Image Courtesy: livelaw.in
The RTI was filed by activist Venkatesh Nayak in 2017 seeking information on total number of and photocopies of representations received by government from donors for maintaining their anonymity while making donations to political parties, as also the draft Electoral Bond Scheme prepared by Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) in consultation with Reserve Bank of India and election Commission of India.
At first instance, after filing RTI, Nayak did not receive any response from DEA so he filed the first appeal after which he received a response from DEA with which he was dissatisfied as they were “false and misleading” hence he filed the second appeal. RBI had informed vide a letter that it did not have any information in this regard. Even the ECI said that they do not have the information sought by Nayak.
At the appeal stage, the application was also passed on to other departments like Department of Financial Services, Department of Revenue to provide the information sought by Nayak.
The CIC held that the response of RBI was incomplete while also holding that the responses of DEA and ECI were vague and misleading. The Commission also observed that the CPIO (Chief Public Information Officer) of DEA had “not discharged his responsibility with true spirit”.
The CIC directed that a show cause notice be issued to CPIOs of DEA, Department of Financial Services, Department of Revenue, ECI to show cause why penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act for giving incomplete, misleading and vague replies to the applicant and sought written explanation within 3 weeks.
The suspicion arises if these nodal agencies related to electoral bonds claim that they do not have information on names of donors who requested anonymity while making donations to political parties, there is something they wish to keep in secret. What is the government trying to hide?
The complete order may be read here
Related: