RTI activist killed in group clash in Beed

Source:Syed Rizwanullah, TNN, Apr 22, 2010, 08.06am IST


AURANGABAD: An RTI activist who had exposed irregularities in a village school in Beed was killed following a clash between two groups on Sunday. The rival group, which inflicted serious injuries on the activist, was led by the son of the president of the educational society that runs the school, Sainath Vidyalaya, the police said.

The activist, Vitthal Gite (39), was a farmer and a flour-mill owner in the village, Waghbet. He, along with another activist, Brijmohan Mishra, had sought information under the RTI Act and exposed irregularities in the functioning of a few other schools in the village as well.

The alleged irregularities in Sainath Vidyalaya were published in a local newspaper, which led to the clash between the two groups in which Gite was killed, Mishra told TOI on Wednesday.

The police, however, said “old enmity” between the two groups had triggered the clash. “We cannot compare this case with the murder of RTI activist Satish Shetty of Talegaon. However, information sought by Gite under the RTI Act was one of the reasons behind the group clash,” police inspector Vidyanand Kale of the Parli-Vaijnath police station told TOI.

Kale said a majority of the villagers were related and went by the name Gite. “Sunday’s clash was between two groups of the Gite family. Gite sustained serious injuries in the clash and was taken to a private hospital in Parli. He was later shifted to a hospital in Latur, where he died on Tuesday morning. We have booked around 35 people from both groups and have arrested eight people following complaints lodged by both sides. A murder charge will be slapped on the group led by Amarnath Gite,” he added.

Get BCCI under RTI too

Source:Hindustan Times:Sat,03 Apr 2010
           
       
Amidst the euphoria of the IPL competing strongly with the weepy prime time serials, the hysterical media has almost ignored a very significant move towards forcing our sports federations to become accountable and transparent in their functioning, especially in matters financial.

Sports Minister MS Gill needs to be complimented for bringing all the federations into the ambit of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, which in turn means the public will now have the right to know how and where the money given to them by the government (tax-payer) goes.

Is the money being spent for the purpose it is meant for or does most of it get siphoned off, as is alleged by many?

However, the sports body which generates enormous revenues and profits that could be the envy of any rich corporate body, unfortunately, does not fall under the gambit of this Act.

The reason for the exepmtion presumably being it is a private body which does not take a single pie from the government and hence cannot come under government or public scrutiny.

This is a false presumption, if one goes by the 2004 High Court ruling in the PIL filed against the Board by Rahul Mehra, a lawyer by profession, but an inveterate sports fan by nature. By admitting the PIL, the Court had in its judgment clearly said that the BCCI may be a private body, but it performs a public function and therefore comes under Article 226 of the Constitution (public scrutiny).

The BCCI, which for reasons beyond comprehension, is loathe to subject itself to public scrutiny (unless it has something to hide) shields itself behind the argument that it is a private body and cannot be questioned by the state.

BCCI conveniently forgets that not only does it get tax benefits, it also gets other largesse from the state, like stadias at throwaway rates and, most importantly, is allowed to use the name India for the team which represents it. It gets these concessions because it is deemed a charitable organisation which performs a public function.

Ever since the economic liberalisation in the nineties coincided with private television channels being allowed to enter the Indian market, the BCCI has been getting richer by the day.

Without doubt this has had a huge positive effect on the game with greater funding at the grass root level and the players themselves reaping the enormous benefits of the economic boom, fuelled by the multiplying popularity of the game in the country.

Post IPL, the money which the Board is handling has gone into billions of dollars and, as the custodian of the game whose main stakeholders are its fans, shouldn’t it be mandatory for them to come under greater public scrutiny?

By their own admission, all the members of the board and its office-bearers are performing an honorary job and take no salaries for services they render.

The Indian public should salute them for this selfless attitude, which presumably stems from their great “love” for the game. If that be the case then what stops them from willingly coming under the RTI Act, even if the government for some legal reasons is “unable” to do so.

They should remember that the money, which is coming into their coffers is because of the millions of die-hard fans who support the game and spend their money, time and energy in cheering their team and their players.

The reason fans support the Board is because they believe it is “building” India and not “selling” brand India to the highest bidder. That is why it is important that the Board’s accounts should come under public scrutiny.

'RTI brings accountability in administration'

Source:TNN, Apr 8, 2010, 10.30pm IST



VARANASI: "Information is power and right to information (RTI) brings accountability and transparency in administration," said Prof TM Mohapatra, director, Institute of Medical Sciences (IMS), Banaras Hindu University while inaugurating the two-day training-cum-workshop on RTI Act, 2005 at UGC Academic Staff College, BHU on Thursday.

Stressing that the RTI Act could go a long way in empowering people to have access to vital informations, Prof Mohapatra said: "Positive initiatives taken by Goa and Tamil Nadu in 1997 for providing information to people paved the way for RTI Act in 2005." In his presidential remarks, BHU rector Prof BD Singh said RTI should not be used as a means of exploitation but as a tool to bring transparency and accountability for good governance.

Earlier, while tracing the history of RTI Act, joint director Institute of Secretariat Training and Management (ISTM), New Delhi MS Kasana said: "Sweden was the first country to introduce the concept of RTI even though it had monarchy in 1766." He also raised hope that the act could help eradicate corruption in the society.

It is to be mentioned here that ISTM, New Delhi under the department of Personnel and Training, Government of India had organised the programme.

A number of senior university officials including Dr KP Upadhyaya, registrar and other members of Academic Staff College were also present.

Admission cancelled: The admissions of as many as three students including Gopalji, Shubham Mishra and Shivakant Pathak were cancelled on Thursday. The trio were granted temporary admission in the first year of Shastri (honours), equivalent to graduation in the faculty of Sanskrit Vidya Dharma Vignana, Banaras Hindu University.

As per Prof Chandrama Pandey, head, faculty admission committee, the three students were not found fit for admission, as they could not meet the eligibility criteria of securing 50 percent marks in Uttar Madhyama (Intermediate) examinations.

Course on martial arts: The University Mountaineering Centre, BHU is going to start a certificate course on Martial Arts from April 22.

As per reports of the Centre, the course for self-protection is open for all school students in the city. The centre would also conduct test on April 18 in order to admit students.

 


   Source: April 4, 2010 NDTV

This is the second term of the UPA and till now we have always seen Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi

, the UPA chairperson, working in perfect harmony but NDTV has learnt that there is one issue that they disagree, on that of RTI amendments.

It's a rare occasion when the Prime Minister has stood firm and refused Congress president Sonia Gandhi's request.

In a letter to UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi the PM says that RTI amendments are necessary. This in response to Mrs Gandhi writing to him against it.

Sonia Gandhi had written to the PM two months ago saying that she is: "Of the firm opinion, like that of the NGOs that there should be no amendments in the RTI Act and the existing Act should properly implemented."

But the PM wrote back saying: There is a "...need for RTI amendments" but "...all stakeholders will be consulted", all stakeholders will be consulted before the amendments are moved."

The PM explains in his letter explains the need for changes in the RTI:

    * Apprehensions of the judiciary have to be taken up
    * Need to streamline the act and make it more people friendly

The RTI is one of the legal entitlements for the aam aadmi and Sonia Gandhi has been in the forefront to ensure that there is no dilution in the Act.

It is very rare for the PM to say no, that too to Sonia Gandhi, for getting the RTI amendment. And it is a long battle to get it through Parliament.

So what are the points of differences between the two most powerful people in the UPA?
Sources say the proposed changes in the RTI Act are:

    * To exclude office of Chief Justice of India
    * Don't make deliberations over a decision public
    * Don't entertain frivolous/wasteful applications

RTI Act states applicant need not give reason: court

Source: The Hindu, April 8,2010,Special Correspondent

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has said that the RTI Act clearly states that an applicant should not be required to give any reason for seeking information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.

Justice K. Chandru said this while partly allowing a writ petition by Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University.

Earlier, the Human Rights Legal Awareness Society, Perungudi, had sought certain information regarding the university examinations held in May 2008 and December 2007. The university rejected the plea on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi. The information sought for by the organisation was exempted under the purview of the Act.

The organisation moved the State Information Commission, which by an order in August last year, directed the university to furnish the information. Hence, the present petition by the university.

Mr. Justice Chandru said the university seemed to be under the wrong notion that an information seeker like the applicant should establish its bonafides for seeking such information. Under Section 6 (2) of the RTI Act, such a requirement was not prescribed.

On the contrary, the provision clearly said an applicant making a request for information should not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details, except those that may be necessary for contacting him. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the university did not stand to reason. Mr. Justice Chandru remanded the matter back to the Commission for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law in the light of the order on the writ petition after due notice to both parties.