MUMBAI: A recent order of the Maharashtra State Information Commission (SIC) upholding the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s (ACB) response to an RTI application seeking details of prosecution sanctions in corruption cases has triggered fresh debate over transparency in anti-corruption investigations.Mumbai-based RTI activist Jeetendra Ghadge, founder of The Young Whistleblowers Foundation, has criticised the order, alleging it effectively shields information on prosecution sanctions sought, granted, refused or pending under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.The RTI application had sought statewide data from January 2020 on sanction proposals, decisions on those proposals, copies of sanction or rejection orders, and details of cases allegedly delayed for want of government approval.After hearing the matter, the SIC dismissed Ghadge’s appeal, accepting the ACB’s contention that the information sought was not maintained in the compiled format requested and that the information available with the public authority had already been provided.Ghadge has argued that the Commission should have examined whether the Public Information Officer was required under Sections 5(4) and 6(3) of the RTI Act to obtain records from other authorities or transfer the application to departments holding the information.He also contended that while compiled statistics may not exist, individual records such as sanction proposals, pending files and sanction or rejection orders could still be disclosed under the RTI Act.Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires prior government approval before investigation against a public servant in specified circumstances, making the sanction process a key stage in corruption cases.“This was never about statistics alone. It was about finding out whether corruption complaints are being buried because prosecution sanctions are refused or indefinitely delayed. When the transparency watchdog refuses to enforce the RTI Act in such a matter, the public loses its only independent window into how anti-corruption laws are functioning,” Ghadge said.He further alleged that permitting public authorities to deny information on the ground that it is “not compiled” could weaken transparency and accountability under the RTI Act.The order was passed by State Information Commissioner Dr. Pradeep Vyas. Ghadge has also raised concerns over Vyas hearing the matter, noting that Vyas’s name had figured in the investigation into the Adarsh Housing Society scam. Public records show Vyas was arrested during the probe and later granted bail. The case remains pending before the courts, and there has been no final finding of guilt against him.Ghadge has appealed for wider public attention to the issue, saying access to information on prosecution sanctions is essential to independently assess whether corruption investigations are progressing or being delayed.The ACB’s position, as recorded by the Commission, is that the information sought is not maintained in the form requested and that all available information had already been furnished. Meanwhile, SIC Mumbai Dr Pradeep Vyas did not respond to the message regarding the same order when contacted.
