The Sunday Guardian: National: Sunday,
September 09, 2018.
The Income Tax department that comes
under the Ministry of Finance has refused to share the details of goods, their
value, amount of cash including the actual value of diamonds, which have been
seized by the department from Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi. The I-T department
excused itself saying that the information, if disclosed, would endanger the
life or physical safety of individuals and might impede the process of
investigation.
This reporter had filed an RTI with the
Ministry of Finance seeking the details of the seizure, which includes cash and
diamonds that the IT department had claimed to have seized from Modi and
Choksi. Both are accused in the multi thousand crore worth PNB scam. The
government of India has proclaimed them to be fugitives.
However, in its reply, the I-T
department, while invoking section 8 (1) (G) and 8 (1) (H) clauses, stated that
the information sought, if provided, would either endanger the safety of
persons involved or impede the process of investigation. It further stated that
no presence of a bona fide public interest was established by the information
seeker nor there was any substantive or cogent reason to seek the information.
“The very purpose of the RTI was to strengthen the citizens through information
which increases the accountability of the public servants, but, in this case,
no such motive could be discerned”, the reply signed by Ashish Kumar Pandey,
Central Public Information Officer, DDIT, Mumbai, states.
The information sought under RTI was
limited to the details of the property, goods seized from Modi and Choksi which
in any case was being shared with the media “unofficially” by I-T department.
No information regarding the source behind the seizures or the whistle blower
was sought.
Anti- corruption crusaders claim that the
DDIT wing of the IT department, which is based in Mumbai and is investigating
the scam, has been “planting” source based stories in the media claiming that
it had seized among others, 170 pieces of high value painting, more than 30
immovable properties and currency from hundreds of lockers.
“The information sought was limited to
the goods that the IT has claimed to have seized from the duo in much
publicised raids. The information sought would not have harmed anyone, except
the scamsters perhaps. I do not understand that how will this information (how
much the IT has seized from the duo), if it was made known to the public, would
impede investigation. The reply only shows that the IT department is trying to
hide information,” a former IT commissioner said.