The Supreme Court on Friday decided to examine an appeal filed by Magsaysay award winner and Indian Forest Service officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi against a Delhi High Court order agreeing with the Prime Minister’s Office that providing information under the Right to Information Act on corruption complaints against Central Ministers and in-flow of black money since 2014 will “disproportionately divert” public resources and impede investigations.
A Bench led by Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta issued notice to the Central Public Information Officer, Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), on a special leave petition filed by Mr. Chaturvedi, represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Rohit Singh, against the High Court order of September 9, 2019.
The series of events began in August 2017. Mr. Chaturvedi applied under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to the PMO for corruption complaints and action taken against Central Ministers from June 2014 to August 5, 2017. The bureaucrat also sought information on black money deposits since June 2014. His efforts were bolstered when the Central Information Commission (CIC) ordered the PMO to provide him with the information in 15 days.
Mr. Chaturvedi said the PMO refused to disclose the details despite the “binding decision” of the CIC. Instead, it invoked Section 7(9) of the RTI Act regarding information about corruption charges against Ministers. This provision exempts a public authority from disclosing information if it entailed diverting resources or was “detrimental to the safety and preservation of the record.”
As for details of the black money, the PMO took refuge under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act which excludes disclosures that may “impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.”
The High Court refused to entertain Mr. Chaturvedi’s appeal, compelling him to turn to the apex court.
“The respondent (PMO) was totally silent on the quantum of black money brought from abroad,” Mr. Chaturvedi argued in the Supreme Court. He said the government’s conduct struck at the “very root of the democratic rights of a citizen to know about transactions/businesses being carried out in the government.”
Its non-disclosure of corruption complaints and details of black money, he said, violated the election promises and also went against “very basic principles regarding the functioning of a democracy.”
