New Delhi: The Supreme Court today issued a notice to the Prime Minister’s Office on a special leave petition filed by whistleblower IPS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi seeking disclosure of information about corruption cases against Central ministers and money which the Narendra Modi government claimed to have brought from abroad.
The PMO must reply in four weeks.
Chaturvedi, who received the Magsaysay Award for exposing corruption in high offices, was represented by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who was also accompanied by advocate Rohit Kumar Singh.
Also read: RTI Reveals Modi Called Health Minister to Discuss Removal of AIIMS Whistleblower Sanjiv Chaturvedi
Through the petition, Chaturvedi challenged an order of the Division Bench of the Delhi high court which upheld a Single Judge’s order and that of the Chief Information Commissioner in disallowing information in the matter.
The special leave petition said:
“The Division Bench committed grave error on facts and law while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner and consequently upholding the orders of the Ld. Single Judge dated 31.07.2019 as well as the Chief Information Commissioner, dated 18.06.2019, holding that the order dated 16.10.2018, passed by the CIC directing disclosure of information with regard to item no. 1(b), 4, 5 & 13 of the application dated 07.08.2017, has been duly complied with by the Respondent, vide communication dated 01.11.2018.”
The petition also claimed:
“The Division Bench further erred in saying that remedy for ventilating grievances against the communication dated 01.11.2018 could not be the remedy to lodge complaint before the CIC under section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 – seeking compliance of the order dated 16.10.2018.”
Talking to The Wire, Singh said no one from the PMO was present when the SC issued the order. “This was the first time the case came up for hearing before the apex court,” he added.
Corruption complaints against Union ministers
The original application in the case was filed by Chaturvedi in August 2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Through the application filed with the PMO, Chaturvedi sought details of corruption complaints against Union ministers, the inquiries conducted into these complaints and the final action taken by PMO. His query pertained to cases from the first three years of the NDA government’s first term – from June 1, 2014, to August 5, 2017.
The application also sought information about the quantum and value of black money retrieved from abroad and deposited into the accounts of citizens, along with efforts made by the PMO in this regard.
Also read: Tribunal Restrains Nadda From Rewriting Whistleblower Chaturvedi’s Appraisal
Chaturvedi specifically sought information related to action taken on his complaint against the then Union health minister J.P. Nadda, which was submitted to the prime minister and on which the PMO had twice sought a detailed reply from the health ministry on October 8, 2014 and February 10, 2015.
Query ‘generic and vague’
The PMO in its reply on October 9, 2017, refused to divulge any information on the corruption complaints and termed the query “generic and vague”.
As for the queries on black money, the PMO said that the “request made is not covered under the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act”.
Chaturvedi challenged this assertion of the PMO in the Central Information Commission. In October 2018, the CIC rejected the rationale provided by the PMO and ordered it to give a “specific reply/information” within 15 days.
‘Plea would divert resources’
In its response to the CIC order, the PMO said finding details on corruption cases would involve a “thorough search of numerous files” and would “disproportionately divert the resources”.
Regarding the query on the issue of black money, the PMO remained silent on the amount while refusing to disclose the details of the efforts made by citing Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24 of RTI Act.
CIC found PMO’s reply ‘not correct’
When Chaturvedi again approached the CIC in November 2018 challenging the PMO reply, the Commission held that the new rationale provided by the PMO for the denial of information in connection with the minister’s corruption complaints ‘is not correct’.
J.P. Nadda. Photo: PTI
Regarding the complaint to the Prime Minister against Nadda, the CIC declared that information has been provided to the appellant as per available records.
‘Disposed not dismissed’
Chaturvedi then approached the Delhi high court in July 2019. Dismissing the petition at the first hearing, Justice V. Kameshwar Rao held that “surely a complaint under Section 18 is not the remedy and the CIC has rightly rejected the same”.
However, the CIC order of June 18, 2019, had used the word “disposed” and not “dismissed” in paragraph 13 and had stated that “with the above observations, the non-compliance petition is disposed off”.
Division bench too dismissed plea
The Division bench had also endorsed the single judge’s ruling and dismissed the petition on the same day without issuing any notice. In paragraph five of its order, the division bench used the word “dismissed” regarding the CIC order dated June 18, 2019, which had actually used the word “disposed in terms of above observations”.
Since the two orders of the Delhi high court went in favour of the PMO, it no longer needed to reveal information on either the corruption cases against Central ministers or the quantum of black money recovered from abroad. Which was essentially why Chaturvedi filed the plea with the Supreme Court.