<p>The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has declined to share information on the alleged corruption charges against ministers of the previous Narendra Modi government.</p>.<p>Mumbai-based RTI activist Anil Galgali has sought the information from the PMO, who sought details of the alleged corruption complaints received against union ministers, invoking section 7(9) of the RTI Act.</p>.<p>The reply said that this would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority as it "may be a subjective as well as a cumbersome exercise". </p>.<p>Section 7(9) of the Act specifies that information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.</p>.<p>It said that it keeps receiving complaints against various union ministers as well as high-level functionaries, including corruption related and non-corruption related matters.</p>.<p>However, it does not keep records of these complaints in any single master file. </p>.<p>Under Secretary and CPIO of the PMO, Praveen Kumar, has stated that the complaints are pseudonymous and anonymous in nature and they are duly examined keeping in the view the veracity of the allegations or accusations and supporting documents in relation to these accusations. </p>.<p>"After taking the needful action, the records are not kept in any single master file or collated and kept in one place. These are scattered across different sectors and units of this office and in view of the above, the collation of information sought will require the undertaking of a thorough search of numerous files," the reply said.</p>.<p>Galgali disapproved of the RTI response and termed it as "immature and unprincipled" on part of PMO.</p>.<p>Galgali said, "The reply given by the PMO itself clarifies that something is very much fishy and complaints filed against the ministers in plenty. When the government gave compulsory retirement to several top-level babus, then why it did not act against the ministers."</p>
<p>The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has declined to share information on the alleged corruption charges against ministers of the previous Narendra Modi government.</p>.<p>Mumbai-based RTI activist Anil Galgali has sought the information from the PMO, who sought details of the alleged corruption complaints received against union ministers, invoking section 7(9) of the RTI Act.</p>.<p>The reply said that this would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority as it "may be a subjective as well as a cumbersome exercise". </p>.<p>Section 7(9) of the Act specifies that information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.</p>.<p>It said that it keeps receiving complaints against various union ministers as well as high-level functionaries, including corruption related and non-corruption related matters.</p>.<p>However, it does not keep records of these complaints in any single master file. </p>.<p>Under Secretary and CPIO of the PMO, Praveen Kumar, has stated that the complaints are pseudonymous and anonymous in nature and they are duly examined keeping in the view the veracity of the allegations or accusations and supporting documents in relation to these accusations. </p>.<p>"After taking the needful action, the records are not kept in any single master file or collated and kept in one place. These are scattered across different sectors and units of this office and in view of the above, the collation of information sought will require the undertaking of a thorough search of numerous files," the reply said.</p>.<p>Galgali disapproved of the RTI response and termed it as "immature and unprincipled" on part of PMO.</p>.<p>Galgali said, "The reply given by the PMO itself clarifies that something is very much fishy and complaints filed against the ministers in plenty. When the government gave compulsory retirement to several top-level babus, then why it did not act against the ministers."</p>
