Talk:Right to Information Act, 2005/Archive 1

untitled

 * Somebody (116.68.240.162) removed a reference to the J&K RTI Act on this page which is not helpful, and apparently a malafide edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laportechicago (talk • contribs) 18:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

--Varunrupela 15:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC) added —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunrupela (talk • contribs)
 * With respect to the section on the "Role of the Government", is there a particular Government Office that ensures that public authorities are performing their Role?
 * I will let you know shortly. The information is available on several websites of the Government of India/ othjer organizations of the Government - each organization has a Nodal office and officer to deal with the matter. --Bhadani 16:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a bit of confusion on this issue. The DoPT is charged as the nodal agency for all Central Government departments, and has the power to issue orders and rules. The Chief Information Commissioner has stated that complaints should be filed with the Commission itself for failure of states to implement the Act. Kohlgill 07:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Right to Information
Citizen will know how many hungry people are there and how government fund is wasted in IITs and IIMs.

Bureaucratic files
Can government make public and transparent the indian tender and procurement process, the reason why seleted tenders and contracts are awarded, why particular sections/organizations are given funding, the minster approving the same, the person who "signed the same" and the person who authorised the same, along with his reasons as to why it was done.

-- "Yes, it is very much possible under the Right to Information" 59.183.40.37 15:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)InfoRightsIndia

Administrator reference by LaporteChicago
NRTI 2005 is the Central / Federal law. It was sufficiently clarified in my undo that NRTI 2005 does not extend to Jammu+Kashmir and that there is a State level legislation for J&K. The proper place for linking to the State Level laws was lower down in the article with every other State's. Article 370 has nothing to do with this issue. Similar Articles exist for many other States of India too, 370 is not unique. Dogsoc 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Explanation for reverts (of history of RTI)
Hi, I was looking for the historical background of RTI and found it missing here. It would have really helped if you either put it in here, or link to a page where its available. I feel since the RTI itself has so much to do with citizen activism, the processes which created it are necessary for people who want to learn about RTI Devayon (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted this edit. I disagree with the reasoning. This article should cover the background to the act too. It should not be focused on just the provisions of the act. &mdash; Ravikiran 10:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Ravikiran. This issue has been debated extensively and the erstwhile page "Right to Information (India)" was merged fully into this page by "The Project" in Dec 2006 (see history). It is now an article on the RTI LAW. It is not an article about how RTI evolved in India and by whom (which is enough to generate more edit wars in itself). A few of Ravikiran's reverts are also factually incorrect or sourced from dubious sources. He may start a fresh article if he wishes. It is pertinent that for almost 2 months no other users except Ravikiran have complained. Lets us cool off a bit or RFC / soft negotiation etc. or one small editorial step at a time - pleaseDogsoc 17:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The USA PATRIOT Act not only has an extensive "Background" section, it also has a "history" section that goes extensively into 9/11, etc. A summary of how Right to Information evolved is definitely within the purview of this article.
 * Secondly, the parts that you are insisting on excising deal with stuff about who drafted the act, etc. It is quite clear to me that it should be part of the article.
 * Thirdly, the fact that something is apt to be controversial is no reason to remove all mention of it. Quite clearly, your viewpoint seems to be that some people have unfairly taken credit for bringing the act into place. But this article has to reflect the published body of knowledge. The stuff you are removing is well-cited.
 * Fourthly, if no one has objected so far, the reason is more likely to be that hardly anyone is interested in the article or about the controversy. It is a sad fact of life that more people worry about an image in the India page than they worry about the content of the other India-related articles.
 * Finally, if you are reverting, don't create sock puppets to prove that there are other people backing you up. &mdash; Ravikiran 10:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW I am reverting since it is amazing that
 * a) You are relying on the USA Patriot Act as your justification for an Act of India's Parliament.
 * b) You are not prepared to settle the matter reasonably and as per wiki norms for these situations.
 * c) You are not prepared to SLOWLY edit - all controversial "lost" edit being yours exclusively.
 * d) Kindly don't misdirect about sockpuppets - I have already complained about yours.
 * e) You have a track record of vandalism reflecting on your user talk page.
 * f) I am not the only one to remind you about the 3RR - which rules BTW include edits by sockpuppets.
 * g) You have the gall to say that hardly anyone is interested in knowing about RTI in India - I suppose more people are interested in who knowing Pramod Mahajan was.
 * h) All verifiable facts about who statutorily drafted RTI Act, evolution of RTI Act via FoIA etc by H.D.Shourie etc. are already included - and not by me. If you must include what you want to kindly start a fresh article and establish NOTABILITY criteria from official sources.
 * i) Your sources are generally dubious (such as NCPRI, Charmaine Rodrigues etc) who are the same people claiming to have created this Act - which they decidely were not. You go on to say that the success of "this Act" was primarily by NGOs in Rajasthan - you are confused between the old Rajasthan RTI Act and this one. Much of your so-called "lost edits" are already included but lower down, if only you had cared to search. You appear insistent on giving a political color to the passage of this Act -why?
 * j) Your facts are equally dubious - you don't even know how to calculate on what "date" the RTI Act came into full force - read the General Clauses Act (midnight between 12/13 Oct is treated as 13-Oct). Anyway you are in good company because several GoI sites make the same mistake. Dogsoc 11:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Workshop
Dogsoc, here is what I propose. You claim that I did not edit slowly. I accept that charge, so let us edit slowly based on the following principles:
 * I will paste in this section the parts of the article that you insist do not belong, not all at one go, but sequentially.
 * I will explain why each section belongs. You can explain why it does not.
 * We will give each section a couple of days. If we are unable to come to an agreement on some wording, we will agree to defer it for an RFC. (see below)
 * Once we are done with one section, we will move on to the next section.
 * At the end of this series, we will end up with some text that we both accept should belong and some text that we still disagree on. The latter text will go into a consolidated RFC.
 * And one more thing. We will write the lead section last. That is because the lead is supposed to summarize the article. I admit that my preferred lead goes much beyond that, because it actually summarizes the future complete article I had planned to write. I am willing to scale back the lead for now, based on how the rest of the article turns out to be.

How does the plan look? &mdash; Ravikiran 11:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, but start off with very small and digestible chunks. least controversial ones first. Usually I only use net on working daysDogsoc 09:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ravikiran, I notice that the article (as at present) does not have a well defined section on penalties / compensation for not providing information in time or non-compliance with orders of CIC/SIC. Can you lead from here? (Wrt section 18,19,20 of Act) Dogsoc 10:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, but if you think that they need to be added, go ahead and propose them here too. We'll play by the same rules. &mdash; Ravikiran 06:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncontroversial bits
OK, I want to start off with utterly uncontrolversial parts - One external link to http://rti.gov.in/ and the link to the Hindi version at hi:सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005, which I think was just collateral damage. Any objections to putting them back? &mdash; Ravikiran 06:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no objection to the Hindi version link. Also no objection if the rti.gov.in link is inserted after KSIC link in "External links" section. However, then the redundant citation no.17 in "Scope" should be deleted. I had left it in peace merely because it pointed to rti.gov.in even though I disagreed with the "slide" contents- very badly worded and not worthy of citation in the face of the Act's clarity. BTW, sorry if I am over-critical, but this is an encyclopedia we are editing. BTW(2) Please consider if rti.gov.in is worthy of being included at all considering that the site hasn't been updated since 13.Oct.2006 and "http://righttoinformation.gov.in/" is the preferred (but equally non-functional) portal. Dogsoc 12:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done adding the Hindi link. The preferred site is already there, so I did not add anything otherwise. &mdash; Ravikiran 08:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, so what's next? Dogsoc 06:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, happy weekend. Let's regroup on Monday :) &mdash; Ravikiran 15:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

When it came to force
OK, I understand the point about it coming to force on 13 Oct. I suggest that we mention the correct date and add a footnote explaining that most sources get their date wrong, and why they get it wrong. That way, people will not check the source and change the date. &mdash; Ravikiran 09:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "We" keep a close watch on this page (because "our" erstwhile wiki page is also merged with this page) - 13 Oct 2005 has been stable for quite some time now :-). In any case its irrelevant because 12-Oct-2005 was a public holiday due to Dusshera(?). What is relevant to how you proceed from here, is understanding the difference between "facts" and "opinions". Facts can be established - opinions are the controversial ones (your facts my facts - true facts false facts). Just take care against inserting sweeping statements and generalisations and we wont have (m)any problems. Dogsoc 11:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant. Please check the latest edit to check if it is okay. &mdash; Ravikiran 11:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understood you the first time (-:-) but I didn't think the date issue was that big a deal. Just to clarify, (and since we are heading slowly into controversial stuff) the rest of my last "talk" was about your *future* "lost edit" revivals and not the ghost of this one past. BTW giving a reference is usually to an external independent citation. In this instance I can hardly find anyone official prepared to come out and state that GoI is wrong. "http://www.tac.org.in/rti.html" is one such brave soul, and "http://www.champawat.gov.in/rti.htm" is another. Dogsoc 18:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

rti act 7(3)
tell me if we ask any quention to a concerned officer.then we give any charge for that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.97.239 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

branch manager in e.s.i.c
How many gread in Branch manage of employes state insurancecorporation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.39.132 (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)