Sunday, September 30, 2012

सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद तत्कालीन सचिव-उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा श्रीमती श्रद्धा सक्सेना/शुक्ल,प्रवक्ता-अंग्रेजी,राजकीय गोविन्द बल्लभ पन्त पॉलीटेक्निक, लखनऊ से व्यक्तिगत संबंधों/भ्रष्टाचार के आधार पर षड़यंत्र कर अवैध जांच करने के सम्बन्ध में

सेवा में ,

स्पीड पोस्ट
१-प्रमुख सचिव,प्राविधिक शिक्षा विभाग
उत्तर प्रदेश शासन, लखनऊ,उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन कोड -२२६००१
२-निदेशक-उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा निदेशालय
विकास नगर ,कानपुर ,पिन कोड - २०८०२४
विषय : श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद तत्कालीन सचिव-उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक
शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा श्रीमती श्रद्धा
सक्सेना/शुक्ल,प्रवक्ता-अंग्रेजी,राजकीय गोविन्द बल्लभ पन्त
पॉलीटेक्निक, लखनऊ से व्यक्तिगत संबंधों/भ्रष्टाचार के आधार पर षड़यंत्र
रचित कर अवैध जांच करने के प्रकरण में जांच कराकर श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद
को दण्डित करने के सम्बन्ध में
महोदय,
राजकीय गोविन्द बल्लभ पन्त पॉलीटेक्निक, लखनऊ उत्तर प्रदेश के समाज
कल्याण विभाग के प्रशासकीय नियंत्रणाधीन संस्था है l संस्था की
प्रवक्ता-अंग्रेजी ,श्रीमती श्रद्धा सक्सेना/शुक्ल एवं श्री सुरेन्द्र
प्रसाद तत्कालीन सचिव-उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् ने अपनी
अपराधी प्रवृत्ति एवं कुत्सित मानसिकता का परिचय देते हुए एक षड़यंत्र की
रचना की lइस षड़यंत्र के तहत श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद ने श्रद्धा
सक्सेना/शुक्ल से पत्र दिनांक ०२-०७-११ अवैध माध्यम से प्राप्त कर
पारस्परिक व्यक्तिगत संबंधों/भ्रष्ट आचरण के आधार पर अवैध जांच की और
अवैध जांच रिपोर्ट समाज कल्याण के सचिव , निदेशक और प्रधानाचार्य को
प्रेषित की l
प्रमाणस्वरूप उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् के पत्रांक
११६६३-६४ दिनांक १६-०१-२०१२ एवं पत्रांक १५८१३-१४ दिनांक ११-०९-१२ की
छाया प्रतियाँ संलग्न हैंlउत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् के
वर्तमान सचिव श्री आर० के० वर्मा के पत्रांक १५८१३-१४ दिनांक ११-०९-१२ से
स्पस्ट है कि तत्कालीन सचिव श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद द्वारा पत्रांक
११६६३-६४ दिनांक १६-०१-२०१२ के माध्यम से सूचित की गयी जांच अवैध हैl
बिना पारस्परिक व्यक्तिगत संबंधों/भ्रष्ट आचरण के इस प्रकार से अधिकार
क्षेत्र से बाहर जाकर नियमों के प्रतिकूल षड़यंत्र के तहत जांच को अंतिम
करने का कार्य किया ही नहीं जा सकता है l

कृपया प्रकरण में उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् के तत्कालीन सचिव
श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद और श्रीमती श्रद्धा
सक्सेना/शुक्ल,प्रवक्ता-अंग्रेजी,राजकीय गोविन्द बल्लभ पन्त
पॉलीटेक्निक, लखनऊ के पारस्परिक व्यक्तिगत संबंधों , भ्रष्टाचार एवं
दोनों के द्वारा रचित षड़यंत्र के सम्बन्ध में जांच कराकर दोषियों को
दण्डित कराने की कृपा करें l
धन्यवाद l
दिनांक : ३० सितम्बर ,२०१२
संलग्नक : उपरोक्तानुसार ( दो पेज )
प्रतिलिपि : आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु :-
१-श्री प्रणव मुखर्जी , महामहिम राष्ट्रपति , भारत सरकार , नई दिल्ली l
२-डॉ० मनमोहन सिंह,माननीय प्रधान मंत्री ,भारत सरकार , नई दिल्ली l
३-श्री बी० एल० जोशी , महामहिम मा० श्री राज्यपाल ,उत्तर प्रदेश शासन ,लखनऊ l
४-श्री अखिलेश यादव ,मा० मंत्री-प्राविधिक शिक्षा ,उत्तर प्रदेश शासन ,लखनऊ l
५-श्री जावेद उस्मानी ,मुख्य सचिव,उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ l
६-श्री पंधारी यादव - विशेष सचिव(मुख्य मंत्री ) उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ l
७-विशेष सचिव - प्राविधिक शिक्षा अनुभाग-२,उत्तर प्रदेश शासन,
लखनऊ,उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन कोड -२२६००१
८-श्री अनुराग यादव , जिलाधिकारी , जनपद लखनऊ l
९-वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक,जनपद लखनऊ,उत्तर प्रदेश l
१०-संयुक्त सचिव-प्राविधिक शिक्षा अनुभाग-२, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ l
११-अनु सचिव - प्राविधिक शिक्षा अनुभाग-२, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ l
१२-संयुक्त निदेशक,उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा निदेशालय,कानपुर l
१३-श्री आर० के० वर्मा , सचिव, उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् , लखनऊ l
भवदीया


( उर्वशी शर्मा )
सामाजिक कार्यकत्री ,ऍफ़ ब्लाक - २२८६, राजाजीपुरम , लखनऊ – २२६०१७
,मोबाइल : ९३६९६१३५१३

श्रद्धा सक्सेना / शुक्ल ,प्रवक्ता-अंग्रेजी,राजकीय गोविन्द बल्लभ पन्त पॉलीटेक्निक, लखनऊ द्वारा श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद तत्कालीन सचिव-उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् से व्यक्तिगत संबंधों/भ्रष्टाचार के आधार पर षड़यंत्र कर अवैध जांच कराने के सम्बन्ध मे

सेवा में ,

स्पीड पोस्ट
१-श्री सदाकांत-,प्रमुख सचिव,समाज कल्याण विभाग
उत्तर प्रदेश शासन, लखनऊ,उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन कोड -२२६००१
२-श्री हीरालाल पासी-निदेशक-उत्तर प्रदेश समाज कल्याण निदेशालय
कल्याण भवन,प्राग नारायण रोड,लखनऊ,उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन कोड -२२६००१
३-प्रधानाचार्य -राजकीय गोविन्द बल्लभ पन्त पॉलीटेक्निक
मोहन रोड , लखनऊ , उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन कोड -२२६०१७

विषय : श्रीमती श्रद्धा सक्सेना/शुक्ल ,प्रवक्ता-अंग्रेजी,राजकीय
गोविन्द बल्लभ पन्त पॉलीटेक्निक, लखनऊ द्वारा श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद
तत्कालीन सचिव-उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् से व्यक्तिगत
संबंधों/भ्रष्टाचार के आधार पर षड़यंत्र रचित कर अवैध जांच कराने के
प्रकरण में जांच कराकर दोषियों को दण्डित करने के सम्बन्ध में
महोदय,
राजकीय गोविन्द बल्लभ पन्त पॉलीटेक्निक समाज कल्याण विभाग उत्तर प्रदेश
के प्रशासकीय नियंत्रणाधीन संस्था है l संस्था की प्रवक्ता-अंग्रेजी
,श्रीमती श्रद्धा सक्सेना/शुक्ल ने अपनी अपराधी प्रवृत्ति एवं कुत्सित
मानसिकता का परिचय देते हुए एक षड़यंत्र की रचना की lइस षड़यंत्र के तहत
श्रद्धा सक्सेना/शुक्ल ने श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद,तत्कालीन सचिव-उत्तर
प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् को पत्र दिनांक ०२-०७-११ अवैध माध्यम से
देकर सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद से व्यक्तिगत संबंधों/भ्रष्ट आचरण के आधार पर
अवैध जांच करवाई और अवैध जांच रिपोर्ट समाज कल्याण के सचिव , निदेशक और
प्रधानाचार्य को प्रेषित कराई l
प्रमाणस्वरूप उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् के
पत्रांक ११६६३-६४ दिनांक १६-०१-२०१२ एवं पत्रांक १५८१३-१४ दिनांक
११-०९-१२ की छाया प्रतियाँ संलग्न हैंlउत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा
परिषद् के वर्तमान सचिव श्री आर० के० वर्मा के पत्रांक १५८१३-१४ दिनांक
११-०९-१२ से स्पस्ट है कि तत्कालीन सचिव श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद द्वारा
पत्रांक ११६६३-६४ दिनांक १६-०१-२०१२ के माध्यम से सूचित की गयी जांच अवैध
हैl बिना पारस्परिक व्यक्तिगत संबंधों/भ्रष्ट आचरण के इस प्रकार से
अधिकार क्षेत्र से बाहर जाकर नियमों के प्रतिकूल षड़यंत्र के तहत जांच को
अंतिम करने का कार्य किया ही नहीं जा सकता है l

कृपया प्रकरण में श्रीमती श्रद्धा सक्सेना/शुक्ल
,प्रवक्ता-अंग्रेजी,राजकीय गोविन्द बल्लभ पन्त पॉलीटेक्निक, लखनऊ और
उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् के तत्कालीन सचिव श्री सुरेन्द्र
प्रसाद के पारस्परिक व्यक्तिगत संबंधों , भ्रष्टाचार एवं रचित षड़यंत्र
के सम्बन्ध में जांच कराकर दोषियों को दण्डित कराने की कृपा करें l
धन्यवाद l
दिनांक : ३० सितम्बर ,२०१२
संलग्नक : उपरोक्तानुसार ( दो पेज )
प्रतिलिपि : आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु :-
१-श्री प्रणव मुखर्जी , महामहिम राष्ट्रपति , भारत सरकार , नई दिल्ली l
२-डॉ० मनमोहन सिंह,माननीय प्रधान मंत्री ,भारत सरकार , नई दिल्ली l
३-श्री बी० एल० जोशी , महामहिम मा० श्री राज्यपाल ,उत्तर प्रदेश शासन ,लखनऊ l
४-श्री अखिलेश यादव ,मा० मुख्य मंत्री ,उत्तर प्रदेश शासन ,लखनऊ l
५-श्री अवधेश प्रसाद , मा० मंत्री-समाज कल्याण , उत्तर प्रदेश शासन, लखनऊ l
६-श्री जावेद उस्मानी ,मुख्य सचिव,उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ l
७-श्री बी० बी० सिंह ,विशेष सचिव - समाज कल्याण अनु-१ , उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ l
८-श्री अनुराग यादव , जिलाधिकारी , जनपद लखनऊ l
९-वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक,जनपद लखनऊ,उत्तर प्रदेश l
१०-संयुक्त सचिव-समाज कल्याण अनु-१, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ l
११-श्री एन० एच० रिज़वी, उप सचिव - समाज कल्याण अनुभाग-१ , उत्तर प्रदेश
शासन लखनऊ l
१२-श्री घनाराम, संयुक्त निदेशक,स्थापना-१,उत्तर प्रदेश समाज कल्याण
निदेशालय,,लखनऊ l
१३-श्री आर० के० सिंह,उपनिदेशक,उत्तर प्रदेश समाज कल्याण निदेशालय,,लखनऊ l
१४-श्री आर० के० सोनकर , उपनिदेशक, समाज कल्याण लखनऊ मंडल , टिकरा हाउस ,लखनऊ l
१५- श्री अशोक दीक्षित , जिला समाज कल्याण अधिकारी , लखनऊ l
१६- श्री आर० के० वर्मा , सचिव, उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् , लखनऊ l
१७- प्रधानाचार्या,राजकीय बालिका इंटर कॉलेज , मोहान रोड,लखनऊ l
भवदीया


( उर्वशी शर्मा )
सामाजिक कार्यकत्री ,ऍफ़ ब्लाक - २२८६, राजाजीपुरम , लखनऊ – २२६०१७
,मोबाइल : ९३६९६१३५१३

--
- Urvashi Sharma
Right to Information Helpline 8081898081
Helpline Against Corruption 9455553838
http://yaishwaryaj-seva-sansthan.hpage.co.in/

सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद तत्कालीन सचिव-उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा श्रद्धा सक्सेना/शुक्ल,प्रवक्ता-अंग्रेजी,राजकीय गोविन्द बल्लभ पन्त पॉलीटेक्निक, लखनऊ से व्यक्तिगत संबंधों/भ्रष्टाचार के आधार पर षड़यंत्र कर अवैध जांच करने के सम्बन्ध में

सेवा में ,

स्पीड पोस्ट
१-प्रमुख सचिव,प्राविधिक शिक्षा विभाग
उत्तर प्रदेश शासन, लखनऊ,उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन कोड -२२६००१
२-निदेशक-उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा निदेशालय
विकास नगर ,कानपुर ,पिन कोड - २०८०२४
विषय : श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद तत्कालीन सचिव-उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक
शिक्षा परिषद् द्वारा श्रीमती श्रद्धा
सक्सेना/शुक्ल,प्रवक्ता-अंग्रेजी,राजकीय गोविन्द बल्लभ पन्त
पॉलीटेक्निक, लखनऊ से व्यक्तिगत संबंधों/भ्रष्टाचार के आधार पर षड़यंत्र
रचित कर अवैध जांच करने के प्रकरण में जांच कराकर श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद
को दण्डित करने के सम्बन्ध में
महोदय,
राजकीय गोविन्द बल्लभ पन्त पॉलीटेक्निक, लखनऊ उत्तर प्रदेश के समाज
कल्याण विभाग के प्रशासकीय नियंत्रणाधीन संस्था है l संस्था की
प्रवक्ता-अंग्रेजी ,श्रीमती श्रद्धा सक्सेना/शुक्ल एवं श्री सुरेन्द्र
प्रसाद तत्कालीन सचिव-उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् ने अपनी
अपराधी प्रवृत्ति एवं कुत्सित मानसिकता का परिचय देते हुए एक षड़यंत्र की
रचना की lइस षड़यंत्र के तहत श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद ने श्रद्धा
सक्सेना/शुक्ल से पत्र दिनांक ०२-०७-११ अवैध माध्यम से प्राप्त कर
पारस्परिक व्यक्तिगत संबंधों/भ्रष्ट आचरण के आधार पर अवैध जांच की और
अवैध जांच रिपोर्ट समाज कल्याण के सचिव , निदेशक और प्रधानाचार्य को
प्रेषित की l
प्रमाणस्वरूप उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् के पत्रांक
११६६३-६४ दिनांक १६-०१-२०१२ एवं पत्रांक १५८१३-१४ दिनांक ११-०९-१२ की
छाया प्रतियाँ संलग्न हैंlउत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् के
वर्तमान सचिव श्री आर० के० वर्मा के पत्रांक १५८१३-१४ दिनांक ११-०९-१२ से
स्पस्ट है कि तत्कालीन सचिव श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद द्वारा पत्रांक
११६६३-६४ दिनांक १६-०१-२०१२ के माध्यम से सूचित की गयी जांच अवैध हैl
बिना पारस्परिक व्यक्तिगत संबंधों/भ्रष्ट आचरण के इस प्रकार से अधिकार
क्षेत्र से बाहर जाकर नियमों के प्रतिकूल षड़यंत्र के तहत जांच को अंतिम
करने का कार्य किया ही नहीं जा सकता है l

कृपया प्रकरण में उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् के तत्कालीन सचिव
श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रसाद और श्रीमती श्रद्धा
सक्सेना/शुक्ल,प्रवक्ता-अंग्रेजी,राजकीय गोविन्द बल्लभ पन्त
पॉलीटेक्निक, लखनऊ के पारस्परिक व्यक्तिगत संबंधों , भ्रष्टाचार एवं
दोनों के द्वारा रचित षड़यंत्र के सम्बन्ध में जांच कराकर दोषियों को
दण्डित कराने की कृपा करें l
धन्यवाद l
दिनांक : ३० सितम्बर ,२०१२
संलग्नक : उपरोक्तानुसार ( दो पेज )
प्रतिलिपि : आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु :-
१-श्री प्रणव मुखर्जी , महामहिम राष्ट्रपति , भारत सरकार , नई दिल्ली l
२-डॉ० मनमोहन सिंह,माननीय प्रधान मंत्री ,भारत सरकार , नई दिल्ली l
३-श्री बी० एल० जोशी , महामहिम मा० श्री राज्यपाल ,उत्तर प्रदेश शासन ,लखनऊ l
४-श्री अखिलेश यादव ,मा० मंत्री-प्राविधिक शिक्षा ,उत्तर प्रदेश शासन ,लखनऊ l
५-श्री जावेद उस्मानी ,मुख्य सचिव,उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ l
६-श्री पंधारी यादव - विशेष सचिव(मुख्य मंत्री ) उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ l
७-विशेष सचिव - प्राविधिक शिक्षा अनुभाग-२,उत्तर प्रदेश शासन,
लखनऊ,उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन कोड -२२६००१
८-श्री अनुराग यादव , जिलाधिकारी , जनपद लखनऊ l
९-वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक,जनपद लखनऊ,उत्तर प्रदेश l
१०-संयुक्त सचिव-प्राविधिक शिक्षा अनुभाग-२, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ l
११-अनु सचिव - प्राविधिक शिक्षा अनुभाग-२, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ l
१२-संयुक्त निदेशक,उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा निदेशालय,कानपुर l
१३-श्री आर० के० वर्मा , सचिव, उत्तर प्रदेश प्राविधिक शिक्षा परिषद् , लखनऊ l
भवदीया


( उर्वशी शर्मा )
सामाजिक कार्यकत्री ,ऍफ़ ब्लाक - २२८६, राजाजीपुरम , लखनऊ – २२६०१७
,मोबाइल : ९३६९६१३५१३


--
- Urvashi Sharma
Right to Information Helpline 8081898081
Helpline Against Corruption 9455553838
http://yaishwaryaj-seva-sansthan.hpage.co.in/

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Why no action against prematurely repatriated UP cadre IAS?

 
Why no action against prematurely repatriated UP cadre IAS?
 
IAS officer Sadakant (UP Id 435, GOI Id 053200, Batch 1983, Cadre UP) presently posted as Principal Secretary of Social Welfare with additional charges of principal secretary of Women Welfare and child development,Principal Secretary of Dr. Ambedkar Gram Sabha of Uttar Pradesh Government, was an accused in cases of anti-national activities, corruption and using graft money for building a Hanuman temple in his home town. But the Mayawati government gave him a prized position of Principal Secretary.
 
VIDE ORDER no. 20/G/2935-Ad.I dated 20 May 2011 of MHA GOI, the Union Government of India prematurely repatriated Sri Sadakant, and put his services at the disposal of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh for Sadakant's alleged involvement in all of the above activites.
The IAS officer, repatriated on May 20, 2011, has been given many key positions in the State Government by previous and present Governments without any formal enquiry into the past charges of his alleged involvement in these alleged crimes.
 
I as an RTI Activist had written to the authorities to institute an enquiry against Sri Sada Kant. I had  demanded that pending enquiry, Sadakant be kept on a waiting list so that the state may not suffer from Sada Kant's anti-national activities, his corruption, and also from his habit of using graft money for  religious causes thereby hurting religious sentiments of millions in Uttar pradesh.

All charges leveled against Sada Kant by the Government of India are very serious, and are sure to be detrimental to the state of Uttar pradesh as well.

Why no action against prematurely repatriated UP cadre IAS?

Why no action against prematurely repatriated UP cadre IAS?

http://www.merinews.com/article/why-no-action-against-prematurely-repatriated-up-cadre-ias/15875728.shtml

Why no action against prematurely repatriated UP cadre IAS?

urvashi sharma

29 September, 2012


IAS officer Sadakant (UP Id 435, GOI Id 053200, Batch 1983, Cadre UP)
presently posted as Principal Secretary of Social Welfare with
additional charges of principal secretary of Women Welfare and child
development,Principal Secretary of Dr. Ambedkar Gram Sabha of Uttar
Pradesh Government, was an accused in cases of anti-national
activities, corruption and using graft money for building a Hanuman
temple in his home town. But the Mayawati government gave him a prized
position of Principal Secretary.

VIDE ORDER no. 20/G/2935-Ad.I dated 20 May 2011 of MHA GOI, the Union
Government of India prematurely repatriated Sri Sadakant, and put his
services at the disposal of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh for
Sadakant's alleged involvement in all of the above activites.

The IAS officer, repatriated on May 20, 2011, has been given many key
positions in the State Government by previous and present Governments
without any formal enquiry into the past charges of his alleged
involvement in these alleged crimes.

I as an RTI Activist had written to the authorities to institute an
enquiry against Sri Sada Kant. I had demanded that pending enquiry,
Sadakant be kept on a waiting list so that the state may not suffer
from Sada Kant's anti-national activities, his corruption, and also
from his habit of using graft money for religious causes thereby
hurting religious sentiments of millions in Uttar pradesh.

All charges leveled against Sada Kant by the Government of India are
very serious, and are sure to be detrimental to the state of Uttar
pradesh as well.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

The ever-increasing global rebellion against secrecy

Opinionista Julie Reid
The ever-increasing global rebellion against secrecy
  • Julie Reid
A furore has developed in South Africa in recent years over citizens' access to information. The Protection of State Information Bill served as the catalyst for this, but the debate has turned to broader concerns over a general preference for secrecy over transparency on the part of government, access to information and the freedom of expression.
Many South Africans, especially the younger ones, are unaccustomed to the notion that as a people we need to engage in a fight to defend our right to information and our right to say what we like. There is a collective pinch-me-so-that-I-can-wake-up-from-this-bad-dream feeling, and I hear them often: comments questioning how it is possible that we should even need to have these conversations in our democracy. This is not what was fought for in the struggle, after all. But this coming Friday marks a day that at very least serves as a reminder that in this contest, we are not alone.
A decade ago, on 28 September in 2002, a collection of representatives from freedom of information organisations from around the globe gathered in Sofia, Bulgaria. They quickly recognised that although their socio-political contexts may have differed, difficulty in securing an environment where open access to information was the norm was a problem in a number of countries around the world. They established the Freedom of Information Advocates (FOA) Network, a global coalition to promote open access to information in the interest of promoting transparent and accountable governments. They also established 28 September as International Right to Know Day, a day marked to raise global awareness of the importance of access to information as a fundamental human right, allowing most especially for active citizen participation in government.
Things have become even more interesting over the last two years on the global fight-for-information front. In South Africa, the Right2Know Campaign gathered speed and support, and accomplished a surprising degree of mobilisation against the Secrecy Bill from all sectors of society. The campaign drew widespread support quickly because of the efficacy of its simple message: We have a right to know and a right to speak.
Making international news, Julian Assange embarrassed a number of governments in 2010 by dumping a load of confidential documents on the WikiLeaks website. (One may have thought Assange's celebrity would have been assuaged by the rape and molestation charges he faces in Sweden, and which he seems to be going to ludicrous attempts to avoid answering, but alas he continues to command a loyal and almost cultish following as the poster boy for whistleblowers.) The significance and implications (or non-implications) of the information released by WikiLeaks in this equation is immaterial. What is important is only that is was released, and released against the will and without the permission of various governments. This event fed into the collective zeitgeist of freedom of information activists and others around the world, who increasingly began to appreciate the manner in which Assange gave the middle finger to authorities who would rather have kept certain information under wraps.
Then last year, on  19 September, two hugely significant events regarding freedom of information activism happen within a few blocks of one another in Cape Town. At the Cape Town International Convention Centre (CTICC) representatives of civil society organisations, global freedom of information advocates, journalists and academics adopted the African Platform on Access to Information (APAI) at the closing session of the Pan African Platform on Access to Information (http://www.pacaia.org/) conference. This declaration recognised access to information as a fundamental right and called on all governments, particularly African ones, to adopt or revise laws in order to ensure the successful implementation of access to information. The document pointed out that by 2011 the number of African countries which had adopted access to information legislation stood at only 10.
I arrived late at this closing session (but just in time to sign the declaration) because I had just rushed to the CTICC from a packed out press conference at the Parliament Building. After months of deliberations over the Protection of State Information Bill in Parliamentary committee, increasing pressure from critics and civil society and a full-scale march on Parliament by the Right2Know Campaign just two days before, the ANC caucus announced it would stall the bill, due to be voted on by the National Assembly the following day, to allow for "further consultations". It was a surprise move, and one that signalled that the vehement opposition to this particular piece of legislation had given at least a few people in the ruling party some serious jitters.
The bill did go to the National Assembly a few months later and was then referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). But while most expected the NCOP to rubber-stamp the bill without too much fanfare, the discussions instead resulted in even further concessions from the ANC. Critics may tell you that even today it is not a great bill, but the ANC's and Parliament's sometimes nervous and sometimes blatantly arrogant treatment of this bill has revealed something significant. At least some people within the ruling party and the legislature are sensitive to the fact that many South Africans are not enamoured with the idea of a government that wilfully hides information that should rightfully be public.
For freedom of information activists, it is important to know that some in government are aware of this. And on the afternoon of 19 September 2011, in a cramped and crowded press conference, we got whiff of it for the first time.
Academic and civil society conference circuits are  dominated by conferences convened around themes of access to information, the freedom of the press and/or freedom of expression and freedom of the Internet as a conduit for the former two themes. Governments around the world, nervous of what can be leaked, hacked or exposed on the Internet, are moving to monitor, regulate and clamp down on Internet freedoms.
The freedom of access and the exchange of information, which has been mostly taken for granted since the Internet's inception, is now a topic of concern as limits have begun to appear in various places. Open access to information has fast become one of the defining causes of the current generation, and this global trend seems to be gaining momentum. The X and Y generations, having grown up in a digital age and witnessed the rapid expansion of the Internet, are now accustomed and conditioned to having the information that they want at their fingertips. Telling these generations that authorities now wish to clamp down on access to information, or even on Internet freedoms, is sacrilege because it undermines some of their most formative experiences of the world.
When a generation has grown up with a particular freedom, whether freedom to access information or anything else, you cannot expect to remove that freedom without a rebellion.
While so many citizens around the world feel aggrieved in that they are denied access to government information in one way or another, one may become disheartened at the enormity of the predicament. It would be easy too to shrug this off as the ancient and basic formula of the nature of human power relations, that those in power do what they can to remain in power, whether through force, simple government spin-doctoring or concealing "sensitive" information from citizens. For a literary experience of this vision of hopelessness, read George Orwell's novel 1984.
Is it even possible to imagine a situation in which a government is almost always open and transparent, where government information is freely accessible to anyone who asks for it, and where secrecy is an utmost exception instead of being either an official or un-official norm? It is a good question.
When I visited Stockholm last year I spent some time with a journalist there who questioned me deeply on the current debates around access to information and freedom of expression in South Africa. As I began to explain some of the more complicated details of the debates I could tell she was confused. I paused and she expressed her dismay. From our conversation it occurred to me that our situation was simply unfathomable to her because of her own context: in Sweden (whether accurately or inaccurately) the idea of a non-transparent government is literally a foreign concept to most people. Where a lack of corruption and transparency seem to be good bed mates, Sweden rates among the top five countries in the world on Transparency International's 2011 Corruptions Perceptions Index, along with Finland, Denmark, Norway and New Zealand. So, maybe, it is possible.
When it comes to considering of how much information should be made available to citizens, governments have some options. They can follow the same route as countries like Sweden and embrace citizen participation in governance and transparency, and resultantly disenable corruption. They can invent reasons for keeping information secret, which (if cleverly done) usually involves making the citizenry afraid of some mythical foreign enemy and providing justifications of "national security". Maybe this was the ANC's problem all along: South Africans aren't afraid enough of foreign spies/invaders to buy the whole "national security" selling point on the Secrecy Bill.
If governments don't care for meaningful citizen participation in governance and are arrogant enough to be unconcerned with looking legitimate, a third (and most scary) option arises: put the state boot of oppression on the necks of the people who demand their right to know.
In South Africa the Right2Know Campaign, intends to mark International Right to Know Day on 28 September by marching through the streets of the capital city to the Union Buildings. DM

The ever-increasing global rebellion against secrecy

http://dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2012-09-27-the-ever-increasing-global-rebellion-against-secrecy



Opinionista Julie Reid

The ever-increasing global rebellion against secrecy Julie Reid Julie Reid

Dr Julie Reid is an academic and media analyst at the Department of
Communication Science at the Unisa. She tweets about media issues
regularly from @jbjreid and writes about media policy debates and the
state of media freedom in South Africa. Julie is the Deputy President
of the South African Communications Association (SACOMM), and an
active member of the Right2Know campaign. She is involved in various
media policy research projects, has published research in the field of
media studies and edited a book on South African visual culture.


27 September 2012 06:13 (South Africa)


A furore has developed in South Africa in recent years over citizens'
access to information. The Protection of State Information Bill served
as the catalyst for this, but the debate has turned to broader
concerns over a general preference for secrecy over transparency on
the part of government, access to information and the freedom of
expression.

Many South Africans, especially the younger ones, are unaccustomed to
the notion that as a people we need to engage in a fight to defend our
right to information and our right to say what we like. There is a
collective pinch-me-so-that-I-can-wake-up-from-this-bad-dream feeling,
and I hear them often: comments questioning how it is possible that we
should even need to have these conversations in our democracy. This is
not what was fought for in the struggle, after all. But this coming
Friday marks a day that at very least serves as a reminder that in
this contest, we are not alone.

A decade ago, on 28 September in 2002, a collection of representatives
from freedom of information organisations from around the globe
gathered in Sofia, Bulgaria. They quickly recognised that although
their socio-political contexts may have differed, difficulty in
securing an environment where open access to information was the norm
was a problem in a number of countries around the world. They
established the Freedom of Information Advocates (FOA) Network, a
global coalition to promote open access to information in the interest
of promoting transparent and accountable governments. They also
established 28 September as International Right to Know Day, a day
marked to raise global awareness of the importance of access to
information as a fundamental human right, allowing most especially for
active citizen participation in government.

Things have become even more interesting over the last two years on
the global fight-for-information front. In South Africa, the
Right2Know Campaign gathered speed and support, and accomplished a
surprising degree of mobilisation against the Secrecy Bill from all
sectors of society. The campaign drew widespread support quickly
because of the efficacy of its simple message: We have a right to know
and a right to speak.

Making international news, Julian Assange embarrassed a number of
governments in 2010 by dumping a load of confidential documents on the
WikiLeaks website. (One may have thought Assange's celebrity would
have been assuaged by the rape and molestation charges he faces in
Sweden, and which he seems to be going to ludicrous attempts to avoid
answering, but alas he continues to command a loyal and almost cultish
following as the poster boy for whistleblowers.) The significance and
implications (or non-implications) of the information released by
WikiLeaks in this equation is immaterial. What is important is only
that is was released, and released against the will and without the
permission of various governments. This event fed into the collective
zeitgeist of freedom of information activists and others around the
world, who increasingly began to appreciate the manner in which
Assange gave the middle finger to authorities who would rather have
kept certain information under wraps.

Then last year, on 19 September, two hugely significant events
regarding freedom of information activism happen within a few blocks
of one another in Cape Town. At the Cape Town International Convention
Centre (CTICC) representatives of civil society organisations, global
freedom of information advocates, journalists and academics adopted
the African Platform on Access to Information (APAI) at the closing
session of the Pan African Platform on Access to Information
(http://www.pacaia.org/) conference. This declaration recognised
access to information as a fundamental right and called on all
governments, particularly African ones, to adopt or revise laws in
order to ensure the successful implementation of access to
information. The document pointed out that by 2011 the number of
African countries which had adopted access to information legislation
stood at only 10.

I arrived late at this closing session (but just in time to sign the
declaration) because I had just rushed to the CTICC from a packed out
press conference at the Parliament Building. After months of
deliberations over the Protection of State Information Bill in
Parliamentary committee, increasing pressure from critics and civil
society and a full-scale march on Parliament by the Right2Know
Campaign just two days before, the ANC caucus announced it would stall
the bill, due to be voted on by the National Assembly the following
day, to allow for "further consultations". It was a surprise move, and
one that signalled that the vehement opposition to this particular
piece of legislation had given at least a few people in the ruling
party some serious jitters.

The bill did go to the National Assembly a few months later and was
then referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). But while
most expected the NCOP to rubber-stamp the bill without too much
fanfare, the discussions instead resulted in even further concessions
from the ANC. Critics may tell you that even today it is not a great
bill, but the ANC's and Parliament's sometimes nervous and sometimes
blatantly arrogant treatment of this bill has revealed something
significant. At least some people within the ruling party and the
legislature are sensitive to the fact that many South Africans are not
enamoured with the idea of a government that wilfully hides
information that should rightfully be public.

For freedom of information activists, it is important to know that
some in government are aware of this. And on the afternoon of 19
September 2011, in a cramped and crowded press conference, we got
whiff of it for the first time.

Academic and civil society conference circuits are dominated by
conferences convened around themes of access to information, the
freedom of the press and/or freedom of expression and freedom of the
Internet as a conduit for the former two themes. Governments around
the world, nervous of what can be leaked, hacked or exposed on the
Internet, are moving to monitor, regulate and clamp down on Internet
freedoms.

The freedom of access and the exchange of information, which has been
mostly taken for granted since the Internet's inception, is now a
topic of concern as limits have begun to appear in various places.
Open access to information has fast become one of the defining causes
of the current generation, and this global trend seems to be gaining
momentum. The X and Y generations, having grown up in a digital age
and witnessed the rapid expansion of the Internet, are now accustomed
and conditioned to having the information that they want at their
fingertips. Telling these generations that authorities now wish to
clamp down on access to information, or even on Internet freedoms, is
sacrilege because it undermines some of their most formative
experiences of the world.

When a generation has grown up with a particular freedom, whether
freedom to access information or anything else, you cannot expect to
remove that freedom without a rebellion.

While so many citizens around the world feel aggrieved in that they
are denied access to government information in one way or another, one
may become disheartened at the enormity of the predicament. It would
be easy too to shrug this off as the ancient and basic formula of the
nature of human power relations, that those in power do what they can
to remain in power, whether through force, simple government
spin-doctoring or concealing "sensitive" information from citizens.
For a literary experience of this vision of hopelessness, read George
Orwell's novel 1984.

Is it even possible to imagine a situation in which a government is
almost always open and transparent, where government information is
freely accessible to anyone who asks for it, and where secrecy is an
utmost exception instead of being either an official or un-official
norm? It is a good question.

When I visited Stockholm last year I spent some time with a journalist
there who questioned me deeply on the current debates around access to
information and freedom of expression in South Africa. As I began to
explain some of the more complicated details of the debates I could
tell she was confused. I paused and she expressed her dismay. From our
conversation it occurred to me that our situation was simply
unfathomable to her because of her own context: in Sweden (whether
accurately or inaccurately) the idea of a non-transparent government
is literally a foreign concept to most people. Where a lack of
corruption and transparency seem to be good bed mates, Sweden rates
among the top five countries in the world on Transparency
International's 2011 Corruptions Perceptions Index, along with
Finland, Denmark, Norway and New Zealand. So, maybe, it is possible.

When it comes to considering of how much information should be made
available to citizens, governments have some options. They can follow
the same route as countries like Sweden and embrace citizen
participation in governance and transparency, and resultantly
disenable corruption. They can invent reasons for keeping information
secret, which (if cleverly done) usually involves making the citizenry
afraid of some mythical foreign enemy and providing justifications of
"national security". Maybe this was the ANC's problem all along: South
Africans aren't afraid enough of foreign spies/invaders to buy the
whole "national security" selling point on the Secrecy Bill.

If governments don't care for meaningful citizen participation in
governance and are arrogant enough to be unconcerned with looking
legitimate, a third (and most scary) option arises: put the state boot
of oppression on the necks of the people who demand their right to
know.

In South Africa the Right2Know Campaign, intends to mark International
Right to Know Day on 28 September by marching through the streets of
the capital city to the Union Buildings. DM


--
- Urvashi Sharma
Right to Information Helpline 8081898081
Helpline Against Corruption 9455553838
http://yaishwaryaj-seva-sansthan.hpage.co.in/

Govt may file review petition in SC on Sept 13 CIC judgement

 
Govt may file review petition in SC on Sept 13 CIC judgement
Press Trust of India / New Delhi September 26, 2012, 22:35
 
The government is likely to file a review petition before the Supreme Court on its September 13 judgement that judges should also be appointed as members of the Central Information Commission and state commissions.
Sources in the government said that the review is likely to be filed following a legal opinion by the Attorney General that the present system should continue and there was no need to change it at this moment.
The review petition could be filed in the apex court in the next few days, the sources added.
 
 
 
-
-
-
-
Attorney General G E Vahanvati is learnt to have said that more clarity is required from the Supreme Court on the issue.
Holding that Central and state information commissions perform quasi-judicial functions, the Supreme Court had on September 13 asked the government to appoint people from judicial background also as its members.
A bench of justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar passed the order on a PIL challenging section 12 and 15 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 enumerating the qualifications needed for the appointment of members to the commissions.
The bench, however, refused to quash the sections but asked the government to modify it so that people from judicial background are also preferred for the post.
Currently, none of the eight members of the Central Information Commission (CIC), including the Chief Information Commissioner are from judicial background.
The CIC comprises one Chief Information Commissioner and 10 Information Commissioners.

Govt may file review petition in SC on Sept 13 CIC judgement

http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/news/govt-may-file-review-petition-in-scsept-13-cic-judgement/61349/

Govt may file review petition in SC on Sept 13 CIC judgement

Press Trust of India / New Delhi September 26, 2012, 22:35



The government is likely to file a review petition before the Supreme
Court on its September 13 judgement that judges should also be
appointed as members of the Central Information Commission and state
commissions.

Sources in the government said that the review is likely to be filed
following a legal opinion by the Attorney General that the present
system should continue and there was no need to change it at this
moment.

The review petition could be filed in the apex court in the next few
days, the sources added.

Attorney General G E Vahanvati is learnt to have said that more
clarity is required from the Supreme Court on the issue.

Holding that Central and state information commissions perform
quasi-judicial functions, the Supreme Court had on September 13 asked
the government to appoint people from judicial background also as its
members.

A bench of justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar passed the order
on a PIL challenging section 12 and 15 of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 enumerating the qualifications needed for the appointment of
members to the commissions.

The bench, however, refused to quash the sections but asked the
government to modify it so that people from judicial background are
also preferred for the post.

Currently, none of the eight members of the Central Information
Commission (CIC), including the Chief Information Commissioner are
from judicial background.

The CIC comprises one Chief Information Commissioner and 10
Information Commissioners.

RTI Seminar,Peace March & Candle Procession in Lucknow on 21 October 2012

RTI Seminar,Peace March & Candle Procession in Lucknow on 21 October 2012

--
- Urvashi Sharma
Right to Information Helpline 8081898081
Helpline Against Corruption 9455553838
http://yaishwaryaj-seva-sansthan.hpage.co.in/

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 के परिपेक्ष में परिचर्चा,पैदल शान्ति मार्च एवं मोमबत्ती जलाकर प्रदर्शन

सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005

के परिपेक्ष में परिचर्चा,पैदल शान्ति मार्च एवं मोमबत्ती  जलाकर प्रदर्शन

दिन एवं दिनांक : रविवार ,21  अक्टूबर 2012

 स्थान समय : ->

1)   परिचर्चा : यूपी प्रेस क्लब ,  चाइना बाज़ार गेट, हजरतगंज ,लखनऊउत्तर प्रदेश ,अपराह्न 3 बजे से 5 बजे तक {विषय : "रिट  पिटीशन  (सिविलसंख्या  210/2012  में  दिनांक 13 सितम्बर 2012 को मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा  सूचना के अधिकार के क्रियान्वयन के सम्बन्ध में पारित  किये गए आदेश  के अनुपालन हेतु  सरकार एवं आयोग से अपेक्षाएं" }

2)   पैदल शान्ति मार्च : प्रेस-क्लब से हजरतगंज जीपीओ स्थित गांधी प्रतिमा तक , 5 बजे सायं आरम्भ

3)   मोमबत्ती  जलाकर प्रदर्शन  :हजरतगंज जीपीओ स्थित गांधी प्रतिमा पर,सायं 6 बजे

 मित्रों,

          येश्वर्याज सेवा संस्थान एक गैर सरकारी सामाजिक संस्था है और विगत कई वर्षों से धरना ,प्रदर्शन ,संगोष्ठी,जन-सुनवाई,फ़ोन हेल्प लाइन आदि के माध्यम से बिभिन्न सामाजिक सरोकारों के लिए कार्यरत है l'सूचना का अधिकार" के क्षेत्र में कार्य करने वाले कई अन्य सामाजिक संगठन भी इस कार्यक्रम में येश्वर्याज के  सहभागी हैं  l देश एवं प्रदेश में सूचना के अधिकार को सशक्त बनाने के लिए उक्त  तीनों  कार्यक्रमों  में  आपकी  उपस्थिति प्रार्थनीय है l

निवेदिका

उर्वशी शर्मासचिव{येश्वर्याज सेवा संस्थान}

सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 के परिपेक्ष में परिचर्चा,पैदल शान्ति मार्च एवं मोमबत्ती जलाकर प्रदर्शन

सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 के परिपेक्ष में परिचर्चा,पैदल शान्ति
मार्च एवं मोमबत्ती जलाकर प्रदर्शन


दिन एवं दिनांक : रविवार ,21 अक्टूबर 2012

स्थान व समय : ->
1) परिचर्चा : यूपी प्रेस क्लब , चाइना बाज़ार गेट, हजरतगंज ,लखनऊ ,
उत्तर प्रदेश ,अपराह्न 3 बजे से 5 बजे तक {विषय : "रिट पिटीशन (सिविल)
संख्या 210/2012 में दिनांक 13 सितम्बर 2012 को मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय
द्वारा सूचना के अधिकार के क्रियान्वयन के सम्बन्ध में पारित किये गए
आदेश के अनुपालन हेतु सरकार एवं आयोग से अपेक्षाएं" }
2) पैदल शान्ति मार्च : प्रेस-क्लब से हजरतगंज जीपीओ स्थित गांधी प्रतिमा
तक , 5 बजे सायं आरम्भ
3) मोमबत्ती जलाकर प्रदर्शन :हजरतगंज जीपीओ स्थित गांधी प्रतिमा पर,सायं 6 बजे

मित्रों,
येश्वर्याज सेवा संस्थान एक गैर सरकारी सामाजिक संस्था है और
विगत कई वर्षों से धरना ,प्रदर्शन ,संगोष्ठी,जन-सुनवाई,फ़ोन हेल्प लाइन
आदि के माध्यम से बिभिन्न सामाजिक सरोकारों के लिए कार्यरत है l'सूचना का
अधिकार" के क्षेत्र में कार्य करने वाले कई अन्य सामाजिक संगठन भी इस
कार्यक्रम में येश्वर्याज के सहभागी हैं l देश एवं प्रदेश में सूचना के
अधिकार को सशक्त बनाने के लिए उक्त तीनों कार्यक्रमों में आपकी
उपस्थिति प्रार्थनीय है l


निवेदिका
उर्वशी शर्मा – सचिव(येश्वर्याज सेवा संस्थान )