Arun Jaitley before Central Information Commission- adds to the credence of the RTI Act.
The CIC observed, “In a parliamentary system of our democratic governance, a Member of Parliament enjoys considerable freedom to seek relevant information on the floor of the Parliament, which an ordinary citizen may envy. The fact that the appellant, a Member of Parliament (RS) and a former Minister has sought access to the public records surely adds to the credence of the successful implementation of RTI Act. The exercise of right to seek information and participation by the distinguished members of society, like MPs and ex-Ministers, as information seekers, are indeed a happy augury for strengthening the information regime that has now been set up for ensuring free flow of information, which even the common man may use to his advantage.”
The issue before the CIC was an appeal filed by Jaitley against the Central Bureau of Investigation. He had asked the CBI for information on
1. files pertaining to the freezing of Bank Account Nos.5A5151516M and A5151516L maintained at London by Mr and Mrs. Ottavio Quattrocchi
2. correspondence between the Crown Prosecution Service of the United Kingdom and the CBI
3. information pertaining to the visit of Mr B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor General of India and other persons accompanying him, to London in December, 2005 in connection with the de-freezing of the said Bank Accounts.
4. opinion rendered by Mr. K.P. Pathak, Additional Solicitor General of India on the said issue and the records pertaining to the seeking of the said opinion.
5. All advices, opinions and notings of officials based on which a decision was taken not to challenge the judgment of Justice J.D. Kapoor dated 4.2.2004
As you have guessed correctly, the CBI refused to part with the information. The Commission observed,
The CBI has been investigating the case for nearly sixteen years without much success. Though the CBI has claimed exemptions from disclosure of information on valid grounds, as mentioned above, these exemptions would not be available after the expiry of twenty years of such public actions under the provisions of the Act. The CBI is, therefore, directed to expedite the investigations in the matter lest its credibility should get unduly tarnished.
And CBI’s refusal to part with the information was upheld.
(Arun Jaitley v Central Bureau of Investigation in Decision No.157/IC(A)/2006)