Information Commissioner Madhubhushanam Sridhar Acharyulu, it seems, has rubbed the central government the wrong way, in more ways than one..We had reported yesterday that the former NALSAR Professor was relieved of his Ministry of Human Resources Development charge days after he directed Delhi University to publish the results of the B.A. examination of 1978, the year in which Prime Minister Narendra Modi is said to have graduated..Now, it has come to light that he had been divested of work pertaining to the Ministry of Law and Justice charge as well. This, one day before he directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to reveal information as regards the action taken in a complaint against former Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan..The former CJI had been embroiled in a controversy wherein former judges of the Kerala High Court levelled corruption charges against him. Eventually, based on a report by the Centre for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), a petition was filed in the Supreme Court by NGO Common Cause..However, in May 2012, the apex court declined to interfere with the matter, stating that an inquiry against a Supreme Court judge could only be undertaken on a reference by the President of India. The court, however, left the “competent authority” to take appropriate action against Balakrishnan J..The matter before the CIC had its genesis in 2013, when noted RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal filed an RTI to find out the action taken by the Department of Justice of the Ministry of Law and Justice in the probe against the former CJI..A complaint was heard by IC MS Acharyulu, who in an order dated November 21, 2014, held that the information sought does not come under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act, which exempts information that causes breach of Parliamentary privilege..Prof Acharyulu also directed the Department of Justice to disclose the complete information along with the related correspondence/file-noting/documents, as sought under point 9 of Agrawal’s RTI..This direction was not complied for over two years. To make matters worse, the CPIO of the department did not even appear for any of the hearings, despite multiple notices being issued..When the matter came up for hearing again on November 21 last year, there was still no response from the government. On that day, Prof Acharyulu again directed the department to reveal the information and posted the matter for December 30 to give another chance of appearance and explanation to show cause to CPIO KC Thang..When CPIO S Vijaya Gopal finally appeared before the CIC on that date, he claimed that he had not received the hearing notice from the Commission. He submitted that the role of the Department of Justice was limited to forwarding any complaint lodged with them against a sitting judge of the Supreme Court to the Chief Justice of India, since “the judiciary is an independent body”..Gopal also produced a letter from the Law Ministry dated March 1, 2013, stating,.“…under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, action can be taken against a serving judge of the High Court of Supreme Court and investigation…can be conducted by a Committee constituted by the Speaker of House of the People of Chairman of Council of States….…this Act is not applicable to the person who ceases to be a judge after his resignation or retirement….…allegations at (iii), (iv) and (v) of the complaint regarding approval of evasive RTI replies given by CPIO, Supreme Court; and/or resisting attempts to stop elevation of Justice Dinakaran; and suppressing a letter written by a High Court Judge, cannot be looked into by this Department under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 as they all pertain to his tenure when he was Chief Justice of India…”.Washing its hands clean of the onus to take the appropriate action as directed the apex court, the department also stated that the HR Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs had been requested to take necessary action..This prompted Prof Acharyulu to direct the Home Ministry to provide the appellant with the file-notings on the action taken in the probe against the former CJI, as forwarded by the DoJ..In an ominous move, the CIC had taken away Prof Acharyulu’s charge of the Law Ministry just one day before the December 30 order. He had been allocated work under the Ministry since January 2014. In what looks like an afterthought, he was also divested of the charge of the HRD Ministry in a revised work allocation notice passed three days ago..The saga revolving around the former Chief Justice continues, with the Supreme Court currently hearing another PIL filed by Common Cause. On the last date of hearing, the Centre, through Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, made it clear that it was not too keen to conduct an investigation into the allegations. The matter is posted for January 19 this year..With the Supreme Court’s general reluctance to approach against its own kind, it does not seem that the matter will come to fruition any time soon..Read the order dated December 30:
Information Commissioner Madhubhushanam Sridhar Acharyulu, it seems, has rubbed the central government the wrong way, in more ways than one..We had reported yesterday that the former NALSAR Professor was relieved of his Ministry of Human Resources Development charge days after he directed Delhi University to publish the results of the B.A. examination of 1978, the year in which Prime Minister Narendra Modi is said to have graduated..Now, it has come to light that he had been divested of work pertaining to the Ministry of Law and Justice charge as well. This, one day before he directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to reveal information as regards the action taken in a complaint against former Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan..The former CJI had been embroiled in a controversy wherein former judges of the Kerala High Court levelled corruption charges against him. Eventually, based on a report by the Centre for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), a petition was filed in the Supreme Court by NGO Common Cause..However, in May 2012, the apex court declined to interfere with the matter, stating that an inquiry against a Supreme Court judge could only be undertaken on a reference by the President of India. The court, however, left the “competent authority” to take appropriate action against Balakrishnan J..The matter before the CIC had its genesis in 2013, when noted RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal filed an RTI to find out the action taken by the Department of Justice of the Ministry of Law and Justice in the probe against the former CJI..A complaint was heard by IC MS Acharyulu, who in an order dated November 21, 2014, held that the information sought does not come under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act, which exempts information that causes breach of Parliamentary privilege..Prof Acharyulu also directed the Department of Justice to disclose the complete information along with the related correspondence/file-noting/documents, as sought under point 9 of Agrawal’s RTI..This direction was not complied for over two years. To make matters worse, the CPIO of the department did not even appear for any of the hearings, despite multiple notices being issued..When the matter came up for hearing again on November 21 last year, there was still no response from the government. On that day, Prof Acharyulu again directed the department to reveal the information and posted the matter for December 30 to give another chance of appearance and explanation to show cause to CPIO KC Thang..When CPIO S Vijaya Gopal finally appeared before the CIC on that date, he claimed that he had not received the hearing notice from the Commission. He submitted that the role of the Department of Justice was limited to forwarding any complaint lodged with them against a sitting judge of the Supreme Court to the Chief Justice of India, since “the judiciary is an independent body”..Gopal also produced a letter from the Law Ministry dated March 1, 2013, stating,.“…under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, action can be taken against a serving judge of the High Court of Supreme Court and investigation…can be conducted by a Committee constituted by the Speaker of House of the People of Chairman of Council of States….…this Act is not applicable to the person who ceases to be a judge after his resignation or retirement….…allegations at (iii), (iv) and (v) of the complaint regarding approval of evasive RTI replies given by CPIO, Supreme Court; and/or resisting attempts to stop elevation of Justice Dinakaran; and suppressing a letter written by a High Court Judge, cannot be looked into by this Department under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 as they all pertain to his tenure when he was Chief Justice of India…”.Washing its hands clean of the onus to take the appropriate action as directed the apex court, the department also stated that the HR Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs had been requested to take necessary action..This prompted Prof Acharyulu to direct the Home Ministry to provide the appellant with the file-notings on the action taken in the probe against the former CJI, as forwarded by the DoJ..In an ominous move, the CIC had taken away Prof Acharyulu’s charge of the Law Ministry just one day before the December 30 order. He had been allocated work under the Ministry since January 2014. In what looks like an afterthought, he was also divested of the charge of the HRD Ministry in a revised work allocation notice passed three days ago..The saga revolving around the former Chief Justice continues, with the Supreme Court currently hearing another PIL filed by Common Cause. On the last date of hearing, the Centre, through Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, made it clear that it was not too keen to conduct an investigation into the allegations. The matter is posted for January 19 this year..With the Supreme Court’s general reluctance to approach against its own kind, it does not seem that the matter will come to fruition any time soon..Read the order dated December 30:
