Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Sajib Nandi

The Sentinel Editorial: Disclosing babus' assets

Recommended Posts

Sajib Nandi

Reported by Sentinelassam.com on December 28, 1017

https://www.sentinelassam.com/story/editorial/0/disclosing-babus-assets/2017-12-28/1/330223#.WkR_m9-Wa00

 

In the New Year, the Modi government will seek to keep better account of the assets of babus. In a recent order by the Centre’s Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), bureaucrats have been told that those who do not declare their assets and liabilities by January 31 next will be denied vigilance clearances needed for promotions, empanelment for senior posts and foreign postings. This follows up on an earlier DoPT order issued over six years back in April 2011, with several extensions since then. The latest deadline set on 1st January, 2018 has been extended by a month for bureaucrats ‘who have not yet complied with earlier orders’ to submit their Immovable Property Returns (IPRs). The DoPT has even designed an online module which babus can log into for filing such returns. Only last September, a senior bureaucrat in Andhra Pradesh made headlines just three days away from retirement. Launching as simultaneous raids at his properties spread across several cities in Andhra and Maharashtra, Anti-Corruption Bureau sleuths on the first day itself totalled disproportionate assets worth over Rs 500 crore. On a reported monthly income of Rs 1 lakh, this babu amassed these assets including prime urban lands and a luxury hotel. No prizes for guessing how he did it, for such seizures and arrests of rogue bureaucrats have become all-too-common in State after State, Assam no exception. Observers are now viewing the latest DoPT order as the Modi government’s renewed thrust on ‘zero-tolerance towards graft’, that it means business in ensuring greater transparency by making bureaucrats toe the line. If so, will it succeed?

 

In 2011 too, the DoPT had warned defaulting bureaucrats of withholding vigilance clearances, putting their names on its website, denying promotion and taking other punitive action. Earlier, property returns filed by government officers were scrutinised only if there was a criminal investigation ongoing or on suspicion of corruption. The DoPT, in fact, had been stoutly rejecting RTI applications seeking details of assets of government servants, on grounds of privacy. The Central Information Commission (CIC) had been arguing otherwise — that disclosure of assets of a public servant is not debarred under invasion of privacy clause of Right to Information Act. With the pressure mounting, particularly after the Anna Hazare-led India Against Corruption movement, the DoPT in 2014 had to change the rules on property returns so as to make the information public. As per these rules notified under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, every public servant was to file declaration, information and annual returns of assets and liabilities (as on March 31 every year) by July 31; such declarations would include those of spouses and dependent children, and would be in addition to returns filed under various services rules. This at once provoked a backlash from the bureaucracy. Civil servant associations made frantic representations that declaring assets of family members ‘would compromise their security’. The wife of a government official moved Delhi High Court, contending that the DoPT rule violated her right to privacy. There was much brainstorming within the government whether family members of government servants should be exempted from making such disclosures, or to keep the information in sealed cover to be opened only during investigations or official proceedings against the concerned official.

 

At this juncture the question arose whether elected political representatives could also raise ‘similar apprehensions’ about disclosing assets of family members, if the demand of government servants was accepted. Be as it may, Parliament last year passed the Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Bill, 2016, exempting spouse and children from mandatory disclosure of assets by public servants. During the debate, the point was raised as to what will the government do if corrupt officials stash away ill-gotten gains in the names of their spouses and children. However, with the Modi government also enacting a law against benami property, it now has an instrument to seize such assets. Nevertheless, large sections of the bureaucracy continue to be recalcitrant, and political leaders can push them only so far. Even a firebrand leader like Yogi Adityanath came up against a wall of such defiance when he ordered babus to declare their assets, immediately after taking reins in Lucknow as UP chief minister. At a national convention organised by a students’ body in Gurugram recently, BJP national vice president Vinay Sahasrabuddhe put it candidly by speaking as “an academician first and a politician later”. According to him, politicians who are supposed to give orders to bureaucrats have “little knowledge of the subject” and those instructed to obey the orders “naturally have a sense of contempt”. What he did not mention was that, with many political leaders themselves steeped in corruption after coming through an opaque electoral funding system, blatant use of muscle power and using officialdom to run a flourishing commission raj — there is little moral authority left in the system to keep babus in line! If the Modi government really cracks the whip this time by denying babus any more extension to declare assets, it will be an achievement with an election year rapidly nearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of transparency.
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION




      Appeal No.ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006


      Right to Information Act – Sections 6/18

      Name of Appellant : Satyapal
      Name of Public Authority : CPIO, TCIL

      DECISION


      Decisions appealed against :
       
       
      The CPIO, TCIL has declined to supply a copy of a document on the ground that the same forms part of “file Noting” which, according to CPIO is exempt under the RTI Act. Appellate authority also has confirmed the decision of the CPIO. The appellant contents that he has the right to seek information contained in the “File Notings”.
      Facts
      Shri Satyapal – appellant, a resident of Delhi, applied to the CPIO, TCIL seeking for copies of certain documents by a letter dated 17th October, 2005. By a letter dated 14th November, 2005, CPIO, TCIL furnished copies of certain documents, however, stating that a particular document sought for was a file noting in the Department of Telecom and as such it was exempt from disclosure. By a letter dated 17th Nov. 2005, Shri Satyapal again wrote to the CPIO, TCIL pointing out that the information sought for by him did not fall within the ambit of Section 8 of the RTI Act and as such the same should be supplied. He also brought to the notice of CPIO, TCIL that in respect of information already furnished, a copy of a bill in respect of advertisement relating to independence day 1996 had not been supplied. By a letter dated 28th Nov. 2005, the CPIO, TCIL while furnishing a copy of the bill, once again reiterated that file notings are exempt from disclosure in terms of the clarification given by the Department of Personnel in their website. Aggrieved by this decision, Shri Satyapaul preferred an appeal to the appellate authority by a letter dated 14th Dec. 2005 stating that file notings are not exempt from disclosure in terms of Section 8 of the RTI Act. He followed up the same by letters dated 14th Dec., 31st Dec. 2005 and 5th January, 2006. The appellate authority by a letter dated 5.1.2006 rejected the appeal stating “The information sought by you pertains to the file notings of the Department of Telecommunication as also that of TCIL. I am of the view that TCIL is exempted from disclosing the information sought by you under Section 8(1)(d)&(e) of the RTI Act. UO No.7-17/95-PP dated 4.10.1995 is a part of file notings. You have mentioned in your appeal that the information has been denied misconstruing it as “file notings” by CPIO, TCIL. I confirm that these are notings in the file”. Aggrieved with the decision of the appellate authority, Shri Satyapal has filed this appeal before this Commission. According to Shri Satyapal, there is no specific exemption from disclosure as far as file notings are concerned in Section 8 of RTI Act.
      Commission’s Decision :
      It is seen that while the CPIO declined to furnish the information sought for on the ground that file notings are exempt from disclosure, the appellate authority, without confirming or rejecting the stand of CPIO that file notings are exempt from disclosure, has relied on Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act to deny the information.
      As is evident from the Preamble to the RTI Act, the Act has been enacted to vest with the citizens, the right of access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of any public authority. Conscious of the fact that access to certain information may not be in the public interest, the Act also provides certain exemptions from disclosure. Whether file notings fall within the exempted class is the issue for consideration.
      Section 2(f) defines information as “Any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinion, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law or the time being in force”.
      Section 2(j) reads : “Right to information means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of document or records; (iii) …… (iv) …. “. In terms of Section 2(i) “Record” includes (a) any documents, manuscript and file;
      In the system of functioning of public authorities, a file is opened for every subject/matter dealt with by the public authority. While the main file would contain all the materials connected with the subject/matter, generally, each file also has what is known as note sheets, separate from but attached with the main file. Most of the discussions on the subject/matter are recorded in the note sheets and decisions are mostly based on the recording in the note sheets and even the decisions are recorded on the note sheets. These recordings are generally known as “file notings”. Therefore, no file would be complete without note sheets having “file notings”. In other words, note sheets containing “file notings” are an integral part of a file. Some times, notings are made on the main file also, which obviously would be a part of the file itself. In terms of Section 2(i), a record includes a file and in terms of Section 2(j) right to information extends to accessibility to a record. Thus, a combined reading of Sections 2(f), (i)&(j) would indicate that a citizen has the right of access to a file of which the file notings are an integral part. If the legislature had intended that “file notings” are to be exempted from disclosure, while defining a “record” or “file” it could have specifically provided so. Therefore, we are of the firm view, that, in terms of the existing provisions of the RTI Act, a citizen has the right to seek information contained in “file notings” unless the same relates to matters covered under Section 8 of the Act. Thus, the reliance of the CPIO, TCILO on the web site clarification of the Department of Personnel to deny the information on the basis that ‘file notings’ are exempted, is misplaced.
      However, it is seen from the decision of the appellate authority that he was of the view that TCIL was exempted from disclosing the information sought, under Section 8(1)(d)&(e) of RTI Act. In terms of Section 8, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information relating to matters covered under subsections (a) to (j) of that Section. Section 8(d) exempts information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property and Sub section (e) exempts information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. Even then, at the discretion of the competent authority even these information could be disclosed if he is of the opinion that public interest so warrants. From the decision of the appellate authority of TCIL, which is not a speaking one, it is not clear whether the file notings, a copy of which was denied to the appellant, relate to commercial confidence or trade secret or intellectual property or is available to TCIL in its fiduciary relationship.
      Direction :
      Since we have held that file notings are not, as a matter of law, exempt from disclosure, the CPIO, TCIL is directed to furnish the information contained in the file notings, on or before 15.2.2006 to the appellant. However, if the CPIO, TCIL is still of the opinion that the said file notings are exempt under Section 8(d) & (e), he is at liberty to place the file notings before the Commission on 13.2.2006 at 11 AM to determine whether the same is exempt under these sections and even if so, whether disclosure of the same would be in the public interest or not.
      Let a copy of this decision be sent to CPIO, TCIL and the appellant.


      Sd/-




      (Padma Balasubramanian)




      Information Commissioner




      Sd/-




      (Wajahat Habibullah)



      Chief Information Commissioner


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy