The Wire: National: Wednesday,
05 August 2020.
The
Bharatiya Janata Party has been very far from a silent spectator on the
demolition of the Babri Masjid and construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. But
when it comes to questions around recent developments, the Narendra Modi
government has been far less forthcoming.
The
Centre has largely kept mum in response to two Right to Information queries one
filed before and the other after the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment on the
Ayodhya title dispute. The apex court’s ruling paved the way for the
construction of a temple, and construction work will begin soon after the
much-touted ‘bhoomi pujan‘ ceremony on August 5.
At
VHP-RSS ‘Dharma Sansad’, BJP was urged to construct temple
In
November 2018, a ‘dharma sansad’ was organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and
Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, parent organisation of the BJP, to demand the
construction of a Ram temple since the party was in power both at the Centre
and in Uttar Pradesh.
It was
also at this event that Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray who in 2019 went on to
became the Maharashtra chief minister said the government should bring a law
and pass it in both houses of parliament to construct a temple. He was quoted
as saying: “I’ve no hidden agenda in coming to Ayodhya. I’ve come to express
sentiments of all Indians and Hindus across world. All are waiting for Ram
Temple.”
PMO
refused to reveals directions, instructions issued following event
However,
when a Lucknow-based RTI activist Nutan Thakur filed a query with the Prime
Minister’s Office a few days later, on November 27, 2018, to seek “details of
the various directions/instructions issued by the Prime Minister and/or the
Prime Minister Office to the Ministry of Home Affairs and/or the Uttar Pradesh
Government in the wake of the recent incidences in Ayodhya related with Dharma
Sansad”, she found the response unsatisfactory.
The
chief public information officer, instead of providing a response to her
queries, termed the information sought “indiscriminate and of a roving and
open-ended nature”. Thakur then filed a first appeal, but the First Appellate
Authority upheld the CPIO’s response.
RTI
activist laments standard grounds for denying information
Thakur
then moved the Central Information Commission, which heard the matter in June
this year. The matter came up before chief information commissioner Bimal
Julka, who said that the CPIO submitted that the subject raised by the
appellant in her RTI application is very wide and the appellant failed to
provide the specifics of the correspondences with respect to which information
was sought.
Though
in view of the CPIO’s submissions, the CIC disposed of the matter, Thakur, who
is an RTI activist and files queries pertaining to various issues of public
interest, told The Wire that of late “most CPIOs have started refusing replies
on the ground that either the information sought is exempted, sensitive or
vague”.
MHA
denies information on composition of Trust for Ram Temple
Similarly,
another RTI application filed by activist Sushil Raghav with the Union home
ministry, seeking details about the trustees of the Trust constituted to
oversee the construction of a Ram temple following the Supreme Court judgment,
failed to elicit any details.
The apex
court had in its November 2019 judgment directed that a trust be set up to
construct a temple at the site where the Babri Masjid once stood.
In his
petition, filed on June 13 this year, Raghav asked about six specific aspects
pertaining to the trustees and the trust appointed by the Centre in compliance
with the Supreme Court’s judgment. He had asked for a full list of the names of
trustees, their locus standi for having been selected as trustees, copies of
details of criminal cases registered as FIRs against them, a copy of the
constitution of the trust, details about its funds and its aims and objectives.
It was
reported that the CPIO of the home ministry, in a quick reply sent within a
week of the application, stated that “in this regard, it is informed that
information(s) sought by you are falls under the section 8 of RTI Act 2005.
Hence, information could not provided (sic)”. Section 8 of the Act lists the
matters that are covered under “exemption from disclosure of information”.
Petition
had asked for details of trustees, Shah had given only partial information
Raghav
had earlier in February also made a representation to the MHA soon after Prime
Minister Narendra Modi had on February 5 announced the setting up of a trust.
He had sought details on the full composition of the body since details of only
some members were revealed by Union home minister Amit Shah.
In that
representation to the MHA, Raghav had also claimed that he hailed “from dynasty
of Lord Shri Ram or Ramlalla (juristic person)” and that his surname was
“derived from Raghu descendants of Raghu the forefather of Lord Shri Ram”. On
not getting a response to that, he filed an RTI application on June 13.
.JPG)
.JPG)
