Govt fudges facts, tells the apex court: Dubey never asked for secrecy

And, two, the UPA Government is giving a defence which even the NDA Government did not at any stage of the public interest litigation before the Supreme Court.

In a five-page affidavit filed with annexures on July 15, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH) says: ‘‘If Mr Dubey had, in the first instance, expressed any concern with regard to the disclosure of his identity, the cause (sic) of action adopted in this case would have been different.’’

In other words, the UPA Government is suggesting that the Prime Minister’s Office in Vajpayee’s reign would have held back Dubey’s identity if only he had expressed ‘‘any concern’’ about its disclosure in the letter he sent for the first time in November 2002 (received by the PMO on November 11).

The fact is Dubey did express such a concern as evident from the fact that he did not sign or disclose his identity anywhere in the letter. The IIT engineer instead gave his ‘‘brief particulars’’ on a separate sheet, as he clearly said at the beginning of the letter, ‘‘to ensure secrecy.’’

Despite such an express request, Vajpayee’s PMO referred Dubey’s letter along with his particulars to the MORTH where it was seen, as evident from their signatures, by as many as eight officials.

Dubey’s letter was subsequently sent to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) where it was seen and signed by another half a dozen officials. In the course of the correspondence that ensued, Dubey, in fact, ‘‘once again’’ requested Praveen Singh, Chief Vigilance Officer of the NHAI, on May 2, 2003 to probe the matter discreetly. ‘‘Sir, I had requested in my initial representation to keep my identity secret to avoid exposure to undesirable pressures and threats. I, however, express concern over the disclosure of my identity.’’

The Government annexed all this correspondence to its July 15 affidavit in response to the PIL filed by advocate Rakesh Upadhyay following The Sunday Express expose of Dubey’s murder on November 27, 2003. The PIL, which has already led to the creation of a whistleblower mechanism at the Centre, is due to come up for hearing before the Supreme Court on Monday. The Centre will now be hardpressed to justify its claim that Dubey, despite all the evidence to the contrary in its own annexures, had originally not expressed ‘‘any concern’’ about the disclosure of his identity. Its entire claim is based on Dubey’s affirmation at the end of his first letter that he would ‘‘keep on addressing these issues in my official capacity in the limited domain within the powers delegated to me.’’

Neither a bare reading of those words nor the context in which they were written bears out the UPA Government’s suggestion that Dubey was unconcerned about the disclosure of his identity.

In fact, Dubey ends his letter saying he had raised six issues about the Golden Quadrilateral project in his ‘‘individual capacity.’’ And, to prove his sincerity, he clarified that he had been dealing with those issues in his official capacity as well. Dubey was then manager (technical) of the NHAI supervising a stretch of the highway construction in Bihar.