CBI appeals against decision allowing disclosure of alleged corruption, human rights violations
- In Reports
- 05:17 PM, May 15, 2024
- Myind Staff
The Delhi High Court has requested a response from Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Sanjeev Chaturvedi regarding a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI has challenged an order that directed the agency to provide specific information related to alleged corruption in the AIIMS trauma centre.
Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora presided over the bench and issued a notice to Sanjeev Chaturvedi, the former chief vigilance officer (CVO) of AIIMS, Delhi. Chaturvedi has been asked to submit a counter affidavit in response to the CBI's appeal within four weeks. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on July 29.
The division bench heard the CBI's appeal, which contested a single judge's decision from January 30. The single judge had declined to intervene with the Central Information Commission's (CIC) ruling from November 2019, which instructed the CBI to disclose specific information to Chaturvedi.
Chaturvedi had initially requested information concerning alleged corruption in the procurement of disinfectant and fogging solution for the medical store of Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS. During his tenure as the chief vigilance officer of AIIMS, he had submitted a report regarding suspected corruption in the centre's purchases.
Additionally, Chaturvedi sought a certified copy of file notings, documents, or correspondences related to the CBI's investigation into the matter.
The officer provided information to the CBI but received no action. He then approached the CIC, which ordered the CBI to disclose the details. The CBI challenged this order in the high court, which held that the CBI is not completely exempt from the RTI Act. The court noted that while the CBI is mentioned in the Second Schedule, it doesn't mean the entire Act doesn't apply.
The CBI argued that Section 24 of the RTI Act exempts it from disclosure, as its investigations are sensitive and revealing details would undermine its purpose. The court previously stated that there's no evidence to suggest that disclosing information about malpractices at AIIMS would endanger lives or compromise investigations.
The CBI stated that disclosing investigation details to Chaturvedi would compromise intelligence sources critical for probing corruption cases. The agency argued that such disclosures would harm public interest and undermine ongoing investigations.
The appeal argued that disclosing investigation details under the RTI Act could endanger informants' safety and deter future cooperation. It emphasised that such disclosures would undermine efforts to collect crucial evidence and protect witnesses, potentially allowing suspects to tamper with evidence and influence outcomes.
However, the single judge determined that the CBI could demonstrate the sensitive nature of specific investigation information in certain cases. Considering the level of sensitivity and the objective of Section 24 of the RTI Act, the CPIO retains the authority to decline providing such information.
Image source: ANI
Comments