Govt refuses to share details of CBI chief appointment
NEW DELHI: The government has refused to share details of appointment of CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma, claiming the information was exempted under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Replying to an RTI query, the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) said the appointment was done by Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC). Hence, information related to it is exempted under the transparency law.
Verma, the former Delhi Police Commissioner, was on January 19, named as the chief of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
“It is stated that the information sought is exempted under Rule 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the selection of Director, CBI was done through the ACC,” the DOPT said in reply to the RTI application.
The DOPT in its reply has, however, not referred to relevant provisions like confiden- tiality or breach of privilege, under which the information was declined.
The rule or Section 8 has provisions to decline information, including cabinet papers, sought under the RTI Act.
However, the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete or over, the rule 8 (i) of the RTI Act says.
The DOPT was asked to provide names of all officers who were shortlisted for appointment as CBI Director and also the copy of file notings.
The name of Verma, a 1979batch IPS officer of Arunachal Pradesh-goa-mizoram and Union Territories (AGMUT) cadre, was cleared by a threemember selection panel headed by the Prime Minister and comprising Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar and Congress leader in Lok Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge as members. NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said if it decides to grant relief for extension of the window for exchanging scrapped notes, it will be not in individual cases but for the general public.
"If there has to be a window (extension for depositing demonetised notes) then all of you (petitioners and others) have to be considered," a bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul said.
It was hearing a batch of pleas including the one filed by Sudha Mishra challenging the Centre's decision not to allow the public at large to deposit demonetised currency notes till March 31 as promised by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and others as the window ended on December 30 last year.
Attorney General (AG) Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, referred to the recent affidavit filed by the government on the issue and said that "we have given the rea- sons as to why we do not want to open the window". "I am bound by the court's order... There cannot be a separate window (to deposit notes) for individuals. If the court allows and grants the window (relief ) then it has to be for all," he said.
When some lawyers, representing persons who wanted to deposit currency notes besides seeking other reliefs, started arguing their individual cases, the AG said, "Then, I will have to file separate counter affidavits on the facts of each case."
The court then posted the petitions for hearing after the summer vacations.
Earlier, the Centre, in its affidavit, had told the apex court that it has taken a "conscious decision" not to extend the period beyond December 30 last year for exchanging demonetised currency notes unlike for the NRIS, and security personnel posted in remote areas, which ended on March 31. The government has also said it was not legally bound to come out with a fresh notification to grant grace period or window for depositing scrapped currency notes.
The affidavit has given details about the raids and seizures made by the law-enforcing agencies during and after the demonetisation period claiming that undisclosed income of over Rs 5,400 crore was detected. The apex court had on March 6 issued notice to the Centre and the RBI on one of the pleas alleging that people were not being allowed to deposit demonetised currency notes till March 31 as promised.
One of the petitions also referred to the speech of the prime minister on November 8, 2016 and subsequent notification of the RBI spelling out that people may deposit demonetised currency notes even after December 31, 2016 at specific RBI branches up to March 31, 2017 after complying with certain procedural requirements.
It has referred to the Specified Bank Notes Cessation of Liabilities Ordinance and said it had gone against the assurance.
The ordinance had said that only those who were abroad, the armed forces personnel posted in remote areas or others who could give valid reasons for not being able to deposit the cancelled notes at banks, could deposit demonetised currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 till March 31 this year after the deadline expired on December 30, 2016. NEW DELHI: Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the right to know is a fundamental right and it cannot be curtailed by banning information on the Internet. His response came after the apex court asked him to assist in a matter related to banning of pre-natal sex determination advertisements and contents on the Internet.
"There is distinction between information and advertisement. A person out of curiosity wants to know or study some thing. The right to know is a fundamental right and we cannot curtail it," Rohatgi, who was present in the court room for some other matter, told a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra.
The bench, which sought the AG'S assistance, said, "We cannot curtail free search. The right to know is a fundamental right. If we stop information, then we stop knowledge, then we stop thinking..."
It said that it has to see whether section 22 of the PNDT Act does not go against the Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution which gaurantees the freedom of speech and expression.
Section 22 of the Act pertains to prohibition of advertisements relating to pre-natal determination of sex and punishment for its contravention.
Advocate Binu Tamta, appearing for Centre, said that it is difficult to control or supervise the content on the Internet but the stand of the other side is that there should be no advertising. Internet majors Microsoft and Google told the bench that they cannot block the information on the information expressway but they can certainly block the advertisements with regard to pre-natal sex determination under the Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (PNDT) Act.