health minister J.P. Nadda

Wordplay Helps PMO Dodge Release of Details on Black Money, Corruption Cases Under RTI

After initially calling the query ‘generic and vague’, the PMO said finding details on corruption cases would involve a “thorough search of numerous files” and would “disproportionately divert resources”.

New Delhi: The reading of the word “disposed” – used by the Central Information Commission in its order – as “dismissed”, first by a single bench and then by a division bench of the Delhi high court, appears to have saved the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) from the task of divulging information in corruption cases against Central ministers and black money, which the Narendra Modi government claimed to have brought from abroad.

The original application in the case was filed by whistleblower IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi in August 2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Details sought of corruption cases

Through the application filed with the PMO, Chaturvedi, who was also awarded the Magsaysay Award for exposing corruption by government functionaries, sought details of corruption complaints against Union ministers, the inquiries conducted into these complaints and the final action taken by PMO. His query pertained to cases from the first three years of the NDA government’s first term – from June 1, 2014, to August 5, 2017.

The application also sought information about the quantum and value of black money retrieved from abroad and deposited into the accounts of citizens, along with efforts made by the PMO in this regard.

Chaturvedi specifically sought information related to action taken on his complaint against the then Union health minister J.P Nadda, which was submitted to the prime minister and on which the PMO had twice sought a detailed reply from the health ministry on October 8, 2014 and February 10, 2015.

PMO said query was ‘generic and vague’

The PMO in its reply on October 9, 2017, refused any to divulge any information on the corruption complaints and termed the query “generic and vague”. As for the queries on black money, the PMO said that the “request made is not covered under the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act”.

Also read: The Modi Government Is Hiding Information About Black Money Inside a Black Hole

Chaturvedi challenged this assertion of the PMO in the Central Information Commission. In October 2018, the CIC rejected the rationale provided by the PMO and ordered it to give a “specific reply/information” within 15 days.

After CIC’s directive, PMO gives new reasoning

In its response to the CIC order, the PMO said finding details on corruption cases would involve a “thorough search of numerous files” and would “disproportionately divert the resources”.

The PMO said:

“This office receives complaints against various union ministers/ high level functionaries from time to time …… after taking the needful action, the records are not kept in any single master file or collated and kept in one place …….. in view of above, the collation of information sought will require the undertaking of thorough search of numerous files. Such an exercise will disproportionally divert the resources of the office from the normal discharge of its functions and attract the provisions of Section 7(9) of Right to Information Act”.

Section 7(9) of the RTI Act says that in the case of disproportionate diversion of resources, information may not be given in the format being asked by the applicant.

Regarding the query on the issue of black money, the PMO remained silent on the quantum of it while refusing to disclose the details of the efforts made by citing Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24 of RTI Act. It claimed that such a disclosure would affect the investigations underway in this regard. Section 8(1)(h) provides an exemption from disclosure if it impedes investigation while Section 24 excludes certain intelligence and security organisations from the ambit of RTI Act.

CIC said PMO’s new reply “not correct”

Chaturvedi again filed a complaint before the CIC in November 2018 challenging the PMO reply. The matter was taken up for hearing in April and June 2019. In its order passed on June 18, 2019, the CIC clearly said that the new rationale provided by the PMO for the denial of information in connection with the minister’s corruption complaints ‘is not correct’.

Also read: CIC Directs PMO to Reveal All Details of Black Money Brought From Abroad

However, the CIC remained silent on the issue of the quantum of black money while agreeing with the new reasoning provided by the PMO under Section 8(1)(h) for denial of information regarding efforts made in this regard.

Regarding the complaint to the prime minister against Nadda, the CIC declared that information has been provided to the appellant as per available records.

HC single bench said CIC “rejected” plea, whereas it was “disposed”

Chaturvedi took the matter to the Delhi high court in July 2019. The petition was dismissed on the very first day by a single bench of Justice V. Kameshwar Rao which stated that, “surely a complaint under Section 18 is not the remedy and the CIC has rightly rejected the same”.

However, the CIC order of June 18, 2019, had used the word “disposed” and not “dismissed” in paragraph 13 and had stated that “with the above observations, the non-compliance petition is disposed off”.

The single bench order further stated that the “petitioner is within his right to seek such remedy as available in law challenging the communication dated November 1, 2018”. Since it is well known that all orders passed by CIC are challengeable before the Delhi high court under Article 226/227 of the constitution, the question is if the court overlooked the fact that the CIC had subsequently given a final finding on Chaturvedi’s petition challenging the November 2018 communication of the PMO.

Division bench of HC too dismissed plea on first hearing

When the single bench order was challenged before the division bench of the Delhi high court, it also endorsed the earlier judgment of the single bench and again dismissed the petition the same day without issuing any notice. In paragraph five of its order, the division bench also used the word “dismissed” regarding the CIC order dated June 18, 2019, which had actually used the word “disposed in terms of above observations”.

The division bench further stated that if the appellant was aggrieved by the PMO’s communication dated November 1, 2018, he was “always at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law”.

Petitioner’s lawyer raises concerns at the silence on black money

As these two orders of the Delhi high court have gone in favour of the PMO, it no longer needs to reveal information on either the corruption cases against Central ministers or the quantum of black money recovered from abroad.

Also read: Sanjiv Chaturvedi: Modi is Not the Anti-Corruption Messiah We Were Waiting For

Meanwhile, Chaturvedi’s counsel Sudershan Goel, who had argued this case before the HC division bench, expressed surprise at what the “appropriate forum” was for appealing a CIC order. He claimed it was trite law and that the remedy lies only with the high court under Article 226 /227 against orders of the CIC.

The Delhi high court had in its judgment in Suhas Chakma ruled that the CIC cannot review its own orders while in this case the CIC first directed the PMO to disclose all the information in its order of October 2018 and when PMO took de novo grounds, it reviewed its own orders in June 2019, on the issue of black money.

Goel also expressed surprise as to why the high court kept silent on the issue of the quantum of black money and how, on the issue of corruption complaints against central ministers – in which the CIC on both occasions gave orders in favour of the applicant and rejected the excuse given by the PMO – and the disclosure of information of corruption complaints, the information commission’s orders had been unduly nullified by the high court by the incorrect usage of the word “dismissed” instead of “disposed” regarding the CIC order.

Doctors With Disabilities Seek Removal of ‘Discriminatory’ MCI Guidelines

Doctors claim that several MBBS students with disabilities have been denied admission due to these guidelines, which were framed without consulting any doctors with disabilities.

New Delhi: Claiming that a number of persons with disabilities have been denied admission to MBBS due to ‘Guidelines for Persons With Specified Disabilities’ framed by the Medical Council of India (MCI) in June, a group of 75 “doctors with disabilities” has now written to the Union health ministry to “reject the discriminatory MCI guidelines” in light of Right of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

These doctors have also urged health minister J.P. Nadda to “instruct MCI to reframe the guidelines as per the best practices in other countries and in consultation with doctors with disabilities as well as organisations working among persons with disabilities.”

In the letter sent today, the doctors have pointed out that it was on the direction of the health ministry that an expanded committee on disability was constituted by MCI. This committee framed the guidelines on June 5 for admission in MBBS of persons with 21 benchmark disabilities recognised in the new RPwD Act, 2016.

Supreme Court has directed the ministry to decide on final guidelines and is scheduled to hear the matter on August 21.

They said the apex court had on August 8 observed in a civil writ petition (Purswani Ashutosh (minor) through Dr. Kamlesh Virumal Purswani versus Union of India & Ors) that the recommendation of the MCI committee had not attained finality and was pending before the Central government for its consideration. It had thereafter ordered the Centre to decide this issue within ten days and listed the matter to be heard next on August 21.

Since the Supreme Court had also observed that “it is open to stakeholders for disabled categories including the petitioners to submit a representation to Central Government”, the doctors with disabilities, many of who are serving in top government medical institutions, have appealed to the Centre to do away with the anomalies in the guidelines.

One of the signatories and associate professor at the University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi, Satendra Singh said the doctors have also pointed out that the MCI guidelines were criticised by many, including top doctors, doctors with disabilities as well as doctors from AIIMS Delhi, for being “unfair, discriminatory and in violation of RPwD Act 2016 and United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”

‘Guidelines led to denial of admissions, cancellations’

Working on the issue of disability, the doctors have noted that many cases have been filed in high courts and the Supreme Court pertaining to denial of admission in MBBS to students with disabilities or cancellation of their admissions due to the MCI guidelines. Moreover, they said, neither doctors with disabilities nor disability rights organisations were consulted or involved in the drafting of guidelines by the MCI.

They further state that though clear assessment guidelines were framed by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and ratified by the health ministry, a psychiatrist in the MCI committee framed the guidelines for dyslexia, a developmental disorder assessed by paediatricians, neurologists and psychologists. “His recommendation debarred candidates with learning disabilities to pursue MBBS when there are numerous doctors with dyslexia in the West,” the doctors with disabilities complained. They also noted that AIIMS paediatricians, who frame assessment tools for autism, were excluded from the committee.

MCI guidelines declare candidates with learning disabilities ineligible despite their clearing NEET 2018 without any special concession.

Coming to the specifics, the letter noted that candidates with learning disabilities were not afforded any special accommodations in the NEET examinations in May 2018 and took the exam under the same conditions as everyone else. Many of them cleared the exam, considered one of the toughest in the country, setting to rest doubts regarding their ability to pursue MBBS.

Yet, the doctors with disabilities lamented that “these unapproved MCI guidelines also declare ineligible, candidates with locomotor disabilities, whose percentage is 80 percent or higher or has upper limb disability in non-dominant limb.”

The doctors also noted that many of them had also fought legal battles during post and under-graduation because of this unscientific upper limit of disability which, they insisted, had no rationale in modern times.

Recalling that last year too, the Supreme Court had directed the government to grant a seat to a student with thalassemia after she was denied admission, the letter also pointed out that the apex court had also ruled that those with colour blindness should not be discouraged from pursuing a career in medicine.

Globally PwDs are encouraged to enter study of medicine

Contrasting the manner in which PwD students are treated in India against those abroad, the doctors said the General Medical Council, UK has guidelines like ‘Gateways to the Professions’ (2008) and ‘Welcomed and Valued‘ (2018) providing practical suggestions to support disabled medical students and doctors through education and training based on their disability law. Similarly, they said, Association of American Medical Colleges 2018 report on ‘Accessibility, Inclusion, and Action in Medical Education: Lived Experiences of Learners and Physicians With Disabilities’ by Dr Lisa Meeks was another attempt to appreciate how people with disabilities can enrich medical education and the care of patients.

However, the letter said, no such attempt has been made by the MCI in India despite RPwD Act and availability of doctors with disabilities.

As such, they said, the Delhi high court had also commented while granting interim relief to a hearing-impaired candidate that “the recommendations of the committee set up by the MCI, disentitling persons with specified benchmark disability from pursuing undergraduate medical education are abhorrent to the principles enshrined in the constitution of India and to provisions of the RPwD Act.”

In light of these observations and the Centre’s power to bring necessary changes ahead of the next Supreme Court hearing, the group of doctors has urged the health ministry to direct the MCI to reframe the guidelines as per the best practices in other countries and in consultation with doctors with disabilities as well as organisations working among PwDs.

Explainer: The Government Bill That Wants to Integrate Homeopathy and Modern Medicine

The controversial Bill has been sent to a parliamentary standing committee.

Doctors protest outside Raj Bhavan in Thiruvananthapuram against the National Medical Commission Bill. Credit: Twitter/ANI

New Delhi: Five hours into the all-India strike called by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), the Bill they were protesting was sent to a standing committee.

The National Medical Commission Bill, 2017, was introduced in the Lok Sabha by health minister J.P. Nadda on December 29, 2017. It came up for discussion today. But the controversial Bill was swiftly sent off to a standing committee for scrutiny instead.

The Bill attempts to tackle two main things on quality and quantity: Corruption in medical education and shortage of medical professionals.

A product of the NITI Aayog, the Bill was drafted following a scathing standing committee report in 2016 on the corrupt functioning of the Medical Council of India (MCI).

The IMA opposed the Bill, calling it “anti-people and anti-poor”. To protest it, they called a 12-hour all-India strike on Tuesday, which has now been called off.

Fixing the quantity of medical education

The demand-supply dynamic in medical education is an area for concern: India has one doctor for every 1,674 people whereas the World Health Organization’s norm is one doctor for every 1000 people. To solve this, one of the government’s most controversial proposals has been a “bridge course” for those who have been trained in traditional medicine like Ayurveda as well as homeopathy.

However, the Bill somewhat contradicts its own definition of ‘medicine’. Medicine itself is defined as “modern scientific medicine in all its branches and includes surgery and obstetrics,” but does not include veterinary medicine and surgery.

This notwithstanding, the Bill repeatedly says that the government wants “to enhance the interface between homeopathy, Indian systems of medicine and modern systems of medicine”.

An AYUSH practitioner is defined as a person who is a practitioner of homoeopathy or of Indian medicine. There will be a national register of the AYUSH practitioners who have qualified the bridge course.

Section 49(4) says that a “specific bridge course may be introduced for the practitioners of homeopathy and of Indian systems of medicine to enable them to prescribe such modern medicines”.

Section 54(o) says the government can notify rules for “the modern medicines that the practitioners of homeopathy and of Indian medicine may prescribe”.

A note by K.K. Aggarwal, former president of the IMA, says, “As such these are the flood gates that have been opened up in terms of the statutory provisions for backdoor entry into medical profession entitling practicing modern medicine.”

Doctors protest outside Raj Bhavan in Thiruvananthapuram against the National Medical Commission Bill. Credit: Twitter/ANI

Fixing the quality in medical education

The poor quality of medical education and graduates is a big challenge in the field of medical education. The MCI has been beset by controversy and corruption – Ketan Desai, MCI’s former president, was accused of bribery and corruption in granting permissions for medical colleges in 2010. He was jailed, but was later released on bail. Desai is now appearing in newspaper advertisements by the IMA.

To fix corruption, the Bill recommends replacing one body with another. It proposes instituting a National Medical Commission (NMC) instead of the MCI. The current president of the MCI said, “The biggest trick is the idea that removing the MCI will solve all problems”.

The Bill, if passed, would repeal the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. This Act currently holds the provisions for the existence and functioning of the MCI, which oversees undergraduate and postgraduate medical education.

The difference in the two bodies would come from the fact that the new NMC would have its members largely nominated and appointed by the government, while office bearers in the MCI were elected from among the medical fraternity. The NMC would have 25 members appointed by the central government.

The NMC’s functions would include writing policies to regulate medical institutions and individuals, and also to lay down some guidelines on fees in private medical colleges.

The Bill also prescribes for autonomous boards under the NMC, specifically for undergraduate and postgraduate education. The boards will come up with the curriculum, standards and necessary recognitions. Its members too will be appointed by the government.

There will also be a medical assessment and rating board which will grant permissions for new colleges and penalise institutions which don’t follow the prescribed standards.

Another measure to keep the quality of medical graduates in check is the common entrance exam which the government introduced last year (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, known as NEET) and now a new exit test which this Bill proposes (National Licentiate Examination). Students will have to clear this exit exam as well in order to obtain a license for practice and also to get admission in postgraduate courses.