You are on page 1of 10






'The highest office in our democracy is the office of citizen; this is not only a platitude, it must translate
into reality'.- Report of The National Commission to Review the Working of The Constitution.l

While nobody who understands the term democracy would need such a quotable quote as given
above, in our country, unfortunately, the obsession is not with what is said but who is saying it. Hence
the need to use quotable quotes profusely,
Here is another quotable quote. lt is popularly known as Schopenhauer's Law of Entropy.z. 'lf you put a
spoonful of wine in a barrel full of sewage you get sewage. lf you put a spoonful of sewage in a barrel
fullof wine you get,,,.,.... sewage!'ln the lndian context, this lawcan be applied as follows: if the people
of lndia is the birrel full of wine, the public servants form the spoonful of sewage; if the public'servants
form the barrel full of wine, the judiciary is the spoonful of sewage and if the judicary is the bei&l full of
wine the judges form the spoonful of sewage! This is not merely a belief but a conviction bor;[re out of
personal experience, observations and study.

lf that was perceptive thinking then here is something more logical. Amoung the three organs of our
Constitution the law-makers are elected/controlled by the people, b'ureaucracy (yes, bureaucracy,
because without the active support of the bureaucracy no politician can do any wrong!) and finally the
judiciary; the law-enforcers are also controlled by the law-makers and the judiciary. And then there are
the ears and eyes of the people- the media waiting to sensationalise every news involving the
misdemeanour of these authorities. lnspite of such strict supervision and control all that we can hear
these days are about politician-bureaucrat-undenruorld nexus even though the fact remains that none,
worth the name, from this unholy nexus have ever been punished by the holier-than-thou judiciary. So
now think how bad a system can be which is not only NOT subject to supervision but also kept beyond
critical observation. Well isn't our judiciary just that? And do I need to recapitulate that quip: power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?-

We are given to believe that our Constitution is the biggest ever in the world and it is sact.osanct. But
even a cursory reading of it will reveal that it is a tome unfit for a democratic society, And even the
architect of this Constitution, Dr B R Ambedkar, had admitted (on 2nd September 1953 in the Rajya
Sabha) that "People always keep on saying to me, so you are the maker of the Constitution. My answer
is lwas a hack. What I was asked'to, I did much against my will. I am quite prepared to say that I shall
be the first person to burn it. lt does not suit anybody." And Seth Damodar Swarup had said, in the
Constituent Assembly of lndia on 19 November 1949, 'this Constitution may be the biggest and bulkiest
constitution in the world, may even be the most detailed one, it may be heaven for the lawyers, and
may even be the Magna Carta for the capitalists of lndia, but so far as tfe poor and the tens of millions
of toiling; starving and naked masses of lndia are concerned, there is nothing in it for them. For them it
is a bulky volume, nothing more than waste paper.'
This Constitution certainly provides for three organs to fulfil the responsibilities of governance- the law
making legislaturesiParliament, the law enforcing executive (headed by the President of course, though
practically it is not unusual to hear the Prime Minister being touted as the Head of the Executive also!)
and the law interpreting judiciary. However the law making has been reduced to a farce without
prescribing certain minumum qualifications or qualities for our law makers. Thus they are rendered
puppets in the hands of a bureaucracy which apparantly has not got any accountability! But these
bureaucrats/babus/clerks would shit in their pants if they are as much shown a transfer order to a place
that is not to their liking! And the judiciary which is required to sit in judgement over disputes between
the vdrious stake holders has been given unbridled freedom to act whimsically, arbitrarily and outright
illegally. One doesn't have to go further than a decade back to just drive home the point. How could a
Chief Justice of lndia claim that his office was out of purview of the Right to lnformation Act? And, how
could a constitution bench of the apex court claim that the National Judicial Appointments Commission
was unconstitutional?

One couln't care less if the judges of the higher courts were appointed by judges or politicians or a mix

of both because ultimately what matters is promptness, transparency ind-accountability in judicial

proceedings, including decisions, and for that what is needed is not a mere appointments
bul an accountability commission with powers to try errant judges under laws applicable to ordinary

citizens with atleast twice the severity in punishment based on tfre bgic that professional criminals
have to be dealt with more severely than amateur ones.
The delay in disposal of cases in the judiciary is so gross that even the judiciary cannot but admit it. But
what is preposterous is the one point solution being touted by the judiciary- increasing the number of

judges! A casual visit to any court will suffice to get a first hand experience of the way the court is
responsible for the waste of not only its own precious time but also the harassment of litigants
(complainants included!). Here is the data pe(aining to a complaint in a consumer'court'.

ln OP 28Agg pP No 85/95 transferre.d from Malappuram), the opposite paty had .ploduced
interim stay order on 28/10/99 and the'stay was vacated only on B/6/2005 but throughrout this
period the case was listed 58 frmes and adjoumed! lt was finally posfed for orders on 6fl/01

was opened for re-hearing suo moto on 15/2/08 and went on an adjournment spiee from
it was adjourned 17 times, inctiding times for want
of memberslPresident and 10 times for orders ontyl lt uyas dismiss ed whei an application was
submitted under the RTI Act to find out the sfafus/

3/3/08 to 31/5/2010. During this spree

It can easily be said that the situation is worse in our courts, ln an article


'How long before justice

comes?' in the New lndian Express of 04 Dec 2004 HD shourie had written:
'lt is not posslb/e for a judge

to seriously hear and decide more than two orfhree cases a day..,,no

iudge should have more than 30 matters listed before him/her on a given day.'
'Lawyers are acused of e:mploying delaying methods, but no lawyer can succeed
refuses an adjournment.'


the cout

It is invariably seen that in the subordinate courts more than 100 cases are listed
everyday before a
judge and most of the forenoon hours are spent in simply
calling the case numbers,-recording the
presence of parties and adjourning the cases for a later Oitet gut
elven here the data from a consumer
wltt be an eye opener. These consumer disputes redressal forums (CDRFs)/commissions
(CDRCs), established under the Consumer Protection Act with
a very limited function but structured as
a jury with three members (with the implied additional cost to the
eichequer) have literally turned the
consumer Protection Act into a consumer Persecution Act. while the
example in op 2}2lgg of the
Palakkad Forum is sufficient to prove'the point of irresponsible, whimsical
and wayward behaviour of
authorities the point of misanagemeni of time should b6 evident from
the fact that
the CDRF Palakkad hasbeen holding sittings foiless than t hour per
day, The total number of cases
listed is not more than 20 and exceptforone ortwo allof
them are adjourned. And this, when as per
information received underthe RTI Act, as on 31/5/2010,
there were 10'g cases pending for more than
3 months, but less than 1 year; 37 pending for m9p thanl yearout
less than 3 years and 15 pending
for more than 3 years! on 18 Jun 201t wrren lhad insplcteo
tne documents at the 6DRF lwas
shocked to find even cases of 1996 listed as late as lgt2t2o}}l
(Complaints about ihese have been

submitted to the concerned minister and chief minister too,

all in vain!.3)

Coming back to the issue of increasing the number of judges,

the only argument seen touted in its
favour is a judge to population ratio. lt is argued that in'lndla
ii is not even a fraction of what it is in
developed countries. But it doesn't need Einitein's intelligence
to know that such rijures are irrelevant
in the lndian context where the majority are illiterate,
Ieaie alone being conscious of their legal rightsl
But here again are some interesting figures:
cases filed in one year
lndla: 13.6
Docket's per
rndia : 9BT per




USA: g3.81 Miilion (T times)

Judge; jJSA: 323s per Judge (3 times)

Given that the population of lndia is more than 4 times that of the US of A where does that leave the
argument based on judge to population ratio? lsn't the judge to docket ratio more logical?

ls it just delays that are the bane of our judiciary? Absolutely notr Even at the end of preposterous
delays the decisions can hardly be said to be fair! While the judiciary can be seen repeating popular
quotes like 'Ceaser's wife has to be above board' obviously it does not abide by such wisdom itselfl
Without going into the details, there can be many cases listed which expose not merely the duplicity of
the judiciary but its outright wayward behaviour.
ln Jancy Joseph Vs Union of lndia (1999 (1 ) KLI 422), the question of applicability of Section 56 of the
Civil Procedure Code (of 1908 vintage, though legally valid!) while ordering arrests under the provisions
of Section 27 of lhe Consumer Protection Act (enacted in 1986, long after we gave to ourselves a
Constitution that promises social, economic and political justice and right to equality ryithout

discrimination against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth
or any of them) was considered by the Kerala High Court. Under Section 56 of the CPC,'tf1e court
shall not order arrest or detention in the civil prison of a woman in execution of a decree for payment of
money; regarding recovery of money from others, arrest can be ordered if it is found that the person
concerned have means to pay'.
The judge had ruled that 'l quash Ext P5 in so far as it holds that woman can be arrested for recovery
of money under Sec 27 of lhe (Consumer Protection)Act and that means of judgement debtor need not
be considered when the power under S 27 is exercised for recovery of money'.

There are two factors to be considered here. First, the judge has acted unconstitutionally by
discriminating against citizens on the grounds of sex alone. This judgement also makes the
discrimination implicit in Sec 56 of the CPC more severe. Further, this undue favo.ur extended to
women excluded all the women from the penal provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, because
under the CPA all rulings will involve recovery of money, either in terms of refund of costs or
compensation. So, in other words, women could get away with any crime under the CPAI (A
subsequent amendment to the CPA has enabled revenue recovery procedures to enforce the orders of
the Fora/Commissions but as on the date of the order of the High Court, it was an atrocious order that
really gave a licence to women to cheat and get away with it with impunity!) Secondly, even
considering, for the sake of argument, that the special treatment granted to women could be justified
under certain provisions of the Constitution, how could the judge change the goal post for men?

Now, look at how the goal post has been changed in favour of commercial organisations vis a vis
citizens of both gender. ln Mary Chacko vs Jancy Joseph (2005 (3) KLT 925), a division bench headed
by the then CJ of Kerala considered the issue of the applicability of thp same Sec 56 of CPC while
enforcing the orders under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial lnstitutions Act 1993 and
ordered that women CAN be arrested because 'there is a clear for treating the public dues
different from the purely private',
Now this raises a genuine doubt whether the Constitution of lndia, by which all these luminaries swear
by, mention anywhere that justice could be denied to individual citizens? As I see it, or as any man in
his senses would see it, it is a big NOI Doesn't it suggest that these people read the Preamble to the
Constitution every time they opened a case file? As well as the Gandhi Talisman for added effect?

And here are two judgements which put together would make any knowledge of law redundant for the
lawyers and judges:

ln lttavira Vs Varkey (A 1964 SC 907) the august court has ruled that 'courts have jurisdiction to
decide right or to decide wrong and even though they decide wrong, the decrees rendered by them
cannot be treated as nullities'.


ln Misrilal Vs Sadasivrah (A

1965 SC 553,) the apex court has ruled that 'there can be no
inteierence in revision merely because the decision is erroneous in law or in fact where there is no
e rro r pe rtai n in g to ju ri sd i ction'.
Many more similar instances can be quoted to prove the point t am irying to drive home: that our courts

not only deny justice by delay but even after the preposterous delays the decisions smack of
arbitrariness and waywardness!

The rules framed under the RTI Act are classic examples of the attitude of the judiciary to law. Right
from exorbitant fees to introducing fees for even 1st appeal to keeping judicial matters out of purview of
the law, the competent authorities in the judiciary under the RTI Act have not made any secret of their
antagonistic attitude towards transparency and accountability. And this, as is wont to, has created a
situation where quasi judicial authorities act whimsically, arbitrarily and waywardly leaving law abiding
citizens and those seeking justice high and dry. Here is an extract from the order dated 3011.112015 of

Basant Seth, lnformation Commissioner, Central lnformation Commissioner

c c/BS/A/20


in FTIe No,

00267 1 t9 1 09

The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in its decision dated L4/I1,/2}L4 [SPA No t64$olzoL4
Pankesh Manubhai Patel vs. Chief lnformation Commissioner and ors] has held as under:
"5. The Commission has recorded reasons in para-4, which reads as under.

4. We agree with the

Respondents that collecting this information would

disproportionately divert their resources from the day to day work. The Appellant
has not established any larger public interest, which would warrant a directive to the
Respondents to collect the information, sought by him, even at the cost of diverting
their resources from their day to day work. ln the above context, we also note the
following observations of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary
Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors."
'lndiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of
all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the
functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be
counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and
result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of
collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused
or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration,
or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be
converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of hopest officials striving to do
their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public
authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and, furnishing information to
applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under
the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to
employees of public authorities prioritizing'information furnishing'at the cost of
their normal and regular duties.'
6. Having considered the relationship between the petitioner and the
respondent authorities and the information asked for by the petitioner, this Court
finds that, the view taken by the Commission in the facts of this case does not call
for any interference. Further, the Commission has noted the observations of the
. Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, which would apply with full force in the facts of this
case. This court does not see any infirmity in the impugned decision of the
Commission. This petition therefore needs to be dismissed.,,

perthe ratio of the above cited decision information which would disproportionately
divert the resources of the public authority need not be provided except when
occasioned by consideration of public interest. ln the matter at hand the appellant has
not established any public interest which would warrant a directive to the respondent
to compile the information sought by him even at the cost of diverting their resources
from day to day work. However, as offered by the respondent, the appellant if he so
desires, should be permitted to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI

application dated O4|OB|\OL4 and also allowed to take photocopies/ extract

therefrom, free of cost, upto 50 pages and thereafter on payment of prescribed fee of
Rs.2l- per page, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.



lnformation Commissioner



To the uninitiated the order may look innocuous but the devil they say is in the details. Now what was
the information sought? The relevant extract of the application is given below:
The Public lnformation Officer under the RTI Act

O/o Executive Engineer (E), BSNL ElectricalDivision

Canada Corner, Nasik-422 002


Please provide the following information and copies of the documents:

the USO slfes under your jurisdicfisnrNote. flls

details should include the following: date, name of site, total distance travelled, mode of

1.1.The details of your /afesf visri


each of

transport, starting time from your office/residence (if moved directed from your residence), time
at which reached back your officehesidence (if moved back directly to the residence), the
nature of work in progress at each site, the name and address of the contractor executing the
work at the site, the name and designation of subordinates who accompanied you during the

1.2. The details of the bilts for the three (03) latest completed contracts for which final
payments have been made (irrespective of site). The details should include the following:
1.2.1. name of the s'tte, the date

of contract, the predicted date of completion, the actual date of


1.2.2. the amount of original contract, the date and amount
1.2.3. the dates

of enhancements thereafter,

of release of instalments of the contract amount (payment of running bills) and

the amount of the instalment,


.2.4. the date of submisslon of fhe finat bitl.

1.2.5. the Peiorma for Bitlsubmisslon and atl its appendices for the final bills.

of actiyifres as per the prescribed time schedule. lf the actual days differ
from the
schedule then the dafes as per prescription and actual should be indicated
1.2.6. the actual dates

(*Note: ln response to an earlier application under the RTI Act, it had been communicated that
there are 33 USO Prolect sites under this EE)

So how voluminous will this information be? Here is the info provided for two of the 33 sites:

<r,i1r r







l,;i ; iiirtiril{I!

1 i:!il


*-. _*__







i I


::111;1;1.q::i f;;;;1.. . ri

5 r





\.:. j







-".-* ..-.--"-^-+!- -

So how much will the info pertaining to 33 sites be? 4 A4 size pages? And the info sought al qara 1 .2
for just 3 sites? Anoth-er 3 to 6 pages? ls that so voluminous as to adversely affect the normaltworking
of the public authority?
And look at the absurd issues raised by the watchdog appointed to enfoice the law! Where is the need
to prove public interest in every issue?.+ And isn't there public interest in monitoring the performance
a public authority executing projects for the public using public money? And wfry ifre limit of 50 pages
for free and rest to be paid for? lsn't the law unambrguously simple and clear that information not
provided within 30 days of receipt of the application hai to be provided
free of cost?.s And mind you,
the applicant is located in Kerala which is more than 1000 kms away from the PlO, located
in Mumbai!
Just by the way, the o/o Executive Engineer (E), BSNL Electrical Division, Canada
Corner, Nasik-422
00-2 hasn't d_esignated a Public Information Officer, in blatant violation
of the law.6, and it is the public
lnformation Officer in the o/o The Chief Engineer (Electrical), Electrical Circle,
Mumbai who responds to
the applications addressed to the former!

And this is not alll A Director level public servant of the Department of Personnel
and Training, the
nodal department dealing with Right to lnformation in the country, had issued
an Office Memorandum
(No F 10/2/2008-lR) on 23 Sep 2010 literally overriding/abrogriing
Section 6(3) of the RTt Act! The
relevant text is as given below:

Th6 undBrsigned is :d:rrscted io refer to this tlspartmsnt? (}M,$f

even number
dated 1Zth June, 20oB on the above
if a person rnEk*s *n appfication
to the public authority for informetion, a
psrt of u'hieh iE avairabre with that publrc authority End
the rest sf tt s infori!,ration
scattered with rnore than one otrer pirric ffio.ii"] *" J"i,,""*;ffi;'&;1"il1"; i$
of the publio authority receiving the'appliqaiisn shoutd giue inrormati""-r"i.*i"g'[
advbe the applicanr to metie *eFarqte appticqrigns u tni,
obtaining information from them' lt fur$rer provides tt"tii"" p"rt
of the information is
available with the pubtic authority receiving tire apptication ari
scattered vvitt'r *or" ih"n
ona other puElie atlthorithrc" the Fro *rrrrila rnt"..n ih; .rd;;.that iarrformarionlc
available *rlth the publiio ar.rthority.ard ther the
aeparate apprirsrion
to the conc*med pub[c author.ities for obtaining information frorn thsm.

n" Tfie matter'has 'been &xarnlfted ln co,n$-ultstiqn with the Ghief infonrnstion
Commissioner, Central tnformation Commission
il [;;;;"
i*"ii*o ;';il'il;t
that:if ths d.tails o:f public auihorities who may rr""-g,ii';;;;;,,;-"rnni"i*
applicani are eveirable with the pro, such detarls-rnayr,-"'i" p."-;; ;"

3' contents of this oM

may be brought to the notiee of alr concerned


G, Verma|

Tel. 23OS ?158


While the OM is brazenly illegal, on seeking copies of documents supporting the contention in para2,
both the CIC and DoPT had failed to provide any! And the CIC's direction to DoPT to provide them is
still pending compliance inspite of reminders-7!


Similar is another letter (No 6009/5lC-Gen2t2007) dated 5/10/2CI07 from Kerala State lnformation
Commission (KSIC) abrogating Sec 5 of the RTI Act!.4
Complaints to competent authorities have been in vain, as usual! To a complaint to the Chief Minister
daled22111l2011rg,after much persistance, the General Administration Department of the Government
of Kerala as under:
Ref:- Vorr Feririr:n dared 22.1

::fi I 1

your attention to the refer*nce cired, Yorrr cnmpJaint rcg*r:llirrg $rat6

l-nfcxnar;*1 tlnmq;$k:n !ra* I:t*n Jn:,,',trded m **#;e":rC$:}*#i*ffii1&xn*l**ii *,*lnnr-gir,*


neee* * ffi*i


; c."*iiruii*;* t;;;"'*;d H*;**rr**i

rourtj nor


rhe funuriorung of the State informatioli Comrnission.

While my doubt remains whether it is a constitutional body or statutory body there is no doubt in my
mind about the authority of the Government to frame rules to enforce the provisions of the Act including
the procedures to be followed by the information commissions!.11
However it has to be admitted that even in its subverted state, the RTI Act certainly helps the citizens in
one way and only in this way: that is when one deosn't get the information sought it helps in identifying
at least three public servants as idiots or traitors, with idiots being those who do not know the job they
are paid to do and traitors being those who know the job but still wouldn't do it!
It may not be irrelevant to state another fact here. That is all these quasi judicial bodies created have
been turned into rehabilitation centres for the worst public servants.who had retired from service.-121n
fact it had been reported of an earlier President of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission that he

used to hold sittings regularly on the 1st day of every Malayalam month at the piligrim town of
Guruvayur in Kerala when such regularity or frequency was not there even for hearings in the district
To cut this narrative short here are 10 questions (by no means exhaustive!) that beg answers:


There are reports about undertrials spending more time in judicial cuStody than the period for which
they would have been punished under the charges levelled against them. Who is responsible for

2. When charged

with a crime and produced before a court, an acqused will be granted bail only if
sureties who have land in their name bail him out by producing the receipt for land tax paid. Where
does that leave the petty criminals who are poor?


lsn't it possible for an Sl of Police in Delhi to accuse somebody staying in Assam or Kerala in a
criminal case and all that the accused can do is to suffer the ordeal of attending court in Delhi till it

is dismissed with the blaise statement that the prosecution has not been able to prove the
charges? (lsn't it absurd that the police need to give a copy of the FIR only to the complainant and
not to the accused and the accused will get to know of the charges only when he appears before
the court on receipt of the summons reach him out of the blue?


The judges can easily blame the investigating officers, prosecutors and advocates for miscarriages
of justice. But why are they not held responsible and the victim compensated at the cost of the

responsible public servant?



There was a case in which a group attacked a teacher in a class room and murdered him before
the primary class children. The trial court had sentenced 5 or 6 of the accused to death. The high
court upheld the decision. But the apex courtAceutTTEp all but one and commuted the last one's
death to life term imprisonment! And by the time the final verdict came he had (almost) completed
his term as an undertrail and was soon out for allegedly committing the next murderl But the
question is how did the trial court sentence so many to death when going by our jurisprudence
'even if a thousand crimnals escape, one innocent person should not be punished' and 'capital
punishment is awarded only in the rarest of rare cases'? And why had the other criminals involved
not brought before the law? And why were the police-prosecutor nexus who succeeded to prove so
many innocents guilty both at the trial court and high court not punished for their'crime'? And why
were the falsely accused who had spent considerable time in prison not compensated?


ln the Godhra train torching case, the then railway minister appointed a judicial commission which
submitted a reportin line with the stand of the minister. Butanother judicialcommission, appointed
by the then Chief Minister of Gujrat, gave an entirely contrdictory report which was in line with the
stand of the Chief Minister. So where is the credibiltiy of these judicial commissions?


lt was reported in the media that in Kerala the Government had decided to pay an allowlnce to
judges retiring from the Kerala High Court who could not be provided sinecures. f,he rate
mentioned was Rs 6000/- pm for judges otherthan the Chief Justice and Rs 10,000/- toi'the Chief

Justice, lf the public view this as official bribing can they be blamed?


ln one case, the Food Safety Commissioner of Kerala had confiscated 6000 lakh kilograms of
pepper in2012 which had been polished with paraffin wax and used oil which are known to be
cancerogenous. lt was ordered to be destroyed by burning. But the affected parties, NCDEx, went
to the high court and the judge, in 2014, directed the FSC to facilitate cleaning of the adulterated
pepper and getting it retested before marketing it. Though the FSC could not provide copies of the
test results there were reports in the media stating that the pepper is being prepared for marketing
locally beause it is unfit for exports! Now the million dollar question: can the salt and spices be
'cleaned' from pickled vegetables? 0r could any advocate have argued convincingly and proved
that it could be?


How long did it take from the trial court to the apex court to dispose of a defamation suit by former
judge P B Sawant against Times Now?

10. Former Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, P D Dinakaran, was supposed to be impeached
after all the formalities, like inquiry by judges of the apex court etc, were over. But he quit on the
eve of the final proceedings in Parliament. ls that any punishment under the lndian laws? Has the
land he had allegedly encroached been retrieved?
This list can go on and on. But to conclude, isn't it true that behind every succesful criminal there is a
successful crirninal lawyer and with every successful criminal lawyer there is a successful criminal (aka


And another hypothesis valid in the lndian context, There are three types of criminals:
- the petty criminals who are caught and punished, sometimes for crimes not even known to theml
- the professional criminals who are recognised, used but never apprehended or punished!

the not'so-recognised but most potent criminals- like the Octon of Mandrake comics or High

Command in politics- who are really put on a pedestal and practically worshipped!
Suffice to say that unless the judiciary is overhauled lock, stock and barrel there can be no hope for
justice for ordinary citizens. And there is truism in what Aravind Kumar, jurist
and lawyer,wrote in
Pioneer, Kochi on 01 Aug 2006 in his article 'Needed high speed legal redreisal': Justice is an intrinsic
human'need, We suffer much privation but we cannot suffer being wronged. Absence of justice, we
must not forget, is one of the causes of crime. And this what Renuka Nirayanan wrote in The New
lndian Express of 20 Dec 2004, under Timeline : When we transformed from subjects to citizens, we
forfeited our rights it seems, since what happens in our country now in the name of law is often

And plagiarising Constantin Demiris in Sydney Sheldon's 'The other side of midnight', I can, with
enough and more conviction, say that in lndia more crimes are being committed in the name of justice
than all other crimes put together!

P M Ravindran
03 Jan ZOLi




For 'Report of the NCRWC- a Citizens Review' go to 1/03/report-of-ncnruc-citizens-review.html

Please read 'RTl Act-Shailesh Gandhi and Schopenhauer's Law of Entropy' at

http://raviforjustice. blogspot. in/201 2/06/rti-act-shailesh-gandh i-and. html

*3:Copiesofthecomplaintsareavailableatthefollowingblogsites'11/04/obnoxious{unctioning-of-consumer.html'1 1/1 1/chief-ministers-contbct-program.html. !i

The reply to the latter by the President, CDRF, Palakkad is at



Sec 6(2) of the RTI Act states ' An applicant making request for information shall 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.'


Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act states 'Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person

making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public
authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1)'.
Sub Sec (1)states: ... as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of
the request,...'


5 (1) of the RTI Act states 'Every public authority shall, within one hundred days of the enactment of

this Act, designate as many officers as the Central Public lnformation Officers or State Public
lnformation Officers, as the case may be, in all administrative units or offices under it as may be
necessary to provide information to persons requesting for the information under this Act.
Sec 2(h) of the RTI Act defines public authority thus: "public authority" means any authority or body or
institution of selt government established or constituted(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Governmentland includes


(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by
the appropriate Government;

Central lnformation Commission letter No CIC/Admin/Misc dated 1713115 to K G Verma, Director, DoPT.


Copy of this letter posted at http://www.slideshare.neUraviforjustice/rti-letter-from-ksic-in-violation-ofact051007


Copy of this complaint is posted at


Letter No 90105/Cdn.5/11/GAD daled 11612012

1: Section 27(2)(e) and (f) of


the RTI Act are reproduced below for ready reference:

(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to
carry out the provisions of fhrs Act.



particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power; such rules may

provide for all or any of the following mafters,


(a) to (d) xxx


the procedure to be adopted by the Central lnformation Commission or State

lnformation Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the appeals under subSecfion (10) of section 19; and


any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed'

Please read my following blogs:

'The crime of non-governance and quasi judicial organisations' (letter to CM, Kerala of 12 Jan
2010) at http://raviforjustice.blogspot,com/201


'Delivering Government Services to Citizens'
http://raviiorjustice.Uf ogspnt .orlZOf 2/01/delivering-government-services-to.html

'Access to Justice-A Stake Holder's Report' at

http://raviforjustice.blogs pot.inl2012l02/access-to-justice-stake-holders-report.html
'Fraud in Governance and Redressal Of Public Grievances' af
http://raviforjustice.blogs pol.inl2012l07/fraud-in-governance-and-redressal-of.html
'Perfidy: isn't Thy Other Name Governance in lndia?' at
- 3/08/perfidy-isntthy-other-narne-governance,


'Democracy? East is East and-West is West' at

'Reforming our Justice Delivery System' at
'Who will judge the judges?' at

http://raviiorjrrti...6tof, 1/03/who-will-judge-judges,html
'lndian judiciary-who said what' at
-http://raviforjustice, 1/05/indian-judiciary-who-said-what. html


Read 'All in the 108&fname=Judges+%2BFYo29&sid=1&pn=1

You might also like