CIC allows peep into babus' personal assets

Bureaucrats can't seek protection under right to privacy claim'

With the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) ruling in a landmark
order that bureaucrats do not have "right to privacy" on personal
assets, babus may now find it difficult to stash away their ill-gotten
wealth. CIC Wajahat Habibullah passed the judgement on a petition
filed by Dr Kousthubha Upadhyaya against the denial of information by
the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).

Dr Upadhyaya, a senior ayurveda medical officer in the Central
Government Health Services, had sought details of personal assets of
his superior (Shiva Basanth IAS, Joint Secretary) in the Health
Ministry under the Right to Information Act from DoPT on October 27,
2006. He had sought the details of three years' property transactions,
including the purchase of a posh flat in Gurgoan by the IAS officer.

But DoPT refused to provide the details, saying such information was
"confidential" and "personal" in nature. "The immovable property
returns (IPRs), like the annual confidential reports, have always been
treated as confidential ... personal in nature. It was because of this
only that there has never been any occasion where it was felt
essential for bringing these documents in public domain," DoPT stated
in its reply.

Trashing the DoPT stand , the CIC quoted a Supreme Court judgement
which said, "When there is a competition between the right to privacy
of an individual and the right to information to the citizens, the
former right has to be subordinated to the latter as it serves larger
public interest." In his judgement, the CIC upheld the arguments of Dr
Upadhyaya for equating the status of politicians with civil servants
in declaration of assets. In this context, the CIC quoted two SC
judgments: Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms (May
2002) and People's Union of Civil Liberties vs Union of India
(February 2003). The court was ruling on the requirement for filing
nomination papers for elections and said that a candidate must also
submit the properties held in the name of the spouse.

Dr Upadhyaya argued that when such rigorous norms have been fixed for
those wanting to contest elections, and such people are in service for
only the limited term of their office, the Government servants --
engaged in life-long service -- could not be exempt. The CIC upheld
his contention.

Quoting another SC judgement (Roshan Lal vs Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan), the CIC observed that the same was applicable to all civil
servants. "The annual property returns by Government employees are in
public domain and there seems to be no reason why they should not be
freely disclosed. This should also be considered as a step to contain
corruption in Government offices since such disclosures may reveal
instances where property disproportionate to known sources of income
has been acquired," the CIC ruled.

http://www.dailypio neer.com/ indexn12. asp?main_ variable= front%5Fpage& file_name= story4%2Etxt& counter_img= 4