MEA refuses RTI plea on Lalit Modi passport

Propagate Sanskrit to purify minds of people: Sushma Swaraj

At a time when external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj is under fierce attack from the Opposition for “helping” Mr Lalit Modi obtain UK travel documents, her ministry has refused to provide any information about the passport issue involving the scandal-tainted former IPL boss.

The ministry has refused to answer an RTI application containing seven questions, including one on who had taken a decision not to appeal in the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi high court’s decision restoring Mr Modi’s passport, according to PTI. The MEA, however, said the application has been “transferred” to its Consular, Passport and Visa Division as well as to the ministries of finance and Home, according to the reports. The MEA response drew sharp criticism from the Congress and the Left.

Responding to an RTI plea containing seven questions, the MEA reportedly said that while a part of the queries did not come under the purview of the transparency law, it pleaded lack of information regarding the other queries.

“Kindly note that the office of External Affairs Minister (EAM) has informed that the questions in Serial 1 to 3 of your RTI does not seem to fall under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. As regards queries Sl No. 4 to 7, no information is available with EAM’s office,” the MEA reply, dated June 26, was quoted by the news agency as having stated.

The RTI query, filed by one Rayo from Haryana, was received by the ministry on June 19 when the Opposition was piling pressure on Ms Swaraj on the Lalit Modi controversy.

The first three questions included why Ms Swaraj did not advise Mr Modi to apply for a temporary travel document to the Indian high commission in London instead if she intended to help him on humanitarian grounds to travel to Portugal. It also asked why the external affairs minister did not insist on Mr Modi’s return to India as a condition for issuing a temporary Indian travel document.

The questions from No. 4 to 7 included a query on whether the government has lodged any objection with the UK for granting a residency permit to Mr Lalit Modi, who has refused to appear before the Enforcement Directorate, and what steps the government has taken since the issue of a fresh passport to the former IPL boss to enforce the ED summons. It also included a query on who took the decision not to file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Delhi high court’s ruling setting aside the cancellation of Mr Lalit Modi’s passport. It asked whether the ED, at whose instance the passport was cancelled, was consulted on the issue. The RTI application also asked about the government’s response to Mr Lalit Modi’s “wild charge that his life will be in danger if he returned to India”.

The MEA’s action drew stinging criticism from the Opposition, with the Congress calling it against the “spirit” of the RTI Act and the CPI(M) alleging that the transparency law has been “sabotaged” by the Modi government. “This is against the spirit of the RTI Act. In fact, any private information need not be disclosed, but here is a case which is affecting even the security of the country and a person who is a fugitive, who is an absconder, against whom there is an inquiry going on... And when information is sought on that, it simply cannot be treated as a private matter,” senior Congress leader P.C. Chacko was quoted as saying.

CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat said it was “more than just stonewalling”, adding, “It’s a shame that the RTI Act, which provides a framework for some amount of transparency in governance, has been completely diluted and sabotaged by the Modi government ... So the government which came on claims of transparency and good governance is sabotaging the initiatives. Now they say they do not have the information... Makes a mockery of the act itself and the law for transparency.”

The BJP, however, made a cautious defence with party spokesman Nalin Kohli saying, “There is a process about RTI, and there are certain rules about it, and these rules are followed. If it is about specifics, the concerned officers would be the right place to ask.”