Supreme Court Expedites Hearing Of Sanjiv Chaturvedi's Plea For Information From PMO On Black Money Brought From Abroad
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
28 July 2024 5:25 AM GMT
The Supreme Court recently agreed to expeditiously hear the petition filed by whistleblower Indian Forest Service officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi seeking information from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) about the corruption complaints against Union 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 comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale on July 26 granted leave to appeal in the Special Leave Petition filed by Chaturvedi in 2019.
The SLP relates to an RTI application filed by Chaturvedi in August 2017 in PMO seeking a 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.
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 the definition of "information" as per Section 2 (f) of RTI Act.
The Central Information Commission, on August 16, 2028, on Chaturvedi's appeal, directed the PMO to provide the information.
Chaturvedi said that the PMO "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 the cover of Section 8(1)(h) saying disclosure would impede pending investigations.
When Chaturvedi again moved CIC against non-compliance of its orders, the CIC reviewed its own order. The SLP stated, "it is matter of record that while in order dated 16.10.2018, Central Information Commission had directed the Respondent(PMO) 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 of Chaturvedi's plea of non-compliance.
The officer was forced to move the Delhi High Court against the CIC's second order.
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.
Case : Sanjiv Chaturvedi v. Centra Public Information Officer Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 30458/2019
