Sushma Swaraj: Documents procured under the RTI Act revealed
that the Shivraj Singh Chouhan government in Madhya Pradesh appointed
foreign minister Sushma Swaraj’s husband and daughter as government
lawyers.
“The government should make a clear policy for
appointment of counsels. It clearly reflects that the VIPs and their kin
are being benefited,” alleged Ajay Dubey of Transparency International,
which procured the documents.
Chargesheet in Mahatma’s killing: The
Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the home ministry to
make public the FIR and chargesheet filed by Delhi police on the
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi on 30th January, 1948.
The order
came after Odisha-based Hemanta Panda sought the information under the
RTI Act. Panda wanted a copy of the FIR and chargesheet among other
pieces of information including whether any autopsy was done as per law.
The ministry had forwarded the application to the National Archives of
India, director of Gandhi Smriti, where Gandhi spent his last days and
was assassinated. Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti told him that “no
post mortem examination was performed as per the wishes of the family”.
Panda was also informed by Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti that they
did not have any information related to the FIR and the subsequent
charge-sheet filed in relation to the assassination.
Lalit Modi Passport: The
external affairs ministry has refused to answer an RTI application
containing seven questions about scandaltainted former IPL boss Lalit
Modi’s passport.
The first three questions included why External
Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj did not advise Modi to apply for a
temporary travel document to the Indian High Commission in London; why
the minister did not insist on Modi’s return to India as a condition;
and who decided not to file an appeal in the Supreme Court against Delhi
High Court’s ruling setting aside cancellation of Modi’s passport and
whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at whose instance the passport
was cancelled, was consulted. Questions four to seven included a query
on whether the government has lodged any objections to UK for granting
residency permit to Modi; what steps the government has taken since the
issuance of fresh passport to him to enforce the ED summons; and the
government’s response to Modi’s “wild charge that his life will be in
danger if he returned to India.”
The RTI query, filed by one
Rayo from Haryana, was received by the ministry on 19th June when the
opposition was piling up pressure on Swaraj on the Lalitgate row. In its
26th June reply, the MEA said questions one to three do “not seem to
fall under the purview” of the RTI Act. About queries four to seven, the
ministry said that “no information is available with EAM’s office.”
The
External Affairs Ministry (EAM), however, said the application has been
“transferred” to its consular, passport and visa division as well as to
the finance and home ministries.
The EAM’s action drew stinging
criticism from the opposition, with the Congress calling it against the
“spirit” of RTI Act and the CPI (M) alleging the transparency law has
been “sabotaged” by the Modi government. “This is against the spirit of
the RTI ACT,” said senior Congress leader P. C. Chacko.
“In
fact, any private information need not be disclosed but there is a case
which is affecting even the security of the country also and person is
fugitive, who is an absconder, against whom there is an inquiry going
on…and when information is sought on that, it simply cannot be treated
as a private matter,” Chacko added.
