The rules are different for Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Congress president Sonia Gandhi.The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) refused to share details under the RTI Act about an affidavit filed before the Allahabad High Court in a case related to the controversial land deals of Vadra. The PMO termed the matter as “confidential.”
A lucknow-based RTI activist Nutan Thakur had filed a writ petition last year before the lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court seeking a probe into the allegations of irregular land dealings against Vadra on the basis of charges leveled by Arvind Kejriwal.
Her plea was dismissed by the Bench after Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran, appearing on behalf of the Centre, submitted that the petition was based on general newspaper reports which cannot be treated as true. Parasaran is now Solicitor General, after the exit of Rohinton Nariman a few months ago.
In its affidavit, the PMO had termed the allegations regarding irregular land dealings between Vadra and real estate major DlF as “false, based on hearsay and vexatious.”
Through an RTI application, Thakur wanted to know the entire file notings related to the PMO affidavit before the High Court. She also wanted to know from the top office, the action taken after receiving her petition.
In its first reply, the PMO claimed that since the matter was “sub-judice,” the records could not be disclosed to her. On the other hand, Thakur argued that such details can only be withheld when there is an explicit order from the court for not disclosing it.
later, the PMO said: “The office, keeping in view the Supreme Court ruling, has sought exemption as the matter has been treated as confidential.”
It quoted a Supreme Court order which said the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) (of the RTI Act) is available not only in regard to information that is held by a public authority in a fiduciary capacity, but also to any information that is given or made available by a public authority to anyone else for being held in fiduciary capacity.
“In other words, anything given and taken in confidence expecting confidentiality to be maintained will be information available to a person in fiduciary capacity,” it said.
legal experts point out that except for the information placed in sealed cover before courts, other affidavits can’t be covered under such a confidentiality clause.
The petitioner is expected to challenge the version of the PMO before the Central Information Commission soon.
In 2011, the PMO’s release of Pranab Mukherjee’s controversial notes implicating P Chidambaram in the 2G Scam on an RTI query had created fissures in the Congress. After this incident, the Government issued an order to all departments to stop providing information related to the 2G Scam, citing the ongoing JPC probe. Similarly, the Government had refused to part with information on the treatment expenses of Congress president Sonia Gandhi.
The CBI suspects that more incriminating documents and material could be there in the sealed cupboards.Rao, Jindal and his companies have been named in the 12th FIR for alleged criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct.
The CBI has accused that Rs 2.25 crore was routed by Jindal’s companies to Saubhagya Media owned by Rao through suspicious transactions.