Use RTI to rescue harassed whistleblowers

Media reported that UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi advised the Congress governments to protect honest officers. Still Haryana government harassed Chaturvedi, that the circular issued by DoPT also has adverse effect on such measures to protect the whistleblower. Based on such reports, Subhash Chandra Agrawal raised this RTI request, which was flatly rejected as personal information of Chaturvedi. How could harassment or protection from harassment be the ‘personal’ information of harassed official? Agrawal had cited several reports claiming that Chaturvedi was being harassed by the Haryana government

Some bad trends are getting established in the governance. If any officer sticks to rules to disagree and expose the misdeeds of CM or Ministers (the executive) there will be witch-hunting complaints against him or he will be harassed with frequent transfers or charged with a criminal case.

It is all to silence opposition to corruption. The state has to think twice before fixing complainants and whistleblowers, as to what kind of message goes to people. People also should think about this deeply. Does it not indicate consolidation of corrupt people in all wings of state?

While hearing the plea of activist Subhash Agrawal seeking correspondence between PMO and DoPT etc, I found that the issue pertains to protecting the honest officers who are fearlessly performing their duties, inviting the wrath of political bosses and fighting against the corruption, the disclosure of information will serve the public interest.

The PTI story gave background of the RTI request: Sanjiv Chaturvedi, who was removed from his post of Chief Vigilance Officer of AIIMS in August last year by the Health Ministry, has alleged before CAT that he was being "victimised" for exposing the corruption involving influential politicians and bureaucrats presently occupying important positions in the Central and State governments. In 2013, the President had quashed a charge sheet filed against him by Haryana government. In his representation, Chaturvedi had alleged he was being victimised for exposing Herbal Park scam in Jhajjar in which name of top political functionary of the state had emerged.

Originally the appellant sought from the PMO to know details about the controversy reported in newspapers such as “Sonia sought help for beleaguered officers, DoPT did not oppose” (Hindu 26.08.2013) “Centre rescues whistleblower again” (Hindu 5.10.2013) and “President quashes Haryana Government’s case against whistle blower officer (HT 5.10.2013) etc. Media reported that UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi advised the Congress Governments to protect honest officers.

Still Haryana Government harassed Chaturvedi, that the circular issued by DoPT also has adverse effect on such measures to protect the whistleblower. Based on such reports, Subhash Chandra Agrawal raised this RTI request, which was flatly rejected as personal information of Chaturvedi. How could harassment or protection from harassment be the ‘personal’ information of harassed official? Agrawal had cited several reports claiming that Chaturvedi was being harassed by the Haryana government. During the hearing while the Ministry officials were trying to justify reasons for denial of information.

The officer concerned was not present before the Commission as not asked. I asked my office to dial Sanjiv Chaturvedi to know whether he had any objections to disclosure of information to which he said there was no such objection from his side as the matter was concerned with public activities. He did not even agree with contention of CPIO that the information was given in fiduciary capacity and hence the claim of exception on that ground does not stand. I also heard Chaturvedi and then made CPIO to personally ascertain with him, which he did in my presence.

My conclusion is: The CPIO’s denial of information in this case is not legally correct. The information sought is not at all personal information of Chaturvedi. It is only a lame excuse put forward by the CPIO just to deny the information. The CPIO, if he was confident about his contention that it was private information he should have initiated the process of obtaining views of Sanjiv Chaturvedi. Hence the bona fides of CPIO are doubtful. His contention that the information can be denied under Section 8(1) (e) claiming to have received in fiduciary relationship is also found baseless.

It pertains to the public activity of the public servant working at top level of Government and the matter relates to his performance of duty, leading to harassment from the leaders who were embarrassed in the political government, such as frequent transfers or being dumped in loop line with unimportant assignments etc. As the issue pertains to protecting the honest officers who are fearlessly performing their duties, inviting the wrath of political bosses and fighting against the corruption, as revealed by the news items referred in RTI application, the disclosure of information will serve the public interest.

The CPIO, confident that it was private information, should have initiated the process of obtaining views of Chaturvedi. Hence the bona fides of CPIO are doubtful. On the point of fiduciary information also the CPIO could not produce any material or explanation to establish this point. Thus the information sought is not hit by any provision of Section 8(1). Assuming that CPIO was correct in his contention, the officer whose privacy is being claimed as defence, agreed for disclosure, and then the issue is in larger public interest which attracts proviso to exception and information should be given. Section 8(2) is yet another safeguard for disclosure, as ‘public interest’ outweighs the protected interest, if any.

Environment Ministry, cadre controlling authority of Indian Forest Service Officers, while citing personal and third party information to withhold information, did not make any effort to seek Chaturvedi's views at all. The people have a right to information about obstructions to political executive and bureaucratic machinery and their working, and such records must be disclosed even if they attract any exemption clause because of larger public interests as per section 8(1) and for overweighing public interest under Section 8(2). Hence I asked the Centre to disclose communication exchanged between the PMO and DoPT on Chaturvedi.

In democracy, the people have right to information about working of or obstruction to both political executive and bureaucratic machinery. Even if there is any iota of doubt that any of exception under Section 8(1) might apply, the public interest will overweigh such protection as ordained under Section 8(2). The very purpose of the RTI Act is to give right to people to seek such information in public interest. It cannot be defeated.