New Delhi: The Central Information
Commission has directed the authorities to make public details
of foreign visits by a Delhi Government chief prosecutor who
had handled cases like Nitish Katara murder, Anti-Sikh riots
of 1984 and Rahul Mahajan drugs episode.
The case relates to the plea of an RTI applicant Vinod
Kaushik who had sought to know the details of foreign visits
undertaken by B S Joon allegedly without permission from the
competent authority in the last 11 years.
Kaushik had also sought to know about complaints received
against Joon and details regarding his promotion.
The CIC directed the Central Public Information Officer
to disclose all information to Kaushik barring the details of
bank statement of Joon as would be a breach of his privacy.
"The PIO is directed to severe the copies of the bank
statements of Mr Joon from the information under Section 10 of
the RTI Act and provide the rest to the appellant,"
Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said.
The Commission had asked Joon to clarify his position on
the disclosure of information about him.
"He (Joon) has stated that he has been provided security
since there is threat to his life and property. He has
submitted that Vinod Kuashik has no connection with the
prosecution department and it is not clear why he is so
interested in Joon`s personal information." Gandhi mentioned
in the order.
Joon said anonymous complaints have been lodged against
him to stop his promotion and block his career growth.
He also stated that if his personal information is
disclosed to any stranger it would affect his efficiency and
working in the cases which he handles.
Rejecting the arguments, Gandhi said, "These claims have
been made without any basis and seemed to be guided only by
his desire to block disclosure of information. His claim that
his performance in the cases of the government would go down
in case of release of information also does not seem to have
"It would have helped the Commission to decide the matter
(in a) better (way) if he had sought non-disclosure of some
specific information and explained how it could be considered
an invasion to his privacy," he said.