Delhi’s lieutenant-governor, chief minister and Union home minister must clarify to the public within two months their powers, jurisdiction and procedures to handle graft complaints, CIC has held, not
Delhi’s lieutenant-governor, chief minister and Union home minister must clarify to the public within two months their powers, jurisdiction and procedures to handle graft complaints, CIC has held, noting that the current “ambiguity” will discourage people from taking on corruption.
Hearing the case of RTI activist Vivek Garg, who sought to know the powers of Anti-Corruption Branch of the Delhi government, information commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said in view of the “ambiguity and confusion” regarding the extent of the powers of the GNCTD and the Centre, which are embroiled in legal wrangling over the issue, there is a “genuine need” for clarification.
“When the GNCTD and Union are parties before the judiciary to know the limits or extent of their power to investigate corruption charges, an advocate applicant cannot expect ‘information’ in the form of interpretation and judgment from PIO or the head of public authority through an application under the RTI by paying Rs 10,” Mr Acharyulu said.
He said after perusing all questions raised by the app-ellant in three of his applications on fight against corruption, it is clear that there is a lot of confusion among minds of the Delhi people reflecting the questions raised by Mr Garg who himself is a lawyer and well aware with the issue.
“The commission would like to reiterate what Parliament said through the RTI Act that the public authority has a duty to inform the citizen where to complain against corruption and which has proper authority to receive and act on such complaint so that people can question widespread corruption in different public department,” Mr Acharyulu said in the order.
He said as both the Centre and Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) have made categorical commitments to fight corruption, it is their duty to inform in general as part of administrative law, and statutory obligation under Right to Information Act in particular, where the citizen need to complain against corruption.
“Ambiguity in the process of complaining and about who has power or jurisdiction to investigate complaints against bribery will directly facilitate it and discourage complaints against corruption,” he said.
The information commissioner said undoubtedly the information sought from the lieutenant-governor, chief minister, deputy chief minister, Union home minister is such that it should have been disclosed under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, as mandatory proactive disclosure clause.
Mr Acharyulu cited a recent case of a police constable of Delhi police who was arrested by the ACB in graft charges which was challenged before the high court which gave a green signal to the ACB to proceed, but the apex court stayed the order. “Whether a courageous citizen should report bribery or wait for final judicial verdict ” he asked.
Does the Government want its citizens to be vibrant fighters of corruption or remain dormant victims of bribery as the jurisdictional issues are pending final decision in three Estates Legislature, Executive and Judiciary ,” he asked.
