08-06-2005, 07:59 AM
<!--emo&:argue--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/argue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='argue.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<span style='font-family:Geneva'><b>Do u agree with Cabinet or Prez on Info Law </b></span>:
<b>Govt disagrees with Kalamâs confidentiality clause </b>
<i>Info law Kalam said exchanges between Presidentâs office and Cabinet should be privileged, Govt says otherwise </i>
ANITA SALUJA
Posted online: Saturday, August 06, 2005 at 0209 hours IST
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 5: The UPA Government has disagreed with the suggestion by President A P J Abdul Kalam that communication between the President and the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, be kept confidentialâand out of the purview of the Right to Information Act.
While giving his assent to the law in Juneâwhich will be notified in OctoberâKalam had reminded Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the Constitutional provision that guarantees privilege of such communication, Article 74 (2): âThe question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into it in any court.â
However, in a note prepared by the Department of Personnel and Training, after consultation with the Law Ministry, the Centre has said that ââthe claim of immunity and privilege has to be based on public interest.ââ
Citing the ruling in the landmark S R Bommai vs Union of India, the Centre has said that Article 74 (2) does not bar the court from calling upon the Council of Ministers to disclose the material on which the President had formed the requisite opinion.
ââThe material, on the basis of which advice was tendered, does not become part of the advice,ââ says the official note.
Allaying the Presidentâs fears, the Centre has observed that there is no absolute proviso under Article 74 (2) of the Constitution, which bars making public the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof and the material on the basis of which the decision was taken.
Point & polite counterpoint
⢠Kalam: Art 74 (2) says that advice tendered by Ministers to President shall not be inquired into it in any court. Govt: Does not bar court from calling upon Cabinet to disclose material on which President formed opinion.
⢠Kalam: Only Centre should frame RTI rules; not states Govt: Centre and State empowered to frame rules in respect of subjects falling in their spheres.
⢠Kalam: Definition of information could even include notings on files Govt: Whether definition should be narrowed is a matter of policy.
The Government has also turned down another suggestion of the President that the Centre should be allowed to frame rules under the proposed RTI law and the state governments should be kept out of it.
According to the Act, both Centre and the states can frame rules on its various provisions on how accountability of different Government departments will be fixed.
The Government has argued that as per Section 28 of the Act, the competent authorities (Centre and the State) are empowered to frame rules in respect of the subjects falling in their spheres only. âAs such, the question of overlapping of the rules may not arise.â
It noted that the legislature can always delegate rule-making authority to the state government or to any other authority.
On Kalamâs observation that the definition of information in the Act is such that even notings on files, containing advice, can be insisted upon, the Centre has said that whether the definition should be narrowed down or not is a matter of policy.
The Centre has not replied to the President but duly taken note of his advice and come to its own conclusions.
The Prime Ministerâs office had sent the Presidentâs observations to the Law Ministry and Department of Personnel and Training, for their observations.
Both the key Ministries have not found anything which can be incorporated in the Act.
<span style='font-family:Geneva'><b>Do u agree with Cabinet or Prez on Info Law </b></span>:
<b>Govt disagrees with Kalamâs confidentiality clause </b>
<i>Info law Kalam said exchanges between Presidentâs office and Cabinet should be privileged, Govt says otherwise </i>
ANITA SALUJA
Posted online: Saturday, August 06, 2005 at 0209 hours IST
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 5: The UPA Government has disagreed with the suggestion by President A P J Abdul Kalam that communication between the President and the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, be kept confidentialâand out of the purview of the Right to Information Act.
While giving his assent to the law in Juneâwhich will be notified in OctoberâKalam had reminded Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the Constitutional provision that guarantees privilege of such communication, Article 74 (2): âThe question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into it in any court.â
However, in a note prepared by the Department of Personnel and Training, after consultation with the Law Ministry, the Centre has said that ââthe claim of immunity and privilege has to be based on public interest.ââ
Citing the ruling in the landmark S R Bommai vs Union of India, the Centre has said that Article 74 (2) does not bar the court from calling upon the Council of Ministers to disclose the material on which the President had formed the requisite opinion.
ââThe material, on the basis of which advice was tendered, does not become part of the advice,ââ says the official note.
Allaying the Presidentâs fears, the Centre has observed that there is no absolute proviso under Article 74 (2) of the Constitution, which bars making public the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof and the material on the basis of which the decision was taken.
Point & polite counterpoint
⢠Kalam: Art 74 (2) says that advice tendered by Ministers to President shall not be inquired into it in any court. Govt: Does not bar court from calling upon Cabinet to disclose material on which President formed opinion.
⢠Kalam: Only Centre should frame RTI rules; not states Govt: Centre and State empowered to frame rules in respect of subjects falling in their spheres.
⢠Kalam: Definition of information could even include notings on files Govt: Whether definition should be narrowed is a matter of policy.
The Government has also turned down another suggestion of the President that the Centre should be allowed to frame rules under the proposed RTI law and the state governments should be kept out of it.
According to the Act, both Centre and the states can frame rules on its various provisions on how accountability of different Government departments will be fixed.
The Government has argued that as per Section 28 of the Act, the competent authorities (Centre and the State) are empowered to frame rules in respect of the subjects falling in their spheres only. âAs such, the question of overlapping of the rules may not arise.â
It noted that the legislature can always delegate rule-making authority to the state government or to any other authority.
On Kalamâs observation that the definition of information in the Act is such that even notings on files, containing advice, can be insisted upon, the Centre has said that whether the definition should be narrowed down or not is a matter of policy.
The Centre has not replied to the President but duly taken note of his advice and come to its own conclusions.
The Prime Ministerâs office had sent the Presidentâs observations to the Law Ministry and Department of Personnel and Training, for their observations.
Both the key Ministries have not found anything which can be incorporated in the Act.