The Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday, January 23, 2018.
Security for
RTI applicant is an important subject not dealt with by the RTI Act. Does it
mean that Act cares not for the lives of the applicants? No. If a person’s life
is under threat simply because he asked for some information, which is a
legally guaranteed right, who should be responsible?
Harinder
Dhingra filed an urgent petition saying that he was receiving multiple threats
to his life and safety in the past 24 hours, to stop his efforts to secure information
about the impersonation scandal in the appointments of LDCs and SSO
(Inspectors) in ESIC, Faridabad. He also stated that because the ESIC was not
implementing the orders of CIC, threats to him had been started.
He wrote to
the Commission that he filed representations to the official email IDs of
Haryana police, the Ministry and the ESIC today (i.e, January 5, 2018). The
appellant approached the Commission through his representative during the lunch
time and also forwarded the copies of his representations to the three
aforementioned public authorities.
The appellant
filed various RTI applications wherein directions were issued on 24th March,
2017 which was partly compiled with by ESIC and the matter was also referred to
the CBI. The Commission directed the ESIC to provide information regarding
appointment/recruitment of Social Service Officers (Inspectors).
It was
noticed that though there was a serious suspicion about impersonation, as
visible from the contentions of both the parties, nothing tangible could come
out of the exercise under RTI and other investigations. One of the reasons for
this is weeding out of records like the copies of admit cards etc.
The officers
representing the public authority represented to the Commission that the ESIC
had learnt from its past experiences like this and was making foolproof
arrangements to prevent any possibility of impersonation in the examination.
The officers also submitted about the measures to increase the transparency and
publish the results on website immediately after the completion of the
evaluation along with the merit list to prevent the irregularities.
The
Commission felt that there was a need to inquire into the allegations of
impersonation and irregularities raised by the appellant. The Commission
recommended a follow-up action on letter dated 09.08.2017 and reminder dated
30.09.2017 addressed to Joint Director (TFC), CBI, requesting them to use the
services of the handwriting experts through CFSL to bring out the persons
involved in the impersonation scandal in ESIC.
The
Commission directed the Central Forensic Science Laboratory to inform the
appellant when they would respond to the letter dated 25.09.2017 forwarded from
the Additional Commissioner of ESIC and provide a certified copy of their
conclusions to the appellant within 15 days from the date of preparing such
letter/report, and the CPIO of ESIC is directed to forward this Order to CPIO
concerned, Central Forensic Science Laboratory and follow-up accordingly. The
Commission directs the respondent authority to inform the appellant about the
progress in the investigation and action taken on the serious issue raised by
the appellant.
The
Commission also directed the public authority to provide certified copies of
the extract of weeding out register and also directed the Chief Vigilance
Officer, ESIC, to inform the status of inquiry, along with latest action
status, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. Dhingra also
submitted that: “I am pursuing this case of fraud played on deserving
candidates, who lost out on the jobs to non-deserving candidates, which in turn
turned this Mafia against me, who can be seen roaming around my residence
enquiring about me.
The delay in
not providing information by ESIC has exposed me to risk of being physically
harmed and as such it is prayed that ESIC is directed to provide information
and also put on public domain so that risk to the appellant is minimized.”
It was
personally represented that after this Commission ordered the public authority
to furnish the copies of report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL),
who analysed the admit-cards and attendance sheets, and the orders were
uploaded on the official website of the Commission on 30.12.2017, the threats
started pouring in.
It was
represented that some unidentified people passing by him, when he was walking
in his colony, threatened him to stop pursuing the RTI cases, and were leaving
the scene immediately, even when Dhingra was asking him to come home and
discuss.
The appellant
said that such incidents happened at different times involving different people
in the last 24 hours. The Commission found that threats were serious in nature
and risk to life and liberty of appellant increased. He also wanted the
action-related information on his representation for protection filed before
the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Chairman ESIC and the Director General
of Police, Haryana.
In view of
the urgency and seriousness of the matters, the Commission considered that this
complaint of non-compliance as an immediate extension of second appeals in the
above referred numbers and directed the authorities concerned to initiate
measures to secure the life and liberty of the appellant and his family members
and inform him the steps taken to assure him of protection. The CIC order says:
A.The
Commission directs Shri Raj Kumar, IAS, Director General of ESIC, to take
necessary measures to ensure the life and safety of the appellant Mr. Harinder
Dhingra and his family members, and file compliance report within 48 hours.
B.The
Commission directs Shri Arun Kumar, Insurance Commissioner, (Revenue &
Benefit, Recruitment, Inspection & Actuarial, Pubic Relations, P&A Except
E-II, E-IV & E-VI), Ministry of Labour and Employment, to initiate
necessary steps to secure the life and safety of the appellant and his family
members, besides instructing speedy investigation and strict action against the
culprits, who are obviously behind the threats, and because any delay in
investigation might increase the risk of appellant and others, and file
compliance report within 48 hours.
C.The
Commission also directs Shri Baljit Singh Sandhu, Director General of Police,
Haryana, to urgently act on this complaint and provide adequate security to Mr.
Harinder Dhingra and his family members, besides, inform him the action taken
and submit compliance report to the Commission within 48 hours.
D.The
Commission also directs the CPIO, ESIC Hqrs., Faridabad, to comply the order
dated 11.12.2017 and send the compliance report within 10 days.
The Whistle
Blower Protection Bill 2011 is part of a drive to eliminate corruption in the
country's bureaucracy and it was passed by the Lok Sabha on 27 December 2011
and by Rajya Sabha on 21 February 2014 and received the President's assent on 9
May 2014.
This is “an
Act to establish a mechanism to receive complaints relating to disclosure on
any allegation of corruption or willful misuse of power or willful misuse of
discretion against any public servant and to inquire or cause an inquiry into
such disclosure and to provide adequate safeguards against victimization of the
person making such complaint and for matters connected therewith and incidental
thereto”. The salient features are:
- What: It seeks to protect whistle blowers, i.e., persons making a public interest disclosure related to an act of corruption, misuse of power, or criminal offense by a public servant.
- Who: Anybody can be a whistle blower: Any public servant or any other person including a non-governmental organisation may make such a disclosure to the Central or the State Vigilance Commission.
- Identity: It insists on disclosure of identity. Every complaint has to include the identity of the complainant.
- Confidentiality: However, the Act protected identity from disclosure: The Vigilance Commission shall not disclose the identity of the complainant except to the head of the department if he deems it necessary. The Act penalises any person who has disclosed the identity of the complainant.
- Penalising complainant: The Act has a controversial clause that prescribes penalties for knowingly making false complaints.
Whether this
Act extends protection to the information seekers under RTI Act? Whether information
seekers fall under the category of ‘persons who made disclosures to State or
Central Vigilance Commissioner’?