First removal of obnoxious alteration made in the definition of information in DOPT website!
Posted by rtiact2005 on July 27, 2006
BETTER NAME CLASS OF DOCUMENTS TO BE NOT DISCLOSED. The Government can show its sincerity, in clarifying that only a small portion of file notings would be exempted from disclosure, such as subjects under sub-Section (1) of Section 8 of the Act and some more. These primarily would concern affairs of States. What has been of major concern is the manner in which the Department of Personnel and Training has excluded all type of notings, as a blanket, and ignored all representations, including decisions of the Chief Information Commission, from January to July 2006. In fitness of things, THE FIRST STEP which is required of the Government, to give confidence to citizens, that nothing unfair and unreasonable shall be done, would be to forthwith order removal of the obnoxious alteration made in the definition of ˜informationâ€™ under sec.2(f) of the Act, displayed on the websites: Persmin and RTI Portal. Let the method adopted be to not enlist some selected areas in which file notings shall be allowed to be disclosed, but areas in which file notings shall not be disclosed. Matters listed in Sec.8(1) (a) to (j) would be handy to start with, being affairs of State. Let it not be overlooked that for decades, Courts have examined documents on which the Governments claimed privilege, under sec.123 of Evidence Act and/or under Art 74(2) of the Constitution, and generally allowed the privilege, except in case of routine matters where it was either not shown, or it was not possible to show, prejudice to State if the document is disclosed. The situation should appear to improve with promulgation of the RTI Act, rather than become worse from what it was before the 2005 Act. In short: â€˜BE POSITIVEâ€™. P.K Aditya, Chandigarh.