Make intel report on Chaturvedi’s harassment public, directs CIC

Times of India‎‎‎‎‎‎: Chandigarh: Saturday, April 23, 2016.

The Central Information Commission has directed the Intelligence Bureau (IB) to make public its report on the alleged harassment of whistleblower Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi during the previous Congress regime in Haryana.

The officer, currently posted as deputy secretary at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, has sought a copy of the IB report in connection with his petition before the Supreme Court seeking action against Haryana officials.

The IB is one of the organizations specified in second schedule to the RTI Act under Section 24, exempting it from purview of RTI Act except when CIC considered that the information sought is either related to corruption or violation of human rights by that organization.

The Union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) did not supply the report to Chaturvedi on the basis of IB's objection.

But the commission has now observed, "The IB, in performance of its duty, established that appellant was being harassed for exposing corruption". It's sad that the same department which recognized and established fact of harassment of the appellant denied that copy to him."

"Similarly, it was two-member committee constituted by MoEF which established the 'extreme hardship' the appellant was subjected to. This indicates the mindset of public authorities with reference to RTI Act,"observed information commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu in the order passed on Thursday.

According to the panel, the CPIO of the MoEF should have acted independently and applied his mind as mandated by RTI Act to examine what would be harm or threat to national security if complete report containing this issue is shared.

"This attitude lends support to the criticism that state is the biggest litigant fighting a citizen or its own officer in tribunals and courts. Can this be called acting in good faith? Good faith means the officers are expected to act with due care and caution. Public authorities should neither fear nor hesitate to take a decision in time and should not throw their responsibility of decision making on others. The indecision is compelling the tribunals to step into the shoes of executive authorities. These authorities should understand that RTI Act is a tool to enable that fear to decide, to decide," Acharyulu stated in the order.