Gujarat govt to provide first five pages of info free under RTI Act
Gandhinagar: The state govt has made significant changes in the system of govt departments providing information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. All departments are now directed to provide the first five pages of information sought under the RTI Act free of charge.
On Wednesday, the govt announced that it issued a notification on May 13 this year, directing all departments to make changes in the method of providing information. Apart from providing information of up to five pages free, the govt has directed departments to properly classify records maintain them with an index and publish them appropriately on their websites.
Moreover, the govt stated in the notification that when applicants are called for self-inspection of records, they should be allowed to take photos of only the information that can be provided and carry it on a portable storage device with no need to send it in physical form afterwards.
The Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) made these recommendations to the state govt in its annual report for 2023-24, which was tabled in the budget session of the state assembly earlier this year.
An official statement on Wednesday said that instructions have been given to departments to provide proactive disclosure (PAD) to citizens. "Records of actions taken by the state govt regarding illegal constructions and encroachments, and details of various permits, licences, approvals and authorizations granted should be proactively published," the statement said.
Additionally, to keep applicants informed about the progress of their applications, all public authorities have been instructed to set up a system where applicants receive updates via message or email at each stage of approval after submitting an application.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Haryana: Chargesheet filed against Goldy Brar, 4 others in Gurugram grenade attacks case
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has filed charges in court against Canada-based gangster-terrorist Satwinder Singh alias Goldy Brar and four others for orchestrating grenade attacks on two Gurugram clubs in December, the agency announced on Saturday. The December 10, 2024 attacks targeted Warehouse Club and Human Club in Sector 29, with investigators linking the violence to a broader conspiracy by the banned Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) to spread communal disharmony across Haryana. The chargesheet names Sachin Taliyan, Ankit, Bhawish and US-based Randeep Singh alongside Brar. All accused except Brar and Randeep Singh have been arrested. The NIA investigations revealed that Brar, a designated terrorist under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, masterminded the conspiracy from his base in Brampton, Canada. The agency said the terror syndicate actively extorts money, raises funds, procures explosives and weapons, and intimidates civilians to threaten national security. Brar, a close associate of jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, faces multiple terror cases. The NIA has already charge-sheeted him for the December 2023 murder of Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi, president of the Hindu right-wing Shri Rashtriya Rajput Karni Sena, in Jaipur. He is also wanted for orchestrating the May 29, 2022 assassination of Punjabi singer Sidhu Moosewala. Brar was designated a terrorist under UAPA in January 2024. From Canada, Brar allegedly supervises Bishnoi gang operations whilst assisting pro-Khalistan outfits including BKI in weapons smuggling, drug trafficking and targeted killings, the agency stated. How Ggm blasts are linked to Chandigarh A web of inter-state criminal links has emerged in the investigation into the Gurugram bar blasts, with UT police uncovering key connections to Chandigarh and Haryana's Hisar district. Two accused, Ajit and Vinay, played a direct role in the attacks carried out at two popular Sector 26 bars, acting on the instructions of gangster Randeep Malik. Ajit and Vinay, both Hisar natives, had allegedly delivered a bomb to a person for the Gurugram blasts and were arrested by Chandigarh police after a brief encounter in Hisar on November 29 last year. The duo was involved in hurling bombs at Seville Bar Lounge—owned by rapper Badshah—and De'Orra Dance Bar in Sector 26, Chandigarh, between 3:15am and 3:30am on November 26. Investigations revealed that gangster Randeep Malik, a Jind native now based in the USA, orchestrated the blasts. Malik directed the accused to collect explosives in Karnal and a pistol from Sahil, a murder accused lodged in Jind jail. The handover took place near Rohtak. According to Chandigarh police, Malik, previously booked in 2011 for assault and intimidation, recruits youth from Hisar and Bhiwani into crime. He advised the accused to turn off their phones and escape to Hisar and then Rajasthan after the blasts in Chandigarh. Malik coordinated the attack with gangster Goldy Brar, whose approval allegedly preceded the blasts, the cops said.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Slum dwellers on mangrove land not entitled to rehab, rules HC
MUMBAI: In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday held that slum dwellers who have settled on protected forests — including mangrove land and buffer zones — cannot seek rehabilitation under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. A division bench of Justice Girish S Kulkarni and Justice Advait Sethna upheld the Maharashtra government's stance that Section 3Z-6 of the Slum Act explicitly excludes forest areas from its scope. As a result, encroachments on forest land are not entitled to the protections or benefits afforded to recognised slum dwellers. The court was hearing a petition filed by four residents of Laxminagar, a settlement located within mangrove forests and buffer zones in Charkop, Kandivali. The petitioners approached the High Court through advocate Ronita Bhattacharya Bector after revenue authorities demolished around 500 huts in the area — including theirs — in April 2021. The petitioners argued that the demolition was unlawful as they had been residing there since 1980 and were therefore eligible for rehabilitation under a government resolution (GR) dated June 16, 2015. That GR protects slum dwellers who settled before January 1, 2000, by entitling them to permanent alternate accommodation. They also cited a second GR dated May 16, 2018, which extends similar benefits to those settled between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2011. However, additional government pleader Uma Palsuledesai, appearing for the state, countered that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief as they had encroached on protected mangrove land — classified as a reserved forest under Survey No. 39, spanning 57 hectares. She pointed out that Section 3Z-6 of the Slum Act expressly excludes such areas, including those falling under Coastal Regulation Zones (CRZ), from its purview. Agreeing with this submission, the bench observed, 'There is a clear exclusion for the applicability of the Slums Act set out under Section 3Z-6. The land in question falls within a protected forest. Therefore, the provisions of the Slums Act will not apply, and the petitioners cannot claim benefit as protected occupiers under the Act.' The court also noted that the area had never been formally declared a slum under the Act, and that the petitioners failed to meet the statutory definition of 'eligible slum dwellers' as laid out in Section 2(c-b) of the Act. 'This is a case where protection, relocation, and rehabilitation under Section 3Z of the Slums Act are not available to the petitioners, rendering their claim against the demolition legally untenable and unsustainable,' the court concluded, dismissing the petition.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Preventive detention extraordinary power of state, use it sparingly: Top court
Preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly, said the Supreme Court as it set aside an order by a district magistrate to detain a moneylender who was allegedly indulging in illegal activities again after getting bail in four cases.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan questioned the contention of the detaining authority that the order was passed as the detainee was violating bail conditions in the cases, and noted that they should have instead moved the competent court seeking cancellation of the order of detention dated June 20, 2024, and the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam are hereby set aside. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed," the bench said in its order passed on Friday. Noting that the power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution under Article 22(3)(b), the bench said, "The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature."The bench said the contention of the detaining authority that the detainee, Rajesh, who used to run a private financing company called 'Rithika Finance', was violating the conditions of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been considered for passing the order of said that pertinently, no application has been filed by the respondent in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have not even been spelt out during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the Kerala High Court order, which affirmed the preventive detention order of the Palakkad district magistrate."Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention."We clarify that if such an application for cancellation of the detainee's bail is made by the respondent - state, the same must be decided uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove," the bench referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the bench said Section 2(j) of the state law defines 'goonda' as a person who indulges in activities that are harmful to the maintenance of public order, either directly or indirectly, and includes persons who are bootleggers, counterfeiters, drug offenders, and loan sharks, among bench also said that under Section 3 of the Act, the district magistrate so authorised or the government may pass an order directing detention of a "known goonda" to prevent commission of antisocial activities within the state of Kerala."Coming to the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act was not justified in law," the top court said, as it noted four cases lodged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, cited by the police for recommending preventive detention to the district police stated that the detainee was a "notorious goonda" in the district and a threat to the society at by the order of his detention dated June 20, 2024, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court assailing the order and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the state against the "illegal" detention of her high court on September 4 last year affirmed the order of preventive detention. Aggrieved by the order, the detainee's wife moved the top court challenging the December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was InMust Watch
