On 15 June 2012 07:17, Aires Rodrigues <airesrodrigu...@gmail.com> wrote: "It is now abundantly clear that the recommendation of Mr. P.R. Nadkarni’s name for the post of Information Commissioner was politically motivated and based on NEPOTISM rather than merit.
Comment: 1: I am not so sure that this Parrikar move can be classified accurately as an act of Nepotism, nor one which was "politically motivated". 2: If it was done as a Quid pro Quo (wrt MOI) in the interest of Peace, that would not necessarily equate to "political motivation" - as per what I read as the INTENT of those words in the ACT. That having been noted, Aires is (unless proven otherwise) making a very valid point. If one reviews the ACT (Section+subsections quoted infra), it could very well be argued that the appointment of Mr. Nadkarni is in contravention of existing law. For, while the apparent ambiguity wrt S15(6) can help Mr. Nadkarni who can state that he is NOT PRESENTLY "connected" to any political party, he surely falls short of the requirements in S15(5), unless he provides documentary proof to suggest otherwise. The question arises: Is Mr. Nadkarni qualified (as per the law) for the post? Wonder what Xri Anvil Goebell de Sa of Inglaterra has to say about all this. jc S15(5)The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and EXPERIENCE in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. S15(6) The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall not be (...) connected with any political party http://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf