Moneylife: Pune: Saturday, July 22, 2017.
Umesh
Mohurle, an employee of the postal department in Gondia, near Nagpur, who
allegedly committed fraud to the tune of Rs1 crore and is accused of tampering
with official information, is under investigation. A complaint has been filed
with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This propelled his wife and
other family members to file over 70 applications under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act since 2015, 51 of which were in second appeal with the
Central Information Commission (CIC).
While disposing
off these second appeals, early this week, Central Information Commissioner
(CIC) Prof M Sridhar Acharyulu, said “The public authority should be cautious
while rejecting an application because, though the Mr Mohurle is an accused in
fraud case pending investigation, he cannot be denied the entitlement to RTI as
a citizen merely on those grounds.”
He directed
that only information which could hamper investigation should not be given. The
order elaborates, “The foundation of criminal justice system is influenced by
principles of natural justice of transparency and openness of public trial. RTI
includes within its rubric right to information of the accused, victim and
others… If it impedes the process of investigation, then information need not be
disclosed. Thus, the only qualification before furnishing information is
whether it impedes investigation of the prosecution, given under S.8 (1) (h) of
the RTI Act. Any information that does not impede must be given to accused in a
fraud case by the CBI.”
Appreciating
the patience of the postal department in handling the 75 RTI applications
despite facing harassment from the couple, the CIC has advised “to examine each
RTI application and furnish information if it is relevant and reject such
applications where the applicant is seeking repetitive information.”
Umesh Mohurle
and his wife Dipa have filed multiple RTI applications, including one related
to the raiding of their house. The CIC warned them “not to misuse the RTI Act
to serve selfish personal motive or vengeance against the officers of the
Department”.
The CIC
observed that filing of multiple RTI applications could be a tool being used by
the accused and his family to put pressure on the authorities. He states in his
order, “If the accused is filing multiple RTIs in the name of the mother,
father and wife, besides his own application, there is the possibility of
building up pressure on the public authority and frightening the complainants
and investigating officers from continuing the inquiry process… The Commission
directs the respondent authority to provide information used in the
investigation but be cautious in providing information that does not impede the
investigation of the prosecution.’’
One of the
RTI applications filed by Dipa Mohurle sought information on whether the postal
authority can raid a residence (it was raided during the investigation of the
case). She sought copies of the rules pertaining to raids, the name of the
official who raided the house, copy of the inventory after the postal authority
collected a lot of material and medical files from her house and the name of
the official who gave permission to the team to raid the house.
CPIO replied
that the investigation was related to the fraud case against her husband and
there was no raid and the copy of the inventory was provided to the appellant.
He also stated during the hearing that the appellant had left the headquarters
without permission of the competent authority and has not cooperated in the
investigation of the department. Due to this, the CPIO faced lots problems in
completing the investigation and framing the charge sheet.
Early this
year, the Kerala High Court ordered that a copy of the FIR should be provided
to a Non-Resident Indian who was the accused in a marital conflict case. He had
sought a copy of the FIR under RTI but was denied it. The Kerala High Court
order said:
On an
application submitted by an W.P(C) No.1240 of 2015 accused for copy of the FIR,
the concerned police station/office of Superintendent of Police shall make
available copy of the FIR within two days.
Copy of the
FIR can also be obtained by an accused from the court of the concerned
Magistrate where the report has already been sent, within two working days from
the date of making the application.
.JPG)
.JPG)
