PMO to seek Modi's views on disclosing his letters with Atal

April 13, 2014

New Delhi, Apr 13: The Prime Minister's Office will take the nod of Gujarat Government and Chief Minister Narendra Modi for releasing the correspondence exchanged with the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee after the post-Godhra riots in 2002.

The information was earlier denied by the Central Public Information Officer of the PMO S E Rizwi citing section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, without giving any reasons, which exempts information that would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

Modis_viewsThe decision was overturned during the appeal before his senior Krishan Kumar, Director PMO, where the applicant had objected to the response of the CPIO saying he failed to give germane reasons behind denial of information.

The applicant had also underlined that the correspondence was 11 years old and was not likely to have an impact on the investigation, apprehension and prosecution of offenders.

Upholding the reasons given by the applicant, the appellate authority directed the CPIO to provide additional details with regards to the case.

"As regards contention that the grounds for exemption claimed under section 8(1) (h) are not tenable, CPIO PMO is directed to obtain fresh inputs in this regard and provide the same to the applicant within 15 working days," Krishan Kumar, Director and Appellate authority had decided.

In the latest response to six-and-a-half month old RTI application, Rizvi said after the appeal decision that the matter was referred to the office for fresh inputs.

"It is informed that third party (Gujarat Government and Modi in the present case) consultation under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is underway on a similar request and response regarding disclosure of information in this regard will be provided to you after due process as envisaged in section 11 of the Act is completed," he said.

According to the section 11 of the RTI Act, a notice seeking views of the third party have to be taken with in five days of filing request but CPIO did not issue any such letter within the period.

The matter of third party consultation was raised citing an existing process which has been on seeking the views.

"The Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request...," the Act says.

The RTI applicant had sought copy of all communications exchanged between the PMO and the Gujarat government between February 27, 2002 and April 30, 2002 on the law and order situation in the state.

The applicant had also sought copy of the communication exchanged between Vajpayee and Modi during that period which saw tense atmosphere in the state.

While refusing disclosure of information, the country's top office did not give any reasons as to how disclosure of information would attract section 8(1)(h) even though Delhi High Court has made it clear that cogent reasons be given while denying information under the clause.

"It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process.

"Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information," Justice Ravindra Bhat had held.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 18,2020

Jaipur, Jul 18: BJP leader Laxmikant Bhardwaj filed a complaint against Congress leaders including Randeep Surjewala and Govind Singh Dotasra for associating Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat's name with an alleged audio clip related to "conspiring to topple" the elected government led by Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot in Rajasthan.

"Mahesh Joshi, Randeep Surjewala, and other accused have regularly been giving false and inflammatory statements against the BJP to criminally damage its reputation so that the blame for the current sorry state of affairs of the Congress can be pinned on the BJP. With the ill-intention of damaging the BJP''s reputation, a conspiracy was formed at the Chief Minister''s residence situated at 8 Civil lines," read the letter written by BJP Rajasthan spokesperson Bhardwaj to the Station Officer of Ashok Nagar police station read.

"From there (CM's residence) imitation of (voices) of people were falsely told to be of that of reputed leaders from the BJP and a fake phone conversation was created through which the false narrative of crores of rupees being offered to buy off Congress MLAs was created. The accused involved in this conspiracy have severely misused their position and power and the whole crime has been conducted by one named Lokesh Sharma, who calls himself an OSD of the Chief Minister," the letter further stated.

The complaint letter also said that Lokesh Sharma had "released three audio tapes to media workers on July 16, 2020, somewhere around 8:25 pm through WhatsApp so that the defamatory material can be circulated on a large scale to fulfill the criminal intent."

Mr Bhardwaj said that a news report in the Jaipur edition of a Hindi newspaper, published on July 17, 2020, had conveyed that the audiotape was released by Mr Sharma.

He further said that Congress leaders Randeep Surjewala, Govind Singh Dotasra, in a press conference held on Friday read out the conversation in the audio tapes publically and "using them as a basis accused the BJP of throttling democracy, sabotaging the mandate, and toppling the government."

Through this conspiracy, Mr Bhardwaj said that hateful and insulting comments are being made on the BJP and its supporters, and "on the basis of this the Special Operation Group (SOG) has filed fake lawsuits under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and is also threatening BJP leaders of arrest."

The BJP leader has urged the police officer to file a complaint against Mr Sharma, Mr Surjewala, Mr Dotasra, and others involved in the alleged conspiracy and take necessary action and recover the equipment used by them.

On June 17, Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala had accused Union Cabinet Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat and Congress legislator Bhanwarlal Sharma of conspiring to topple the elected government led by Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot in Rajasthan and subvert the voters' mandate.

"Yesterday, shocking tapes were aired by the media in which Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, BJP leader Sanjay Jain and Congress MLA Bhanwar Lal Sharma spoke about bribing MLAs and bringing down Rajasthan government. Congress has suspended MLAs Bhanwar Lal Sharma and Vishvendra Singh from the primary membership of the party. The party has also issued show-cause notices to them," Mr Surjewala had said.

"We demand Rajasthan government and Special Operations Group (SOG) to register FIR and arrest the culprits as plenty of evidence has surfaced now," he had further stated.

Mr Surjewala had read out a transcript of an audio of alleged horse-trading between rebel MLAs and BJP, stating, "BJP has breached the trust of people. The audio clip reveals a horse-trading deal. This is a dark chapter in the history of democracy."

"This time the Narendra Modi government has challenged the wrong state," the Congress leader had said. He had alleged that the BJP has been "conspiring to topple Rajasthan government and buy legislators' allegiance."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 14,2020

New Delhi, Mar 14: India on Friday was mulling over the option of deporting The Wall Street Journal's South Asia deputy bureau chief for misreporting Delhi riots in which over 50 people were killed last month. However, the government denied that it had made any such decision.

Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said that a complaint was registered against Eric Bellman, the WSJ South Asia deputy bureau chief based in New Delhi, by a private individual on the government's online grievance redressal platform.

"Referring the complaint to the related office is a routine matter as per standard procedure. No such decision on deportation has been taken by the Ministry of External Affairs," Kumar said.

However, government-funded Prasar Bharati News Services had earlier tweeted screenshots of the complaint which was filed by an undersecretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, Vinesh K Kalra, saying that the ministry has asked the Indian embassy in the US to "look into the request for immediate deportation of Bellman for his "anti-India behaviour".

The official had complained to the embassy about Bellman's controversial reportage on the killing of an Intelligence Bureau staffer named Ankit Sharma.

The WSJ had reported that Ankit Sharma's brother had said that he was killed by a mob belonging to a particular religious community. Ankit's brother later told Indian media that he never spoke to the WSJ reporter.

After the Prasar Bharati tweet got circulated widely on social media, the government backtracked and said that no such decision has been taken.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 3,2020

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.