SC Notice To PMO On Whistleblower's Plea For Info On Corruption Complaints Against Central Ministers[Read Petition]

The Supreme Court today issued notice to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) on a Special Leave Petition (SLP) moved by Whistleblower IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi seeking information about corruption charges against Central Ministers from June 1, 2014 to August 5, 2017 and the quantum of black money claimed to have been brought back from abroad by the government and deposited in the accounts of Indian citizens.

A bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta has asked the Central Public Information Officer of the PMO to respond within four weeks.

Represented by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan along with advocate Rohit Kumar Singh, Chaturvedi has filed the SLP challenging the judgment passed by the Division bench of the Delhi High Court vide which it had upheld the order of the single judge in his appeal against the order of the Chief Information Commissioner disallowing him the information by sitting in review on its own orders.

Chaturvedi has blown the lid off several massive corruption cases involving politicians and bureaucrats.

The RTI Plea

The instant SLP relates to an RTI application filed by Chaturvedi in August 2017 in PMO seeking certified copy of all complaints submitted to the Prime Minister against corruption charges of Central Ministers from 01.06.2014 till 05.08.2017 and the action taken report.

He had also sought information about the quantum and value of black money brought from abroad and deposited in the accounts of citizens of the country from 01.06.2014.

Besides this, the officer had also demanded certified copy of all the information /documents related to action taken on his letter dated 26.09.2013 titled "Regarding Request for action against concerned officials of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare for sending a false/ misleading report to the office of Hon'ble Prime Minister of India".

The PMO denied the information about corruption charges against central ministers terming the same as "generic and vague". Information relating to black money was turned down on the ground that the same was not covered under Section 2 (f) of RTI Act. On action against concerned officials of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, PMO assured that the information would be provided in due course.

When Chaturvedi moved CIC, it directed the PMO to provide the information.

CIC Reviews its orders?

The PMO, however, "tried to circumvent" CIC's directions by taking recourse to Section 7(9) of RTI Act regarding information about corruption charges saying it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.

On information about black money, the PMO took cover of Section 8(1)(h) saying disclosure would impede investigation.

When Chaturvedi again moved CIC against non-compliance of its orders, the CIC reviewed its own order as Chaturvedi states in his SLP, that "it is matter of record that while in order dated 16.10.2018, Central Information Commission had directed the Respondent to provide specific reply /information, rejecting earlier grounds taken by Respondent for denial of information as incorrect while in its later order dated 18.06.2019, Central Information Commission had only upheld the contention of Petitioner regarding supply of information regarding corruption complaints against Central Ministers but had upheld the contention of Respondent regarding denial of information regarding black money issue and action on complain of Petitioner against one of Central Ministers".

The CIC disposed off Chaturvedi's plea of non-compliance.

The Whistleblower officer was forced to move the Delhi High Court ruing the CIC reviewing its orders.

A Single judge bench, however, held that, "Surely a complaint under Section 18 is not the remedy and the CIC has righty rejected the same".

A Division Bench of the high court also endorsed the stand taken by the single judge as it observed, "Neither has the Chief Information Commissioner committed any error in deciding the application preferred by this appellant under Section 18 of the Act vide order dated 18th June, 2019, nor has any error been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(C) 8275/2019 vide judgment and order dated 31 July, 2019".

In his SLP, Chaturvedi says "the impugned judgment and order strike at the very root of democratic rights of a citizen to know about transactions / businesses being carried out in the Government, and more specifically in this case about status of action taken on corruption complaints of its own elected representatives, and promises made during elections regarding black money and thereby goes against very basic principles regarding functioning of democracy".

He has also questioned whether the CIC can review its own orders.

"Whether division bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court erred in not appreciating that the CIC while examining de novo reply submitted by the Respondent on 01.11.2018 on all the four pending information items as well as on issue of penal action against the concerned CPIO not only exceeded its jurisdiction provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 but also assumed review jurisdiction not contemplated under the Act of 2005. The division bench committed grave and serious error in not appreciating the fact that remedy available in said situation is before this Hon'ble Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction," asks the SLP.

Chaturvedi further stresses that the high court erroneously records that the CIC has 'dismissed' the complaint under Section 18.

"The correct position is that the said order of CIC uses word 'disposed' and not 'dismissed' as has been recorded by Division Bench of the High Court," says he while adding that the high court order gives an impression that his application of non-compliance was rejected for not being an appropriate remedy even when the CIC had decided all the issues on substantial basis. 

Click here to download the Petition