Ram Jethmalani's threatened unburdening to the media on the reasons for his exit from the Vajpayee Government has indeed taken place. And it was an unseemly spectacle. The former law minister levelled serious allegations against the Chief Justice of India A.S. Anand and Attorney General Soli Sorabjee. Apart from the verbal fusillades, his arsenal apparently includes several confidential government documents. While it may be an exaggeration to paint the entire drama as a confrontation between the Executive and the Judiciary, there can be little doubt that it threatens to cast a shadow over the functioning and credibility of the institutions in question. The Vajpayee government's decision to order an inquiry into the leakage of secret official documents may not, however, be the best way of salvaging the situation. Jethmalani's charges need to be confronted outright; they must be directly engaged with. Admittedly, Ram Jethmalani's timing is suspect. His allegations have come tumbling out after he was sacked from the Union Cabinet. It is also no secret that Jethmalani has had a controversial career so far and has cultivated a reputation for speaking out of turn. Yet, the gauntlet that he has thrown down must be picked up more robustly. An inquiry into the breach of the Official Secrets Act may well turn out to be counterproductive. It may have the entirely unintended consequence of lending even more resonance to Jethmalani's allegations. After all, it is common knowledge that, over the years, the Official Secrets Act has become the refuge for many an errant politician and bureaucrat. By criminalising the divulgence of all official information to any person, other than the person authorised to receive it, the Act, a relic of the British Raj, stands in the way of public scrutiny of virtually all governmental functioning. Certain areas, of course, cannot be bared to public view. Information relating tosensitive international negotiations or that affecting the security of the nation must understandably be classified as secret and exempted from disclosure. But under existing law, the term "official secret" is an undifferentiated, sweeping description applying to almost all government activities. This hold-all ambiguity has been deliberately preserved down the years for the simple reason that it has served the interests of egregious officials and politician. Surely the government cannot be unaware of the piquant irony in invoking the Official Secrets Act in the face of Jethmalani's vituperations, even as the long-awaited Freedom of Information Bill waits its turn in Parliament. The Bill will make it possible for information to be obtained from the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO) on the payment of a prescribed fee within 30 days of the request being made; it will be mandatory for the PIO to give reasons for the rejection of a request. If Ram Jethmalani has made unsubstantiated accusations, it is best that they are countered with information based on facts. Denial of access to information by harking back to an anachronistic law will, in the present context, only result in Jethmalani's accusations acquiring a ring of authenticity they may not otherwise merit.
