The Delhi High Court asked an IFS officer to respond to the CBI’s appeal challenging an order to provide information on alleged corruption at the AIIMS trauma centre. A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora issued notice to Sanjeev Chaturvedi, the former chief vigilance officer (CVO) of AIIMS in Delhi, instructing him to file a counter affidavit within four weeks.
NEW DELHI: Today (15th May): The Delhi High Court sought a response from an Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer regarding a plea by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging an order to provide information on alleged corruption at the AIIMS trauma centre.
The court has given the officer four weeks to file a counter-affidavit in response to the CBI’s appeal.
READ ALSO: Delhi High Court Upholds Tribunal Decisions: Affirms High Courts’ Writ Jurisdiction
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora issued notice to Sanjeev Chaturvedi, the former chief vigilance officer (CVO) of AIIMS in Delhi, instructing him to file a counter affidavit within four weeks.
The court has listed the matter for further hearing on July 29.
“The single judge, in the judgment under scrutiny, overlooked the fact that during CBI investigations, communications are made to public officers in confidence. Disclosing such information could be detrimental to public interest…
“The appeal argued that making proceedings of inquiry/investigation available under the RTI Act could jeopardize the safety of informants and discourage them from providing information to the investigating agency.”
The CBI had lodged an appeal against a single judge’s decision on January 30, which refused to intervene in the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) ruling from November 2019. The CIC had directed the CBI to provide specific information to Chaturvedi, who had sought details about alleged corruption in the procurement of disinfectants and fogging solutions for the medical store of Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre at AIIMS.
READ ALSO: Delhi High Court| Approves UCMS Control From Delhi University to Delhi Government
At the time of the reported corruption, Chaturvedi was serving as the chief vigilance officer of AIIMS. He had submitted a report highlighting the alleged corruption in the purchases made for the trauma centre. Furthermore, Chaturvedi had requested a certified copy of the file notings, documents, or correspondences related to the CBI’s investigation into the matter.
Chaturvedi approached the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the CBI after the agency failed to take any action on the information provided by him. However, the CBI declined to furnish the requested information. Consequently, he approached the CIC, which directed the CBI to disclose the details. Dissatisfied with the CIC’s 2019 order, the CBI then approached the high court to challenge it.
Background
The single judge, in the January 30 order, stated that the CBI was not entirely exempt from the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which allows the agency to provide information pertaining to corruption and human rights violations. The court referred to Section 24 of the RTI Act, which indicates that even though the CBI is mentioned in the Second Schedule to the law, it does not mean that the entire Act is inapplicable to such organizations.
READ ALSO: Delhi High Court Enhances Security Measures Following Bomb Threat
The court further noted that there was no evidence to suggest that revealing the investigation into the malpractices related to the purchase of disinfectants and fogging solutions at the JPNA Trauma Center, AIIMS, would endanger the lives of the officers involved or jeopardize any other serious investigations.
During the recent hearing, the CBI’s counsel argued that the single judge’s verdict should be set aside, emphasizing that Section 24 of the RTI Act acts as a complete bar and exempts the agency from the Act’s provisions. The CBI contended that disclosing details of the investigation to Chaturvedi would undermine the purpose of including the agency in the RTI Act, as intelligence plays a crucial role in investigating corruption cases.
The CBI emphasized that intelligence inputs often lead to the registration of important and sensitive cases, and therefore, the agency cannot disclose investigation details to Chaturvedi. The appeal filed by the CBI stated that disclosing such information would jeopardize public interest, endanger informants, tamper with evidence, destroy money trails, and potentially influence witnesses.
In response, the single judge acknowledged that in certain cases, the CBI could establish that the information sought is sensitive, and it is within the purview of the CPIO to refuse the disclosure based on the nature of sensitivity and the objective of Section 24 of the RTI Act.
