Section 25 and 26 of High court rules 2006 sabotaged the spirit of Right to Information Act 2005.

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh yogimpsingh@gmail.com

11:59 AM (14 minutes ago)

to rishiBimalrti.lucknowtariq43Kulshrestha2009abhay-photoshopmaildehat_vojitendra_c1dehatvobatra_lokeshmanishgkhatyagiamaranantumang_ngoKuldeeptyagis.sonia2009vohra3sudeepkumar.sa.maharajk
Dear friend-It seems that you have not taken the perusal  of pending litigation W.P.(C) 3530 /2011 along with the bunch of petitions for stay filed by Registrar , Supreme court of India as petitioner before High court of judicature at New Delhi seeking stay order on the directions of central information commission in various cases concerned with the pending litigations being processed in various courts.
Those cases filed before the High court, against the orders of CIC in order to get stay on proceedings of C.I.C. were granted stay liberally without considering seriously about the disposal of original writ. As usual our courts never reach at conclusive stage in a case and justice denied on the merit of the case to the litigants in the name of huge backlog of pending cases so similar trauma is being faced by provisions of transparency act under the cumbersome process of court. Since the matter is concerned with the weaker and oppressed section so it seems that in the aforesaid matter verdict on the merit of the case will never come probably as set up precedent in this largest democracy in the world.
Right to Information Act 2005 was passed by the Highest rule making body (Parliament) of this country in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of public authority but section 25 and 26 of High court rule 2006  sabotaged entire provisions of Right to Information Act 2005. Bitter truth is that High court of Judicature at Allahabad is not providing single information to information seekers by taking recourse of it. Here this question arises that whether transparency and accountability will affect the independence of judiciary or promote the independence of judiciary. Independence of judiciary is the shield from political influence but mostly used to deprive weaker section  from justice and to burry truth.  History is witness ,what is going on in our courts and in regard to faith of citizenry in judiciary ,it can do all compromises but don’t want to take shelter in the court. Because of litigations, cryptic approach and its cumbersome process  ,several people had to be deprived from their movable and immovable properties but justice far away from them . What a explanation ? How quasi judicial body can direct judicial body so judiciary may kept out of ambit of transparency panel. Since registry works as assistant to judicial members so it must also be covered with the shield of independence of judiciary. One thing forgot our framers of the constitution that more autonomy and privileges always open the quarter of arbitrariness and tyranny. Here litigants are stopped by security personnel from attending their court proceedings in the name of security of handful people. Where is justice in this country? Gate of High court has been blocked for citizenry ,only staffs of High court and advocates practising in High court not in other courts can enter or those having grace of such people. 

My RTI application has been denied to provide the sought infromation through Rules-25,26 of Allahabad HC (RTI) Rules, 2006

Inbox
x

rishi saxena

Attachments4:56 AM (7 hours ago)

to meBimalrti.lucknowtariq43Kulshrestha2009abhay-photoshopmaildehat_vojitendra_c1dehatvobatra_lokeshmanishgkhatyagiamaranantumang_ngoKuldeeptyagis.sonia2009vohra3sudeepkumar.sa.maharajk
Respected Sir,

As i’ve gone through the attachment (order passed by CIC) found that order has been passed to provide the sought information but they have nowhere mentioned any comment against Rule 25 & 26.
Even in the decision given by
       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01238 dated 19.09.2008 it has been clearly mentioned (in point no. 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. which must be deemed to direct the Rule 25 of Allahabad HC (RTI) Rules, 2006 as null and void 
                       Parallel to it there is one more decision  given by CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in the matter of  Mr. Madanpal vs High Court, Allahabad on 10 August, 2010  Appeal No. CIC/PA/A/2009/000003 dated 30-12-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 

DECISION NOTICE :
The decision above with regard to Supreme Court Right to Information Rules and Supreme Court Rules of 1966 will apply mutatis mutandis to the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information Rules) and Allahabad High Court Rules 1952. In this regard, therefore, Rule 25 of the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules 2006 are in consonance with the ruling of this Commission quoted above. Nevertheless, although, as per these rules the CPIO shall not be liable to provide the requisite information but should he/she require to access information under the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 under Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, a citizen is still given the opportunity described in that Section as follows:
A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to–
(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;
(b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her:
Under the law therefore a citizen is expected to apply to CPIO to obtain “any information“.The CPIO in keeping with the RTI Act read with Allahabad High Court Rules quoted by the CPIO is required to seek the assistance of the officer authorised to provide the information sought under the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 as per Section 5 (4) of the RTI Act. It will also be noted that such officer will then assume the responsibility of the CPIO as per Section 5 (5) of the RTI Act. Deemed CPIO will then proceed to recover such fees as prescribed and initiate such procedure as mandated by the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. For this reason, CPIO Shri B.K. Srivastava will now and not later than 10 days from the date of receipt of this Decision Notice transfer Emphasis added the application of appellant Shri Madan Pal together with the fees paid to the officer concerned as per Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 who will in turn process the application under those Rules. While the decision of Appellate Authority Shri V.K. Dixit, Registrar General is, therefore, upheld, CPIO will now proceed as per above directions.


For Rule 26 : it is totally against the parent law as it has clearly been mentioned in Sec 8(h)  “information which would impedethe process of investigation of apprehension or prosecution of offenders” so Rule 26 itself in contradiction with the same. it means before denying to provide the information the court has to make it clear to the information seeker that how the such information impede the prosecution, 

and in the decision given by CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01238 dated 19.09.2008 it has been clearly mentioned (in point no. 46) :

“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.

All respected RTI activists are requested to guide and help to oppose it in Supreme court.
Regards
Rishi Saxena
9760098303

From: Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 22:01:37
To: rishi saxena <rishi_s78@rediffmail.com>
Subject: Re: My RTI application has been denied through Rules-25,26 of Allahabad HC (RTI) Rules, 2006
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;

3 comments on Section 25 and 26 of High court rules 2006 sabotaged the spirit of Right to Information Act 2005.

  1. For Rule 26 : it is totally against the parent law as it has clearly been mentioned in Sec 8(h) “information which would impedethe process of investigation of apprehension or prosecution of offenders” so Rule 26 itself in contradiction with the same. it means before denying to provide the information the court has to make it clear to the information seeker that how the such information impede the prosecution,

  2. 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.”

  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: