The
Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday, 08 March 2016.
Complaining
against bribery should be an easy and known process. A citizen should not
struggle to know this information. But unfortunately even after filing RTI, a
citizen did not get it. He was compelled to knock on the doors of CIC. It is
the duty of Delhi Chief Minister or his deputy, Lt Governor and the Union Home
Minister to tell the citizens, together or separately, as to where he has to
complain against corrupt officers. It is unfortunate that instead of fighting
corruption, the governments are fighting each other about who has power to
fight corruption.
V K Garg, an
advocate, sought from the Directorate of Vigilance, ACB and Department of Law,
GNCTD (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi), 20 points of
information about jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Though he wanted copies of Office
Memorandums, Rules Regulations about powers and functions, orders regarding the
same, procedures, along with file notings and linked documents, powers of the
Lt Governor, Union Home Minister, Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister in
taking decisions regarding ACB, etc, he was in fact asking to know where to
file complaints against corruption in Delhi.
Except
Recruitment Rules for Rs 38, nothing was offered to know. Officers said “no
such information is available in ACB.” Garg filed three complaints before the
CIC. The PIOs of ACB and DoV took strain to cull out some answers, given the
complexity, confusion and jurisdictional limitations. When top Constitutional
authorities like Lt Governor, Delhi CM and the Union Government approached
Courts to know their powers, a citizen cannot expect a PIO to give a clear picture
under the RTI Act.
In fact,
complaints are requests for the information as the appellant and all citizens
have a right to information about fighting corruption. Applicant being an advocate is expected to be
well aware of the controversy about the jurisdiction and powers regarding ACB
of GNCTD vis-à-vis Union of India; Delhi being a Union Territory. Because of ambiguity and confusion between
powers of GNCTD and Centre, CIC found a genuine need for clarification.
RTI Act gives
a very limited right of seeking copies of documents containing information as
held or controlled by a public authority. When GNCTD and Union are parties
before the judiciary to know the limits or extent of their power to investigate
corruption charges, none can expect ‘information’ in the form of interpretation
and judgment from PIO or the head of public authority through an application
under RTI by paying Rs 10.
Neither PIO,
nor First Appellate Authority nor even the Information Commission can decide on
this complex issue of Constitutional interpretation in the wake of GOs,
Notifications, OMs etc which are now under consideration by the courts.
The appellant
ought to have known that on May 25, 2015, the Delhi High Court gave a judgment
criticising notification of Ministry of Home Affairs giving more powers to Lt
Governor explaining the commitment of Union Government to fighting corruption
and that the Honorable Supreme Court by admitting the SLP filed by the Ministry
of Home Affairs and granting stay on Delhi High Court judgment on May 29, 2015,
has been seized of the matter.
The Chief
Minister of Delhi reportedly said: “Forty years ago, the Anti-Corruption Bureau
had come up in Delhi, its jurisdiction was over officials of all agencies based
in Delhi, be it of the Union Government, DDA, Police, MCD, the ACB could probe
instances of corruption of all these bodies…… Last year when our 49-day
government was formed, we had filed a case against a big person of this
country. After our government quit, the Centre issued an order restricting the
ACB to Delhi government officials only…..It said the ACB won't look after the
corruption of Union government officials, police and NDMC.
Today, Delhi
HC ordered that the Centre and MHA have no rights to interfere in the matters
of ACB. Media also reported: The gazette notification dated May 21 by the Home
Ministry had said the LG will have jurisdictions over matters connected with
services, public order, police and land and he may consult with the Chief
Minister whenever he thinks necessary on issues of services using his (LG’s)
own "discretion".
The
disclosure made under Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act, by Delhi Government in
website: delhigovt.nic.in/upload/rti_manual/217-1.doc) does not appear to have
sufficiently answered the information needs of the applicant as it was made
before certain GOs amending the existing norms of jurisdiction.
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 departments.
Undoubtedly, the information sought from the Lt Governor, Chief Minister,
Deputy Chief Minister and Union Home Minister is such that it should have been
disclosed under Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act, 2005, and as both the political
Governments in Union of India and GNCTD have made categorical commitments to
fight corruption, it is their duty to inform in general as part of
administrative law, and statutory obligation of under Right to Information Act
in particular, where the citizen needs 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.The situation on hand is an example;
one head constable (HC) demanded a bribe of Rs 20,000; the victim could not pay
more than Rs 10,000. When due was insisted on being paid, the victim approached
the ACB, which trapped HC and arrested him.
In his bail
application, HC challenged before Delhi High Court the jurisdictional authority
of ACB to investigate charges against a police constable who belonged to Union
Home Ministry. The Delhi High Court held that ACB has power to investigate, but
the apex court stayed the operation of the judgment. Whether a courageous
citizen should report bribery or wait for final judicial verdict?
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? Governments
have a duty. If this situation continues, the honest people, investigating
police officers, who risk their life and career to catch hold culprits of
bribery, will be demoralised and citizens will be discouraged from complaining,
leaving the entire field for corrupt public servants.
The
Commission hoped and believed that no government would apparently approve such
an ambiguous anti-corruption regime to prevail and want its citizen to be
courageous complainants. PIOs have reasonable causes to respond in such a
manner and also understand the helplessness of the department of law in not
responding to this complex issue, especially when the executives both State
(UT) and Center themselves are expecting to be enlightened by Judiciary about
fighting corruption. Part of the information sought by the appellant is
available in the form of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Anil Kumar v
GNCTD, 25th May 2015.
Recognising
the need of the citizens to know where to complain against the bribery, the
Commission directed: “the office of Honourable Lt Governor, GNCTD, the office
of the Chief Minister GNCTD/the office of the Deputy Chief Minister, and the
office of the Union Minister for Home Affairs, New Delhi, to provide the
necessary information in the form of FAQs based on the current status of the
powers, rules, regulations and procedure regarding anti-corruption complaints, in
response to points raised by the applicant as part of their duty under Section
4(1)(b) of RTI Act, 2005 within two months.” (Based on decision on 29.2.2016,
Vivek Garg Vs. Directorate of Vigilance & Department of Law, GNCTD,
CIC/SA/C/2015/000238)
Copy of Order