My RTI application has been denied through Rules-25,26 of Allahabad HC (RTI) Rules, 2006

My RTI application has been denied through Rules-25,26 of Allahabad HC (RTI) Rules, 2006

   Inbox 

Unstarred  rishi saxena AttachmentThu, Aug 4, 2016 at 8:23 PM

Add star  

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh

<yogimpsingh@gmail.com>

AttachmentThu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:01 PM
To: rishi saxena <rishi_s78@rediffmail.com>
Dear friend -Please take a glance of following link and attached PDF
documents containing order passed by chief information commissioner of
India which may be instrumental in pursuing the complaints at latter
stages.
To direct concerned to entertain my appeal in accordance with the law.
Prayer-Rule 25 &26 of Allahabad High court (Right to Information)Rules
2006 are ultravires to Right to Information Act 2005 so that declared
to be null &Registrar (A/C & Exam)/I/C Central Public Information
Officer be directed to provide information as sought by information
seeker. For detail visit on this link-
http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.com/2014/06/second-appeal-against-denial-of-sought.html
Please also take a glance of judgement passed by Central Information
of India as attachment with this mail.


On 8/4/16, rishi saxena <rishi_s78@rediffmail.com> wrote:
 Respected Sir,
 I have asked some information (Application -1,2 in attachment) from the PIO
 of Dist. court Rampur, UP but they denied (Reply 1-7 in attachment) to
 answer by giving the reference of Rule 25, 26 of Allahabad HC (RTI) Rules,
 2006,
 As i came to know that you have raised the voice against the same i also
 tried to find some points ( attached).
 you are requested to guide in the matter as i am in need .
 RegardsRishi SaxenaOld colony, Jwala Nagar,Rampur, UP-244901Mob- 9760098303

 &nbsp;


Ensure compliance of order of Hon’ble C.I.C..pdf
1422K View as HTML Scan and download

Respected Sir,
As I came to know that you have raised the voice against the most obstructive Allahabad High Court (RTI) Rules, 2006 among the rules of other High courts in India. I have also been victimised of these absolutely wrong rules. Even you have already covered all possible argues, I have tried to find some facts which may be one of the points, being presented to oppose these rules.
You are requested to guide :
Rules 25 (Central Public Information Officer shall not be liable to provide any information, which can be obtained under the provision of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 in case of High Court and under General Rule (Civil/Criminal) in case of subordinate Courts. Such information may be obtained by adhering to the prescribed procedure and payment of fees prescribed in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, or General Rules (Civil/Criminal), as the case may be.) is Itself in contradiction with the Sec-22 of RTI act 2005  “Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act”.
As it has also been mentioned in the point no. 45 of the decision given by CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01238 dated 19.09.2008 45.
Section 22 of the Right to Information Act categorically states that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act or any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, if there are any provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which are inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act, as far as disclosure of information is concerned, they would undoubtedly be overruled by the RTI Act. The RTI Act makes no exception to this provision of overruling and therefore the question of nondisclosure of documents in accordance with the Cr.P.C. does not arise in the present case. Parliament does not provide for a specific overriding clause in all laws but it has done so in the form of Section 22 in the RTI Act. Section 22 would be rendered redundant if provisions of previously enacted laws were to be relied on to claim exemption from disclosure. It is a rule of statutory interpretation that a legislature does not introduce unnecessary clauses in an Act. Therefore, it is imperative that Section 22 is applied and not rendered ineffective. Section 22 provides The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. Justice Sanjeev Khanna of the High Court of Delhi has held in Union of India v Central Information Commission WP (C) 8396/2009, 16907/2006, 4788/2008, 9914/2009, 6085/2008, 7304/2007, 7930/2009 and 3607/2007: “49. It was urged by Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General of India that Section 8(1) of the RTI Act is not the complete code or the grounds under which information can be refused and public information officers/appellate authorities can deny information for other justifiable reasons and grounds not mentioned. It is not possible to accept the said contention. Section 22 of the RTI Act gives supremacy to the said Act and stipulates that the provisions of the RTI Act will override notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Official Secrets Act or any other enactment for the time being in force. This non obstante clause has to be given full effect to, in compliance with the legislative intent. Wherever there is a conflict between the
provisions of the RTI Act and another enactment already in force on the date when the RTI Act was enacted, the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail. It is a different matter in case RTI Act itself protects a third enactment, in which case there is no conflict. Once an applicant seeks information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the same cannot be denied to the information seeker except on any of the grounds mentioned in Sections 8 or 9 of the RTI Act.
The Public Information Officer or the appellate authorities cannot add and introduce new reasons or grounds for rejecting furnishing of information. It is a different matter in case what is asked for by the applicant is not ‘information’ as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.” (emphasis added)
As well as
Rules 26 (Central Public Information Officer will not entertain any application from any citizen for providing any information relating to matters, which are pending adjudication before the High Court or Courts subordinate thereto. The information relating to judicial matters may be obtained as per the procedure prescribed in the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 and General Rules (Civil/Criminal) respectively.) is itself in contradiction with the sec 8(h) Which clearly says “information which would impede the process of investigation of apprehension or prosecution of offenders”  As it has also been mentioned in the point no. 46 of the decision given by  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01238 dated 19.09.2008 45.
“46. According to Section 8(1)(h) information may be exempt from disclosure if such information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. In the present matter, the process of investigation is over as the matter has now reached the stage of prosecution.The issue is not of impediment to investigation and therefore, the public authority and/or the third party have to establish before the Commission that the process of prosecution would be impeded if the information sought for by the Appellant is disclosed. The argument made by the CBI to claim exemption under Section 8(1)(h) is flawed for two reasons. First, the submission that disclosing names of the officials involved in the report to the accused, would impede the prosecution itself is not tenable. The officials may claim exemption under Section 8(1) (g) but this would again be open to judicial scrutiny by the Commission and would not be necessarily accepted. Even if this were accepted, the Commission under Section 10 could direct severance of the names of the officers mentioned in the report. Secondly no reasons have been advanced showing how the prosecution would be impeded by disclosing the information. When denying a right to the citizen, it has to be established beyond doubt that prosecution or apprehension of an offender would be impeded. This has not been done. If Parliament wanted to exempt all information which was the subject matter of a prosecution, it would have said this. Parliament has specifically exempted only the information which would ‘impede’ the process of investigation or prosecution.
Right To Information act 2005 was constituted by considering very effective, fruitful, trustworthy, strong and a proper solution to the problems of a common man  which also helpful in making of Govt. System more reliable, transparent, dutifulness, ownership towards all the concerned work, stick to follow the pertaining rules, proper keeping of records, Reducing the Corruption as well as strengthen the trust of common man in system but the Rules framed by Allahabad High Court through “Allahabad High Court (RTI) Rules, 2006  are nowhere match with the exact intention of the parent law (RTI Act 2005)  

3 comments on My RTI application has been denied through Rules-25,26 of Allahabad HC (RTI) Rules, 2006

  1. It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that
    28. Power to make rules by competent autbmity.—(/) The competent authority may, by notification in the
    Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
    (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or
    any of the following matters, namely:—
    (i) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of
    section 4;
    (ii)the fee payable under sub-section (/) of section 6;
    (iii) the fee payable under sub-section (/) of section 7; and
    (iv)any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed. Hon'ble Sir rule 25 and 26 of Allahabad High court (Right to Information ) Rules ,2006 is prejudice to generality of foregoing power as it makes the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 impotent. How the transparency and accountability can be ensured in judiciary when aforesaid rules 25 &26 are under effect. This act i.e. rejection of sought information by taking recourse of rule 25 and 26 of Allahabad High court (Right to Information ) Rules ,2006 shows the tyranny and arbitrariness of competent judicial members as they don't advocate transparency and accountability in their functions.

  2. To error is human but if error is made deliberately in order to reap benefits ,then it is said that wrongdoings were committed by the concerned and offenders must be subjected to the scrutiny of the law of land consequently his accountability may be fixed but here our judicial member wants to avoid transparency and accountability by using draconian and arbitrary provision 24 and 25 of High court rules 2006.

  3. Despite the order of central information commission, CPIO High court of judicature did not provide the sought information to the information seeker. Whether it is not mockery of the Right to Information Act 2005?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: