Inside story of the National Stock Exchange’s amazing success, leading to hubris, regulatory capture and algo scam
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )
-The ICs haven't themselves complied with the mandate of Sec 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
- The ICs do not take up cases (complaints/2nd appeals) on FIFO basis. The Act provides for only information related to life and liberty to be provided on priority. Thus only complaints/appeals related to these can be allowed to be taken up on priority.
-They do not follow the mandate of the Sec 20 correctly. To elucidate, this section mandates that the PIO be given an opportunity to being heard before imposing the mandatory penalty. It implies that the need to impose the penalty should have been established (it is possible based on the records submitted with the appeal) before calling for hearing. It also implies that it is not merely calling for 'reports' or for a hearing but a actually a show cause notice for not imposing penalty with the option of submitting the reasons in a written form with or without personal hearing.
- The response to this show cause notice is the information that has to be communicated to the appellant for his information and counter arguments.
-The 2nd appeal is complete in itself, if the application, reply by the PIO, 1st appeal and the reply by the FAA are annexed to it. Hence it is easy for the IC to sift what all information sought had been provided and denied.
-It is only in the case of information denied or provided with delay, that the IC has to seek the explanation from the PIO seeking the valid reasons for denying/delaying them. It implies that the notice from the IC is specific about this information that had been denied/delayed.
-The mandate of Sec 20 is to penalise even for delay beyond 30 days and there is no choice with the IC. There are many cases when even after ordering the PIOs to provide information the ICs fail to impose the penalty which would by them be the maximum of Rs 25000/-.
-The ICs have been treacherously not following this procedure and even accepting illegal reasons like the information is not available (without giving any legally valid reason) or simply that the applicant has been provided an opportunity to check files and collect it from their office.
- The violations by the ICs are so blatant that they can be easily prosecuted under Sec 219 of the IPC.
But then our courts are not the ideal role models for dispensation of justice, are they? And so the charade goes on and on...