquired assets by his hard  earned money - why he should hesitate in declarations?
>
>Y Singh N Rajput
>22-10-09
>
>
>
>

________________________________
From: cpiodelhi <cpiodelhi@yahoo. com>

>To: rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com
>Sent: Thu, 22 October, 2009 5:20:44 PM
>Subject: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka
>
> 
>Dear Mr Nayak
>
>Can you kindly enlighten us concerning the specific provisions of RTI Act (as it presently stands) which makes disclosure of assets of public servants mandatory.
>
>Would you not also agree with me that RTI Act actually, and specifically, exempts disclosure of such personal information by section 8(1).
>
>--- In rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com, "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@. ..> wrote:
>>
>> Dear friends,
>> Much water has flown down the Yamuna since a single judge bench of the Delhi
>> High Court gave its judgement on the case related to disclosure of judges'
>> assets. In the southern parts of India including my home state of Karnataka
>> entire villages were washed away by floods. But the much promised action on
>> disclosure of assets has not seen the light of the day except in the case of
>> a few High Court judges who declared their intent to be transparent. The
>> Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided to challenge the order of the Delhi High
>> Court. At least one High Court is said to have resolved not to disclose such
>> information in the public domain. While these developments and the attendant
>> debate hits the headlines every now and then, a public authority in
>> Karnataka has publicised on its website assets decalartions of functionaries
>> from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy without making any fuss.
>>
>> The public authority in question is the Lok Ayukta of Karnataka established
>> under a 1984 law. The Lok Ayukta bears close resemblance to the institution
>> of Ombudsman found in many Commonwealth and Scandinavian countries and has
>> specific jurisdiction over corruption-related matters also. The declarations
>> of assets and liabilities made by the Lok Ayukta, Upa Lok Ayukta, one police
>> officer of Additional Director General of Police rank, two police officers
>> of Superintendent of Police rank and 19 officers of Police Inspector rank
>> have been disclosed. Declarations of 19 other officers associated with other
>> wings of the Lok Ayukta have also been uploaded in the website. These
>> decalarations may be accessed at: http://lokayukta. kar.nic.in/ assliab.htm (I
>> thank Prof. B K Chandrashekar for alerting me about this good practice.)
>>
>> The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta Justice (retd.) N. Santosh Hegde has disclosed assets
>> owned by his spouse as well. Details regards shares, debentures, fixed
>> deposits, immovable property and loans taken from banks and relatives have
>> been disclosed. To his credit Justice (retd.) Hegde has even disclosed the
>> source of funds that were spent on the purchase of a residential flat in
>> Bangalore. The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta has not only led by example, he has
>> ensured that all officers and officials working with him comply with this
>> high standard of probity. It remains to be seen whether his successors will
>> carry on this noble tradition. Not one of these officers is complaining
>> that they are being harassed or blackmailed on account of the size or value
>> of assets they have disclosed. It must be mentioned here that there is no
>> statutory requirement on the Lok Ayukta or his officers to disclose their
>> assets. Instead the political executive including the Chief Minister all the
>> members of the State Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council are
>> duty bound to disclose details of assets and liabilities for self, spouse
>> and close family members to the Lok Ayukta. Without saying anything more,
>> one ought to simply stand up and applaud loudly for the institution of the
>> Karnataka Lok Ayukta and hope that every public servant with the duty to
>> disclose assets is doing so as required by law. Where there is a will there
>> is a way (even if there is no statutory obligation).
>>
>> Going back to the case that has hogged the headlines we know that the assets
>> disclosure related matter has not been settled as the Supreme Court has
>> challenged the Delhi High Court order. We do not expect the matter to end
>> with the decision of the division bench because a further appeal may be
>> filed before the Surpeme Court itself. The Government of India could not
>> table a Bill on assets disclosure during the last session as many MPs
>> opposed its limited scope.The Honb'le Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has
>> also said that judges are free to voluntarily disclose their assets-related
>> information. The decision of all judges who have volunteered to disclose
>> information about their assets is to be welcomed.
>>
>> However voluntary disclosure is the same as pious charity. Charity is
>> anathema to the language of rights especialy fundamental rights guaranteed
>> by our Constitution. The citizen's right to know has acquired the status of
>> a fundamental right since 1975. Fudamental rights are enforceable against
>> the State and its functionaries, charity is not enforceable. The voter's
>> right to know the background of candidates contesting elections to
>> Parliament and State Legislatures has acquired the status of a fundamental
>> right and is now well-established. This right to know is enforceable in a
>> court of law. What is important is- the voter's right to know is enforceable
>> against private individuals many of whom do not hold public office (some may
>> be sitting legislators seeking re-election) . There is no reason why a system
>> ought not to be created for disclosure of assets and liabilities information
>> of career public servants in all organs of the State.
>>
>> The purpose of assets disclosure by public functinoaries in mature
>> democracies is not to provide sensational fodder to satiate voyeuristic
>> appetites. It is a necessary mechanism for ensuring probity of such
>> functionaries who have chosen to pursue a career in public life. Rather than
>> single out the members of the judiciary for disclosure of assets, the
>> Government must come up with a comprehensive assets disclosure Bill that
>> will cover all public servants. Such a Bill must have an effective mechanism
>> for investigating false declarations within a reasonable period of time and
>> where proven there must be sanctions against the errant public servant.
>> Anything lesser than this will merely be an eyewash.
>>
>> In order to access our previous email alerts please click on:
>> <BLOCKED::blocked: :BLOCKED: :http://www.humanrig htsinitiative. org/programs/ ai
>> /rti/india/national .htm>
>> http://www.humanrig htsinitiative. org/programs/ ai/rti/india/ national. htm You
>> will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
>> receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
>> refusal to receive email alerts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Venkatesh Nayak
>> Programme Coordinator
>> Access to Information Programme
>> Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
>> B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
>> New Delhi- 110 017
>> tel: [phone]
>> fax: [phone]
>> website: www.humanrightsinit iative.org
>> alternate email: <mailto:nayak. venkatesh@ ...>
>> nayak.venkatesh@ ...
>>
>
>
>________________________________

Now, send attachments up to 25MB with Yahoo! India Mail. Learn how.  

________________________________
Keep up with people you care about with Yahoo! India Mail. Learn how.



      From cricket scores to your friends. Try the Yahoo! India Homepage! http://in.yahoo.com/trynew

[M K Singhal]

Information about personal assets of any Income Tax Assessee or a public employee is a third paty info covered by Sec 11(1) of RTIA act or a personal information having no relationsip to any public activity or interest covered by sec 8(j) of RTIA. Could any member kindly clarify. CIC generally reject supply of such info under sec 8(j).
mksinghal




________________________________
From: ysingh rajput <ysingh_rajput@...>
To: rti_india@...
Sent: Thu, 22 October, 2009 10:48:36 PM
Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka

 
There is no personal information so far acquisition of assets is concerned. Even a citizen has to declare with the Income Tax Authorities. Anybody could get such information under RTI Act - at the most the IT authority may have to serve a notice to the third pary why such information could be given to information seeker.

A public servant has added responsibility - he has to declare his assets whenever acquired and in annual returns. Judges or any public authority/servants can have no excuse in submission of these details departmentally or to the public at large. Unless of course one has to hide something.

Personal information, in my view, covers only information pertaining to person's health and moral turpitude. If a person has acquired assets by his hard  earned money - why he should hesitate in declarations?

Y Singh N Rajput
22-10-09




________________________________
From: cpiodelhi <cpiodelhi@yahoo. com>
To: rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com
Sent: Thu, 22 October, 2009 5:20:44 PM
Subject: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka

 
Dear Mr Nayak

Can you kindly enlighten us concerning the specific provisions of RTI Act (as it presently stands) which makes disclosure of assets of public servants mandatory.

Would you not also agree with me that RTI Act actually, and specifically, exempts disclosure of such personal information by section 8(1).

--- In rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com, "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@. ..> wrote:

>
> Dear friends,
> Much water has flown down the Yamuna since a single judge bench of the Delhi
> High Court gave its judgement on the case related to disclosure of judges'
> assets. In the southern parts of India including my home state of Karnataka
> entire villages were washed away by floods. But the much promised action on
> disclosure of assets has not seen the light of the day except in the case of
> a few High Court judges who declared their intent to be transparent. The
> Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided to challenge the order of the Delhi High
> Court. At least one High Court is said to have resolved not to disclose such
> information in the public domain. While these developments and the attendant
> debate hits the headlines every now and then, a public authority in
> Karnataka has publicised on its website assets decalartions of functionaries
> from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy without making any fuss.
>
> The public authority in question is the Lok Ayukta of Karnataka established
> under a 1984 law. The Lok Ayukta bears close resemblance to the institution
> of Ombudsman found in many Commonwealth and Scandinavian countries and has
> specific jurisdiction over corruption-related matters also. The declarations
> of assets and liabilities made by the Lok Ayukta, Upa Lok Ayukta, one police
> officer of Additional Director General of Police rank, two police officers
> of Superintendent of Police rank and 19 officers of Police Inspector rank
> have been disclosed. Declarations of 19 other officers associated with other
> wings of the Lok Ayukta have also been uploaded in the website. These
> decalarations may be accessed at: http://lokayukta. kar.nic.in/ assliab.htm (I
> thank Prof. B K Chandrashekar for alerting me about this good practice.)
>
> The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta Justice (retd.) N. Santosh Hegde has disclosed assets
> owned by his spouse as well. Details regards shares, debentures, fixed
> deposits, immovable property and loans taken from banks and relatives have
> been disclosed. To his credit Justice (retd.) Hegde has even disclosed the
> source of funds that were spent on the purchase of a residential flat in
> Bangalore. The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta has not only led by example, he has
> ensured that all officers and officials working with him comply with this
> high standard of probity. It remains to be seen whether his successors will
> carry on this noble tradition. Not one of these officers is complaining
> that they are being harassed or blackmailed on account of the size or value
> of assets they have disclosed. It must be mentioned here that there is no
> statutory requirement on the Lok Ayukta or his officers to disclose their
> assets. Instead the political executive including the Chief Minister all the
> members of the State Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council are
> duty bound to disclose details of assets and liabilities for self, spouse
> and close family members to the Lok Ayukta. Without saying anything more,
> one ought to simply stand up and applaud loudly for the institution of the
> Karnataka Lok Ayukta and hope that every public servant with the duty to
> disclose assets is doing so as required by law. Where there is a will there
> is a way (even if there is no statutory obligation).
>
> Going back to the case that has hogged the headlines we know that the assets
> disclosure related matter has not been settled as the Supreme Court has
> challenged the Delhi High Court order. We do not expect the matter to end
> with the decision of the division bench because a further appeal may be
> filed before the Surpeme Court itself. The Government of India could not
> table a Bill on assets disclosure during the last session as many MPs
> opposed its limited scope.The Honb'le Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has
> also said that judges are free to voluntarily disclose their assets-related
> information. The decision of all judges who have volunteered to disclose
> information about their assets is to be welcomed.
>
> However voluntary disclosure is the same as pious charity. Charity is
> anathema to the language of rights especialy fundamental rights guaranteed
> by our Constitution. The citizen's right to know has acquired the status of
> a fundamental right since 1975. Fudamental rights are enforceable against
> the State and its functionaries, charity is not enforceable. The voter's
> right to know the background of candidates contesting elections to
> Parliament and State Legislatures has acquired the status of a fundamental
> right and is now well-established. This right to know is enforceable in a
> court of law. What is important is- the voter's right to know is enforceable
> against private individuals many of whom do not hold public office (some may
> be sitting legislators seeking re-election) . There is no reason why a system
> ought not to be created for disclosure of assets and liabilities information
> of career public servants in all organs of the State.
>
> The purpose of assets disclosure by public functinoaries in mature
> democracies is not to provide sensational fodder to satiate voyeuristic
> appetites. It is a necessary mechanism for ensuring probity of such
> functionaries who have chosen to pursue a career in public life. Rather than
> single out the members of the judiciary for disclosure of assets, the
> Government must come up with a comprehensive assets disclosure Bill that
> will cover all public servants. Such a Bill must have an effective mechanism
> for investigating false declarations within a reasonable period of time and
> where proven there must be sanctions against the errant public servant.
> Anything lesser than this will merely be an eyewash.
>
> In order to access our previous email alerts please click on:
> <BLOCKED::blocked: :BLOCKED: :http://www.humanrig htsinitiative. org/programs/ ai
> /rti/india/national .htm>
> http://www.humanrig htsinitiative. org/programs/ ai/rti/india/ national. htm You
> will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
> receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
> refusal to receive email alerts.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Venkatesh Nayak
> Programme Coordinator
> Access to Information Programme
> Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
> B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
> New Delhi- 110 017
> tel: [phone]
> fax: [phone]
> website: www.humanrightsinit iative.org
> alternate email: <mailto:nayak. venkatesh@ ...>
> nayak.venkatesh@ ...
>

________________________________
Now, send attachments up to 25MB with Yahoo! India Mail. Learn how.



      Add whatever you love to the Yahoo! India homepage. Try now! http://in.yahoo.com/trynew

[Venkatesh Nayak-2]

Dear Mr./Ms. CPIODelhi,
I have not claimed anywhere in my email that the RTI Act makes it mandatory
for public servants to disclose their assets. The purpose of the email was
to show that where a public servant occupying a position of command is
positively inclined towards disclosure of assets related information, such
ifnormation can be made publicly available even in the absence of a
statutory obligation. I think when information is publicly available and
when one is living within one's known sources of income, there need be no
fear of the consequences of such disclosure. To the best of my knowledge no
busybody has started any litigation against the officials of the Karnataka
Lok Ayukta using their assets-related information from the website.
However under the RTI Act the Central Information Commission has ruled
against the disclosure of such information. Some Information Commissions
have ruled on occasion that property statements of officers must be
disclosed, but these have been stayed by the respective High Courts. This is
where the matter stands I think. However readers may please correct me if I
am wrong.
Thanks
Venkat

  _____  

From: rti_india@... [mailto:rti_india@...] On Behalf
Of Jitendra P. Shah
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:44 AM
To: rti_india@...
Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok
Ayukta in Karnataka


 



Pl refer following decisions:
 

CIC  decision No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00134 dated 0-07-2006 and in Appeal
No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00189 dated 14-05-2008 and judgement dated     16-07-2008
of hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in writ petition No. 7953/2007. These may
be available on respective websites.



 
J. P. Shah Junagadh-Gujarat 09924106490
  <http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/13.gif> MY BLOG:
www.jps50.blogspot. <http://www.jps50.blogspot.com/> com


--- On Thu, 22/10/09, ysingh rajput <ysingh_rajput@...> wrote:



From: ysingh rajput <ysingh_rajput@...>
Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok
Ayukta in Karnataka
To: rti_india@...
Date: Thursday, 22 October, 2009, 10:48 PM


 
There is no personal information so far acquisition of assets is concerned.
Even a citizen has to declare with the Income Tax Authorities. Anybody could
get such information under RTI Act - at the most the IT authority may have
to serve a notice to the third pary why such information could be given to
information seeker.

A public servant has added responsibility - he has to declare his assets
whenever acquired and in annual returns. Judges or any public
authority/servants can have no excuse in submission of these details
departmentally or to the public at large. Unless of course one has to hide
something.

Personal information, in my view, covers only information pertaining to
person's health and moral turpitude. If a person has acquired assets by his
hard  earned money - why he should hesitate in declarations?

Y Singh N Rajput
22-10-09



  _____  

From: cpiodelhi <cpiodelhi@yahoo. com>
To: rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com
Sent: Thu, 22 October, 2009 5:20:44 PM
Subject: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in
Karnataka

 
Dear Mr Nayak

Can you kindly enlighten us concerning the specific provisions of RTI Act
(as it presently stands) which makes disclosure of assets of public servants
mandatory.

Would you not also agree with me that RTI Act actually, and specifically,
exempts disclosure of such personal information by section 8(1).

--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
<http://in.mc943.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>
ps.com, "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@. ..> wrote:
>
> Dear friends,
> Much water has flown down the Yamuna since a single judge bench of the
Delhi
> High Court gave its judgement on the case related to disclosure of judges'
> assets. In the southern parts of India including my home state of
Karnataka
> entire villages were washed away by floods. But the much promised action
on
> disclosure of assets has not seen the light of the day except in the case
of
> a few High Court judges who declared their intent to be transparent. The
> Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided to challenge the order of the Delhi High
> Court. At least one High Court is said to have resolved not to disclose
such
> information in the public domain. While these developments and the
attendant
> debate hits the headlines every now and then, a public authority in
> Karnataka has publicised on its website assets decalartions of
functionaries
> from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy without making any fuss.
>
> The public authority in question is the Lok Ayukta of Karnataka
established
> under a 1984 law. The Lok Ayukta bears close resemblance to the
institution
> of Ombudsman found in many Commonwealth and Scandinavian countries and has
> specific jurisdiction over corruption-related matters also. The
declarations
> of assets and liabilities made by the Lok Ayukta, Upa Lok Ayukta, one
police
> officer of Additional Director General of Police rank, two police officers
> of Superintendent of Police rank and 19 officers of Police Inspector rank
> have been disclosed. Declarations of 19 other officers associated with
other
> wings of the Lok Ayukta have also been uploaded in the website. These
> decalarations may be accessed at: http://lokayukta. kar.nic.in/
assliab.htm <http://lokayukta.kar.nic.in/assliab.htm>  (I
> thank Prof. B K Chandrashekar for alerting me about this good practice.)
>
> The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta Justice (retd.) N. Santosh Hegde has disclosed
assets
> owned by his spouse as well. Details regards shares, debentures, fixed
> deposits, immovable property and loans taken from banks and relatives have
> been disclosed. To his credit Justice (retd.) Hegde has even disclosed the
> source of funds that were spent on the purchase of a residential flat in
> Bangalore. The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta has not only led by example, he has
> ensured that all officers and officials working with him comply with this
> high standard of probity. It remains to be seen whether his successors
will
> carry on this noble tradition. Not one of these officers is complaining
> that they are being harassed or blackmailed on account of the size or
value
> of assets they have disclosed. It must be mentioned here that there is no
> statutory requirement on the Lok Ayukta or his officers to disclose their
> assets. Instead the political executive including the Chief Minister all
the
> members of the State Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council are
> duty bound to disclose details of assets and liabilities for self, spouse
> and close family members to the Lok Ayukta. Without saying anything more,
> one ought to simply stand up and applaud loudly for the institution of the
> Karnataka Lok Ayukta and hope that every public servant with the duty to
> disclose assets is doing so as required by law. Where there is a will
there
> is a way (even if there is no statutory obligation).
>
> Going back to the case that has hogged the headlines we know that the
assets
> disclosure related matter has not been settled as the Supreme Court has
> challenged the Delhi High Court order. We do not expect the matter to end
> with the decision of the division bench because a further appeal may be
> filed before the Surpeme Court itself. The Government of India could not
> table a Bill on assets disclosure during the last session as many MPs
> opposed its limited scope.The Honb'le Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
has
> also said that judges are free to voluntarily disclose their
assets-related
> information. The decision of all judges who have volunteered to disclose
> information about their assets is to be welcomed.
>
> However voluntary disclosure is the same as pious charity. Charity is
> anathema to the language of rights especialy fundamental rights guaranteed
> by our Constitution. The citizen's right to know has acquired the status
of
> a fundamental right since 1975. Fudamental rights are enforceable against
> the State and its functionaries, charity is not enforceable. The voter's
> right to know the background of candidates contesting elections to
> Parliament and State Legislatures has acquired the status of a fundamental
> right and is now well-established. This right to know is enforceable in a
> court of law. What is important is- the voter's right to know is
enforceable
> against private individuals many of whom do not hold public office (some
may
> be sitting legislators seeking re-election) . There is no reason why a
system
> ought not to be created for disclosure of assets and liabilities
information
> of career public servants in all organs of the State.
>
> The purpose of assets disclosure by public functinoaries in mature
> democracies is not to provide sensational fodder to satiate voyeuristic
> appetites. It is a necessary mechanism for ensuring probity of such
> functionaries who have chosen to pursue a career in public life. Rather
than
> single out the members of the judiciary for disclosure of assets, the
> Government must come up with a comprehensive assets disclosure Bill that
> will cover all public servants. Such a Bill must have an effective
mechanism
> for investigating false declarations within a reasonable period of time
and
> where proven there must be sanctions against the errant public servant.
> Anything lesser than this will merely be an eyewash.
>
> In order to access our previous email alerts please click on:
> <BLOCKED::blocked: :BLOCKED: :http://www.humanrig htsinitiative.
org/programs/  <http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai> ai
> /rti/india/national .htm>
> http://www.humanrig htsinitiative.
<http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national.htm>
org/programs/ ai/rti/india/ national. htm You

> will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
> receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
> refusal to receive email alerts.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Venkatesh Nayak
> Programme Coordinator
> Access to Information Programme
> Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
> B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
> New Delhi- 110 017
> tel: [phone]
> fax: [phone]
> website: www.humanrightsinit iative.org
> alternate email: <mailto:nayak. venkatesh@ ...>
> nayak.venkatesh@ ...
>

  _____  

Now, send attachments up to 25MB with Yahoo! India Mail. Learn how
<http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_galaxy_2/*http://in.overview.mail.yahoo.com/
photos> .


  _____  

Keep up with people you care about with Yahoo! India Mail. Learn how
<http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_galaxy_1/*http://in.overview.mail.yahoo.com/
connectmore> .

[Nicholas Santiago-2]

Hello

I would like to contribute to this debate.
My understanding of India's RTI Act is as follows:-

1) The Public Authorities publish as much as they care to (suo moto)
so that the public does not have to apply for information,

2) The citizens then apply for any missing / unlocated information.

In either case the Public Authority is not obliged to provide
information which is exempted.

As "cpiodelhi" has rightly observed, a) there is no reason /mandate
for any public authority to publish under case-1 above or b) to supply
it when applied for.

As someone who has been pursuing FoI for quite some time, I suggest
that activists should clearly distinguish the present reality and
their "wish lists".

Nick


On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Venkatesh Nayak
<venkatesh@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Mr./Ms. CPIODelhi,
> I have not claimed anywhere in my email that the RTI Act makes it mandatory for public servants to disclose their assets. The purpose of the email was to show that where a public servant occupying a position of command is positively inclined towards disclosure of assets related information, such ifnormation can be made publicly available even in the absence of a statutory obligation. I think when information is publicly available and when one is living within one's known sources of income, there need be no fear of the consequences of such disclosure. To the best of my knowledge no busybody has started any litigation against the officials of the Karnataka Lok Ayukta using their assets-related information from the website.
> However under the RTI Act the Central Information Commission has ruled against the disclosure of such information. Some Information Commissions have ruled on occasion that property statements of officers must be disclosed, but these have been stayed by the respective High Courts. This is where the matter stands I think. However readers may please correct me if I am wrong.
> Thanks
> Venkat
> ________________________________

[sarbajitr]

Busybodies are regularly applying for information about
assets of so-called "corrupt" officers.

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-10122008-06.pdf

In this decision, the CIC's "BEST" (as determined by this group) Commissioners throw them out yet again. The busybody herein wanted property/asset details of 34 DDA officers. It seems to be the well settled practice at CIC not to entertain such RTIs, I wonder why ?

--- In rti_india@..., Nicholas Santiago <nick.santiargo@...> wrote:

>
> Hello
>
> I would like to contribute to this debate.
> My understanding of India's RTI Act is as follows:-
>
> 1) The Public Authorities publish as much as they care to (suo moto)
> so that the public does not have to apply for information,
>
> 2) The citizens then apply for any missing / unlocated information.
>
> In either case the Public Authority is not obliged to provide
> information which is exempted.
>
> As "cpiodelhi" has rightly observed, a) there is no reason /mandate
> for any public authority to publish under case-1 above or b) to supply
> it when applied for.
>
> As someone who has been pursuing FoI for quite some time, I suggest
> that activists should clearly distinguish the present reality and
> their "wish lists".
>
> Nick
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Venkatesh Nayak
> <venkatesh@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr./Ms. CPIODelhi,
> > I have not claimed anywhere in my email that the RTI Act makes it mandatory for public servants to disclose their assets. The purpose of the email was to show that where a public servant occupying a position of command is positively inclined towards disclosure of assets related information, such ifnormation can be made publicly available even in the absence of a statutory obligation. I think when information is publicly available and when one is living within one's known sources of income, there need be no fear of the consequences of such disclosure. To the best of my knowledge no busybody has started any litigation against the officials of the Karnataka Lok Ayukta using their assets-related information from the website.
> > However under the RTI Act the Central Information Commission has ruled against the disclosure of such information. Some Information Commissions have ruled on occasion that property statements of officers must be disclosed, but these have been stayed by the respective High Courts. This is where the matter stands I think. However readers may please correct me if I am wrong.
> > Thanks
> > Venkat
> > ________________________________
>

[acf Anand]

Some body should ask the assets and liabilities and service records of this CIC.
 Anand S.
Anti Corruption Form
Bangalore 560 085
Cell No: [phone]
or [phone]




________________________________
From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@...>
To: rti_india@...
Sent: Thu, October 29, 2009 1:28:55 AM
Subject: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka

 
Busybodies are regularly applying for information about
assets of so-called "corrupt" officers.

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-10122008-06.pdf

In this decision, the CIC's "BEST" (as determined by this group) Commissioners throw them out yet again. The busybody herein wanted property/asset details of 34 DDA officers. It seems to be the well settled practice at CIC not to entertain such RTIs, I wonder why ?

--- In rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com, Nicholas Santiago <nick.santiargo@ ...> wrote:

>
> Hello
>
> I would like to contribute to this debate.
> My understanding of India's RTI Act is as follows:-
>
> 1) The Public Authorities publish as much as they care to (suo moto)
> so that the public does not have to apply for information,
>
> 2) The citizens then apply for any missing / unlocated information.
>
> In either case the Public Authority is not obliged to provide
> information which is exempted.
>
> As "cpiodelhi" has rightly observed, a) there is no reason /mandate
> for any public authority to publish under case-1 above or b) to supply
> it when applied for.
>
> As someone who has been pursuing FoI for quite some time, I suggest
> that activists should clearly distinguish the present reality and
> their "wish lists".
>
> Nick
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Venkatesh Nayak
> <venkatesh@. ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr./Ms. CPIODelhi,
> > I have not claimed anywhere in my email that the RTI Act makes it mandatory for public servants to disclose their assets. The purpose of the email was to show that where a public servant occupying a position of command is positively inclined towards disclosure of assets related information, such ifnormation can be made publicly available even in the absence of a statutory obligation. I think when information is publicly available and when one is living within one's known sources of income, there need be no fear of the consequences of such disclosure. To the best of my knowledge no busybody has started any litigation against the officials of the Karnataka Lok Ayukta using their assets-related information from the website.
> > However under the RTI Act the Central Information Commission has ruled against the disclosure of such information. Some Information Commissions have ruled on occasion that property statements of officers must be disclosed, but these have been stayed by the respective High Courts. This is where the matter stands I think. However readers may please correct me if I am wrong.
> > Thanks
> > Venkat
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
>

   


     

[acf Anand]

With Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, the maximum inquiries of RTI are concerned with the LP numbers. Hence the Town Planning Department is planning to put all LP numbers in the web site.
 Anand S.
Anti Corruption Form
Bangalore 560 085
Cell No: [phone]
or [phone]




________________________________
From: Nicholas Santiago <nick.santiargo@...>
To: rti_india@...
Sent: Mon, October 26, 2009 12:38:14 AM
Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta  in Karnataka

 
Hello

I would like to contribute to this debate.
My understanding of India's RTI Act is as follows:-

1) The Public Authorities publish as much as they care to (suo moto)
so that the public does not have to apply for information,

2) The citizens then apply for any missing / unlocated information.

In either case the Public Authority is not obliged to provide
information which is exempted.

As "cpiodelhi" has rightly observed, a) there is no reason /mandate
for any public authority to publish under case-1 above or b) to supply
it when applied for.

As someone who has been pursuing FoI for quite some time, I suggest
that activists should clearly distinguish the present reality and
their "wish lists".

Nick

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Venkatesh Nayak
<venkatesh@humanrigh tsinitiative. org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Mr./Ms. CPIODelhi,
> I have not claimed anywhere in my email that the RTI Act makes it mandatory for public servants to disclose their assets. The purpose of the email was to show that where a public servant occupying a position of command is positively inclined towards disclosure of assets related information, such ifnormation can be made publicly available even in the absence of a statutory obligation. I think when information is publicly available and when one is living within one's known sources of income, there need be no fear of the consequences of such disclosure. To the best of my knowledge no busybody has started any litigation against the officials of the Karnataka Lok Ayukta using their assets-related information from the website.
> However under the RTI Act the Central Information Commission has ruled against the disclosure of such information. Some Information Commissions have ruled on occasion that property statements of officers must be disclosed, but these have been stayed by the respective High Courts. This is where the matter stands I think. However readers may please correct me if I am wrong.
> Thanks
> Venkat
> ____________ _________ _________ __