Whistleblower’s Petition On Corruption Complaints And Black Money Information
The Supreme Court of India has recently agreed to expedite the hearing of a petition filed by Indian Forest Service officer and whistleblower Sanjiv Chaturvedi. Chaturvedi seeks information from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) regarding corruption complaints against Union Ministers from June 1, 2014, to August 5, 2017, as well as details on black money recovered from abroad and deposited into the accounts of Indian citizens.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale granted leave to appeal on July 26 in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Chaturvedi in 2019. The petition stems from an RTI application Chaturvedi submitted in August 2017, requesting certified copies of complaints submitted to the Prime Minister regarding corruption charges against Central Ministers within the specified period and the subsequent action taken.
Additionally, Chaturvedi sought information on the amount of black money brought back to India and deposited in citizen accounts since June 1, 2014. The PMO denied the information, citing the requests as “generic and vague” and claimed that the black money information did not fall under the definition of “information” per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Background
On August 16, 2018, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PMO to provide the requested information. However, Chaturvedi alleged that the PMO tried to evade the CIC’s directive by invoking Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, stating that providing the information would disproportionately divert the public authority’s resources. Regarding black money, the PMO referenced Section 8(1)(h), claiming disclosure would impede ongoing investigations.
After the PMO’s non-compliance with its orders, Chaturvedi returned to the CIC, which reviewed its decision. The SLP notes that while the CIC initially ordered the PMO to provide specific information, it later upheld the PMO’s denial regarding black money details and actions on a complaint against a Central Minister.
Conclusion
Chaturvedi was compelled to approach the Delhi High Court, where a single judge ruled that Section 18 complaints were not the appropriate remedy, a decision upheld by a Division Bench. The bench agreed with the single judge and stated that neither the Chief Information Commissioner nor the single judge erred in their decisions.
In his SLP, Chaturvedi argues that the judgments undermine citizens’ democratic rights to know about governmental actions, particularly concerning corruption complaints and black money recovery promises. He also questioned the CIC’s authority to review its own orders.
The Supreme Court’s decision to expedite the hearing underscores the significance of transparency and accountability in government operations.
