Indian
Express: Mumbai: Friday, June 21, 2019.
RTI
activist termed the PMO's response as unprincipled and immature and alleged
that the RTI reply itself points to something very much fishy.
The
Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has declined to share details of complaints of
corruption it received against Union Ministers in the first Narendra Modi
government, a Right To Information activist said here on Thursday.
City-based
activist Anil Galgali said that the PMO has denied his request, invoking the
RTI Act's Section 7(9) on grounds that it "would disproportionately divert
the resources of the public authority as it may be a subjective as well as
cumbersome exercise".
"Section
7(9) of the Act specifies that the information shall ordinarily be provided in
the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the
resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or
preservation of the record in question," he said.
In
his reply, Under Secretary in the PMO and CPIO Praveen stated that the PMO
keeps receiving complaints against various Union Ministers as well as
high-level functionaries in both corruption-related and non-corruption related
matters, but does not keep records of these complaints in any single master
file.
The
RTI reply added that the complaints are pseudonymous and anonymous in nature
and they are duly examined, keeping in the view of the veracity of the
allegations or accusations and supporting documents in relation to these
accusations.
"After
taking the needful action, the records are not kept in any single master file
or collated and kept in one place. These are scattered across different sectors
and units of this office and in view of the above, the collation of information
sought will require the undertaking of thorough search of numerous files,"
the PMO said.
Galgali,
however, termed the PMO's response as "unprincipled and immature" and
alleged that the RTI reply itself points to something "very much
fishy", as complaints filed against the Union Ministers may be plenty.
"When
the government has given marching orders of compulsory retirement to several
top level bureaucrats, then why it cannot act against the others, including
Ministers or Ministers of State," he asked.