 |
|
The Delhi High Court is grappling with a significant legal question: can the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports be made public before they are formally tabled in the Delhi Assembly? This crucial issue arose from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a retired civil servant, Brij Mohan, who seeks court intervention to make 14 CAG audit reports on the Delhi government's functioning publicly available. Mohan's urgency stems from the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections, arguing that public access to this information is vital for informed voting. However, the court's deliberation reveals a complex interplay between constitutional provisions, the right to information, and the established procedures for handling CAG reports.
The High Court's primary concern centers around Article 151 of the Indian Constitution. This article delineates the powers of the President and the Governor/Lieutenant Governor regarding the tabling of audit reports in Parliament and the Assembly, respectively. The judges questioned the legal basis for releasing the reports before this constitutional process is completed. The petitioner's counsel, senior advocate Geeta Luthra, based her argument on the fundamental right to know, stemming from Article 19 of the Constitution. However, the court pointed out that this right is not absolute and is subject to limitations, particularly in cases involving constitutionally mandated procedures. The judges emphasized the need for a clear legal framework to justify overriding the established process outlined in Article 151 and any associated circulars or manuals governing the release of CAG reports.
The judges meticulously examined the petitioner's arguments. Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela expressed concerns about the potential violation of Article 151 if the reports were released prematurely. They questioned whether the reports constituted 'information' within the purview of the Right to Information Act (RTI) before being tabled in the Assembly. Justice Gedela suggested that the reports would only qualify as information under the RTI Act after the formal tabling. The court's line of questioning focused on the legal basis for the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner must present a solid legal foundation for their request, rather than relying solely on generalized arguments related to the right to information. The judges stressed the necessity of adhering to constitutional provisions and presented a pragmatic legal challenge to the petitioner's claims.
The petitioner, a retired senior administrative officer from the Indian Audit & Accounts Department (IA&AD), contends that the public release of these reports is crucial for transparency and accountability, especially in the context of the impending elections. He believes that the citizens of Delhi have a right to understand the financial health and operational efficiency of their government before casting their votes. The court, however, questioned the petitioner's motives, inquiring about the specific reasons for wanting this information before the elections, questioning whether the desire was primarily focused on influencing electoral choices rather than on a genuine interest in the content of the reports themselves. The court acknowledged the importance of the information but insisted on a strictly legal approach to the matter, emphasizing that arguments must be rooted in established legal principles and not merely based on the perceived importance of the information.
The court's deliberate approach reflects the sensitivity of the issue at hand. It highlights the delicate balance between the public's right to information and the constitutional framework governing the release of official government audits. The court’s decision to adjourn the hearing until February 3rd, a date before the Delhi elections, suggests the court’s intention to carefully weigh the legal arguments before reaching a conclusion. The outcome of this case will significantly impact the future handling of CAG reports and the public's access to such crucial governmental information. The court's detailed examination of the constitutional and legal implications underscores the critical importance of maintaining a balance between transparency and adherence to established legal procedures in a democratic society.