In a landmark development, the people of Uttarakhand can now access details regarding corruption cases involving IAS officers under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This right has been granted by Uttarakhand State Information Commission (USIC) through its ruling that marks a significant shift in administrative accountability in the state.
The commission has clearly laid down that information regarding corruption cases involving a public servant, particularly an IAS officer, can no longer be shielded from the public once a case is formally registered or if the state government has granted sanction for prosecution.
This is not all, but the commission has also clarified that information concerning cases currently sub judice, pending in court, is also accessible under the RTI framework.
This order was delivered by State Information Commissioner Kushla Nand while hearing an appeal filed by none other than the noted whistleblower and an IFS officer, Sanjiv Chaturvedi (IFS:2002:UK).
The commission emphasised that the decision is designed to foster greater transparency.
The order says that corruption-related matters cannot be kept entirely confidential. “If the law has been invoked or investigations sanctioned, the public has a right to know,” the order points out.
But the commission has prudently balanced its act by stipulating that if the disclosure of specific details is likely to impede or compromise a pending inquiry, the relevant department may withhold such information.
The commission, however, is cautious regarding the highly debated issue of ‘file notings.’ It rules that file notings are integral to internal departmental processes and are not mandatory for public disclosure. It means that while corruption-related outcomes are transparent, the deliberative internal decision-making process remains protected.
The order also addresses inter-agency cooperation in the matter by providing that if requested information pertains to another investigative body, prior permission from that agency will be mandatory before disclosure. It has been done to prevent the misuse of sensitive information and ensure institutional coordination.
There has been a debate against such disclosure being made public, but legal experts feel that by allowing public access to information regarding corruption proceedings, the commission has effectively strengthened the role of civic oversight.
Get Latest Updates