&w=3840&q=100)
Epstein case: Trump faces tough questions over Ghislaine Maxwell ties
The clamour for releasing the Epstein files has overshadowed Trump's desperate bid to highlight the success of his first six months in power because it's not his rivals but his own base, which is up in arms. File image
'I FORGOTTI,' the New York Daily News tabloid front-page headline screamed in March 1986.
Around two years ago, on September 11, 1984, John Gotti, a caporegime (captain) of the Gambino crime family—the second most powerful of New York's Five Families—and his associate Frank Colletta had assaulted a burly refrigerator repairman named Romual Piecyk and robbed him of $325 outside the Cosy Corner Bar, Queens.
Piecyk lodged a police complaint, and Gotti and Colletta were arrested and charged with felony assault and theft.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
When the trial started more than a year later, Piecyk was unaware that Gotti, with the assistance of other caporegimes, including Salvatore 'Sammy the Bull' Gravano, had become the family boss by murdering Constantino Paul Castellano.
Piecyk started receiving threatening calls, and his van's brake wire was cut. During the trial in the State Supreme Court in Queens, he pretended to have a memory lapse and refused to recognise Gotti and Colletta.
Assault and robbery charges against Gotti, the 'Teflon Don', were dropped. The moniker stuck to the mob boss, who would remain unscathed in two other high-profile cases after intimidating witnesses and tampering with the jury.
However, Gotti's Teflon coating gave away a few years later when the FBI used electronic surveillance to arrest him and Gravano for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations (RICO) Act, and loan-sharking, murder, and conspiracy to commit murder.
On April 2, 1991, Gotti was convicted of racketeering and murder and awarded life imprisonment after Gravano turned into a government witness, confessed to 19 murders, and revealed the Gambino family's crimes. In June 2022, Gotti died of throat cancer.
Teflon Don of American Politics
Fast forward more than four decades later. Donald Trump is the new Teflon Don—of American politics.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The resemblance is striking.
Mark Pomerantz, one of the prosecutors in the tax fraud case against Trump, compares him to Gotti in his book The People vs Donald Trump: An Inside Account (2023).
'He [Trump] demanded absolute loyalty and would go after anyone who crossed him. He seemed always to stay one step ahead of the law. In my career as a lawyer, I had encountered only one other person who touched all of these bases: John Gotti, the head of the Gambino organised crime family,' Pomerantz writes.
Like Gotti's several brushes with the law that seemed to end his gangland reign but didn't, Don-ald's political career was about to get over when he made a stunning comeback slinging a flamethrower that scorched the Democrats and scripted history.
In a surprising turn of events, Trump — the first US president with a felony conviction — managed to avoid conviction in three indictments and jail time in one.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The charges for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and illegally retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida were dropped. Department of Justice (DoJ) policy prevents indictment and prosecution of a sitting US president.
In Georgia, Trump's trial for attempting to overturn the 2020 election is on hold. In the New York hush money case, the only instance where he was convicted, sentencing is delayed with his lawyers fighting to get the case transferred to a federal court.
In fact, the four cases, which Trump dubbed as a 'witch-hunt' and the DoJ's 'weaponisation' against him, and his 'Big Lie' allegation about the 'rigged' 2020 election—which he lost to Joe Biden—were instrumental in his thumping 2024 victory.
Trump Looks to Maxwell to Wriggle Out
Trump's smartness in conflating his problems with those of ordinary Americans has always reaped rich dividends, with voters coalescing into a formidable force.
Except in one case—the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
A problem that Trump never saw in the worst of his nightmares has come to bite him hard.
On the campaign trail, Trump promised his Make America Great Again (Maga) supporters and their captains that he would release all Epstein files. When he didn't, his army rebelled.
Now, the clamour for releasing the Epstein files has overshadowed Trump's desperate bid to highlight the success of his first six months in power because it's not his rivals but his own base, which is up in arms.
In his last-ditch effort to wriggle out of the morass and pacify his base, Trump has thrown the Ghislaine Maxwell bait.
Hours after the House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena Maxwell—Epstein's socialite-pimp girlfriend, jailed for 20 years for recruiting and trafficking minor girls—Deputy US Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that he will meet her soon. It's a unique precedent in which a senior law officer decided to meet a convicted sex trafficker.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'If Ghislaine Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DoJ will hear what she has to say,' he posted on social media.
WILL SHE TALK?
• Amid Epstein files furor, feds will ask jailed pal Maxwell if she has anything new to say https://t.co/Jw23ZunNUx
• Congress takes early vacation, avoids issuehttps://t.co/PhQmNzpteh
ROCK LEGEND OZZY DIES AT 76
Black Sabbath front man lived the 'dream'… pic.twitter.com/xH2W6o206y — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) July 23, 2025
Maxwell and her attorney, David Oscar Markus, met Blanche at the federal courthouse and talked for nine hours in Tallahassee, Florida, on Thursday and Friday.
Describing the meeting as 'very productive', Markus told the media that Maxwell 'answered every single question'. 'She never stopped. She never invoked her privilege. She never declined to answer. She answered all the questions truthfully, honestly, and to the best of her ability.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
However, Trump's latest move is more suspicious for several reasons.
First, Blanche didn't reveal what transpired in the meeting and only tweeted, 'The Department of Justice will share additional information about what we learned at the appropriate time.'
If a video or a transcript of the meeting isn't made public, it will only fuel the suspicions of a cover-up.
Second, Maxwell is the only living source of Epstein's crimes. If the DoJ and FBI were so eager to 'hear what she has to say about anyone who has committed crimes against victims', as Blanche said earlier, why did they wait for several months?
Third, Maxwell should have been interviewed by a prosecutor involved in the case, not a political appointee and Trump's former personal defence lawyer, who is also friends with Markus. It's a glaring case of conflict of interest. 'You are by far the best out there,' Blanche told Markus during a joint appearance on a podcast last year and labelled him a .
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Fourth, less than two weeks ago, on July 14, the DoJ opposed Maxwell's appeal to the US Supreme Court in April.
In a plea deal with Florida prosecutors in 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution and soliciting minors to engage in prostitution on the assurance that the US attorney's office for the Southern District of Florida would not pursue federal criminal charges against him and his co-conspirators.
Maxwell argued in her petition that the plea deal also shielded her from criminal charges. However, the DoJ urged the court to reject her appeal because she had 'coordinated, facilitated and contributed to' Epstein's 'sexual abuse of numerous young women and underage girls' and that the plea deal didn't apply to New York prosecutors from bringing charges against her.
Now, the same DoJ wanted to hear what Maxwell had to say or reveal, exposing the frantic bid to shield Trump.
Fifth, Maxwell is a habitual liar. 'The defendant lies when it suits her,' her sentencing document reads. Therefore, she can't be trusted with what she told Blanche or tells Congress or the court unless backed by evidence. 'If she lies, they could charge her with lying,' Markus told reporters.
Not only the court but even the DoJ questioned her credibility in 2020.
In a , Maxwell, who lured and recruited minor girls for Epstein's sexual depravity, claimed not to know about Epstein's 'scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages'.
In 2020, the DoJ charged Maxwell with two counts of perjury. Prosecutors never tried for perjury as she was convicted of more serious charges. However, , the DoJ said that her 'willingness to brazenly lie under oath about her conduct … strongly suggests her true motive has been and remains to avoid being held accountable for her crimes'.
Now, the DoJ has granted her proffer immunity, meaning her responses, even if lies, can't be used against her.
Sixth, has Maxwell got any new information regarding Epstein? According to Markus, she answered questions about '100 different people' linked to Epstein. But Blanche has neither made the questions nor the names of the people public.
A give-and-take sweetheart deal with Maxwell?
In 2020, Trump twice wished Maxwell 'well' after her arrest in July.
In August, he told Axios in an interview, 'I wish her well. Her friend or boyfriend was either killed or committed suicide in jail. She's now in jail … Let them prove somebody was guilty.' In July, he told reporters that he had 'met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach, and I guess they lived in Palm Beach. But I wish her well.'
Interestingly, the DoJ approached Maxwell before her tentative deposition to the House on August 11 following the subpoena.
If she 'agrees to testify before Congress and not take the 5th [Amendment]—and that remains a big if—she would testify truthfully as she always has said she would and as she will with Mr Blanche,' Markus told reporters before the meeting.
The DoJ also ensured to meet Maxwell before the Supreme Court, which is in recess, fixes a trial date for her appeal.
According to her brother Ian, Maxwell is collecting 'new evidence' to present to the court that 'was not available to the defence at her 2021 trial, which would have had a significant impact on its outcome'.
It's too early to predict the outcome of the Blanche-Maxwell meeting—but Maxwell wouldn't have spoken in Trump's favour, if not against, unless she gets something in return.
What Maxwell says in her House deposition or presents to the court will depend on what transpired with Blanche.
The possibility of Maxwell turning hostile or naming Trump to damage him is not high.
On the other hand, she could have claimed that Trump wasn't involved in the sexual exploitation of minor girls, which would end the controversy.
In return, Maxwell would seek leniency or commutation or even pardon from Trump. Since she was charged in a federal court, the president can commute her sentence or pardon her.
Though Markus told ABC News that 'there have been no asks and no promises'.
'We haven't asked for anything. This is not a situation where we are asking for anything in return for testimony or anything like that, he said, but added that she 'would welcome any relief.'
However, on his way to Scotland, Trump didn't shut the door to a pardon for Maxwell. 'Well, I don't want to talk about that,' he said, but added, 'It's something I haven't thought about. I'm allowed to do it.'
Later, Markus said that they haven't approached Trump for a pardon but added, '… the president this morning said he had the power to do. So, we hope he exercises that power in the right and just way.'
Markus had already hinted at a possible arrangement. 'We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case,' he had said before the meeting, adding that Trump is the and praising his .
In fact, Trump considered pardoning Maxwell in his first term, as he was 'very wary' about what she might reveal, claims American author and journalist Michael Wolff.
'The president became very wary about the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell. He asked, 'What could she say? What would she say?' And should he pardon her?' Wolff said on the Daily Beast podcast earlier this month.
According to famous lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who represented Epstein, Mike Tyson, and Julian Assange and was part of the defence team of Trump during his first impeachment trial in 2020, 'She's [Maxwell] going to make a deal.'
Dershowitz, who allegedly had sex with Epstein's late victim Virginia Giuffre, at least, six times and watched the sexual abuse of other minors, added, 'That's the way things are done. They make deals with the Mafia. So, I'm certain they are going to try to make a deal with her.'
The Epstein Problem is Trump's Own Making
The Epstein controversy arose after Trump's DoJ . Earlier this month, Attorney General Pam Bondi said in an unsigned memo that there was no 'incriminating 'client list''. Did the notorious sex offender have a client list that wasn't incriminating?
The DoJ and FBI also concluded that Epstein's death was a suicide, the biggest U-turn considering their boss had doubts about Epstein's suicide in his first term.
'…how did it happen? Was it suicide? Was he killed?' Trump had said in the Axios interview in August 2020.
When a Maga heavyweight rebelled, Trump jumped to Bondi's defence—like he did for then-NSA Mike Waltz and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth in the Signalgate blowback.
That didn't help calm down the furious Maga members, several of whom strongly believe QAnon's paedophile ring conspiracy theory and that a deep state run by government and intelligence elites hides the truth about issues like child sex trafficking.
Far-right activist Laura Loomer, who has Trump's ear, demanded the appointment of a special counsel to look into the matter.
Moreover, Bondi's comment to Fox News in February that she had an Epstein 'client list' that was 'sitting on my desk right now to review' following a Trump directive stoked the fire.
Kash Patel, before being appointed FBI director, publicly said that paedophiles were on the Epstein list and derided House GOP members for failing to release it.
After the tottering defence of his loyalists, the President lost his mind and slammed his core base of 'weakling' voters and accused them of backing the Epstein 'hoax' created by the 'radical left' and the Democrats.
Trump got a little reprieve with Maga heavyweights, like Bannon and Loomer, rallying behind him after The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported last week that he had sent a bawdy birthday letter, including his signature and an outline of a naked woman, to Epstein when he turned 50 in 2003.
As Trump comprehensively denied the report, Maga stars were back defending Trump.
However, the Epstein problem refuses to go away.
Several polls show that an increasing number of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of the Epstein investigation and want all files to be released.
A CBS News/YouGov poll showed that around 90 per cent of Americans, including 83 per cent of Republicans, think that the DoJ should release all the information regarding Epstein.
According to a Quinnipiac University poll, about 66 per cent of Americans, including 36 per cent of GOP supporters, disapprove of Trump's handling of the release of Epstein files.
An Economist/YouGov poll showed that 56 per cent of Americans 'strongly or somewhat' disapprove of Trump's handling of the Epstein probe. Moreover, 89 per cent of Democrats and 73 per cent of Republicans want all documents to be made public. Eighty-four per cent of Democrats and 53 per cent of Republicans believe that the Trump administration is covering up evidence.
Even House Republicans are divided with some openly defying Speaker Mike Johnson and joining the Democrats.
An increasing bipartisan chorus of lawmakers has called for a full release of the Epstein files, forcing Johnson to adjourn them to an early recess. However, the House Oversight Committee voted before adjournment to subpoena the DoJ to provide the Epstein files to Congress.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer (Kentucky) told reporters that the panel will 'move quickly' to issue a subpoena to the DoJ.
Now, even Johnson says that the Epstein case isn't a 'hoax' and wants 'full transparency'. 'We want full transparency,' he told CBS News.
Despite the DoJ concealing the Epstein files, information that Trump's association with the rapist-financier ran deeper than believed is trickling in bit by bit every other day to unnerve him.
Trump is making the mess messier by denying or rubbishing every new secret tumbling out of the closet or giving concessions.
The latest bombshell was dropped by WSJ on Wednesday. In May, Bondi informed Trump that his name was among the many high-profile people in the Epstein files. Last week, Trump said, 'No, no,' when asked whether Bondi told him he was named in the files. However, now the White House has termed the WSJ report fake news.
Trump reacted similarly to the exclusive CNN archived video footage and photos showing the rapist attending his second marriage (with Marla Maples) at the NYC's Plaza Hotel in 1993.
New Trump–Epstein Videos and Photos Uncovered
Newly uncovered photos and video show Donald Trump socializing with Jeffrey Epstein at high-profile events in the 1990s—including Trump's 1993 wedding and a 1999 Victoria's Secret show.
The footage, revealed by CNN, predates… pic.twitter.com/ehtIj74c3w — Clash Report (@clashreport) July 23, 2025
'You've got to be kidding me,' he told CNN's Andrew Kaczynski over the phone, called the network 'fake news' and hung up after 30 seconds.
They were also seen together at the opening of the Harley Davidson Café in the same year, at a 1997 Angels party and Victoria's Secret fashion event—all in New York.
Similarly, Trump shot back at the WSJ birthday letter report despite evidence to the contrary. 'I never wrote a picture in my life. I don't draw pictures of women,' he told the newspaper and sued it for $20 billion.
However, Lowery Lockard, who ran the auction for Hattie Larlham, a nonprofit foundation, told CNN that Trump sent her two signed drawings for an Ohio charity auction in 2004. She collected around 150 drawings from celebrities for the auction. Trump drew the New York City skyline with a signed waiver.
The Trump administration's actions after mid-May triggered suspicions of a cover-up and ended in a disaster.
What started as a much-hyped promise by Bondi in February and March to release 'a truckload of evidence' and 'full Epstein files' to Trump's April comment that '100% of all of these documents are being delivered' fizzled out by mid-May.
Both Patel and his deputy, Dan Bongino, claim that Epstein committed suicide. A week later, Bongino says, 'There is nothing in the file at this point on the Epstein case.'
On July 7, the DoJ released the memo—and the deluge of suspicions, conspiracy theories, and allegations of a cover-up swamp Trump and his coterie.
When Trump's bile failed to stem the Epstein tide, he relented.
Following the WSJ letter report, Trump ordered Bondi to unseal 'pertinent' grand jury transcripts from the Epstein case. However, the move has already backfired in Florida, where a judge denied Bondi's request to release additional jury transcripts. Several such requests are pending.
The writer is a freelance journalist with more than two decades of experience and comments primarily on foreign affairs. He tweets as @FightTheBigots. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
New US visa rule to include $15,000 bond: What it means, who's affected
The United States will soon begin requiring some foreign nationals to pay visa bonds of up to $15,000 as part of a pilot program aimed at reducing visa overstays, the State Department announced on Monday. A new US visa rule will require some tourist visa applicants to post bonds of up to $15,000 to discourage overstays. The move is part of US President Donald Trump's continued push to tighten immigration controls since returning to office in January. The 12-month program, which starts August 20, will apply to certain applicants for B-1 business and B-2 tourist visas from countries deemed high-risk for visa overstays, reported news agency AFP. What is the new US Visa program? According to a US state department notice set to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, 'consular officers may require covered nonimmigrant visa applicants to post a bond of up to $15,000 as a condition of visa issuance.' The minimum bond amount is $5,000, and the money will be returned if the traveler adheres to visa terms. Those who remain in the US beyond the permitted duration will forfeit the full bond. The program also restricts entry and exit to a list of pre-selected airports in the United States for those required to pay the bond. Who all will be affected? The country's state department said the measure targets nationals from countries with "high visa overstay rates" as identified in a 2023 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report. Additionally, applicants from countries 'where screening and vetting information is deemed deficient' or where citizenship can be acquired by investment without a residency requirement may also be required to post a bond. 'Countries will be identified based on high overstay rates, screening and vetting deficiencies, concerns regarding acquisition of citizenship by investment without a residency requirement, and foreign policy considerations,' a State Department spokesperson said in response to an AFP query. However, neither the spokesperson nor the notice listed the countries that will be immediately affected. According to DHS and US Customs and Border Protection data cited by news agency Reuters, nations such as Chad, Eritrea, Haiti, Myanmar, Yemen, Burundi, Djibouti and Togo have shown high overstay rates. How will it work? The bonds are intended as a financial deterrent. If visa holders leave the country on time, the amount will be refunded in full. If they overstay, the money will be retained by the government. The pilot will apply only to B-1 and B-2 visa applicants and will require them to travel in and out of designated airports. The state department said it cannot estimate how many people will be affected, but a spokesperson noted the criteria and country list may be updated over time. What is the Trump administeration saying? "The pilot reinforces the Trump administration's commitment to enforcing US immigration laws and safeguarding US national security," a state department spokesperson said. The notice describes the program as 'a key pillar of the Trump Administration's foreign policy to protect the United States from the clear national security threat posed by visa overstays.' A similar pilot was introduced in November 2020 during Trump's first term but was never fully implemented due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on global travel. New program may have narrow effect The US Travel Association estimated the scope of the program to be relatively narrow, likely affecting only about 2,000 applicants from countries with low travel volume, according to Reuters. However, the group raised concerns that the new requirement could hurt inbound tourism. "If implemented, the US will have one of, if not the highest, visitor visa fees in the world," the association said. The association also pointed to signs of waning international interest in US travel, noting that transatlantic airfares had dropped to pre-pandemic levels, and that travel from Canada and Mexico had declined by 20% year-on-year. (With AFP, Reuters inputs)
Hans India
29 minutes ago
- Hans India
Russia plays down Trump's N-rhetoric
Moscow: Russia said on Monday that everyone should be "very, very careful" about nuclear rhetoric, responding to a statement by US President Donald Trump that he had ordered a repositioning of US nuclear submarines. In its first public reaction to Trump's comments, the Kremlin played down their significance and said it was not looking to get into a public argument with him. Trump said on Friday that he had ordered two nuclear submarines to be moved to "the appropriate regions" in response to remarks from former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev about the risk of war between the nuclear-armed adversaries. But Trump did not say whether they were nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said American submarines were on combat duty anyway and dismissed the idea that there had been an escalation. "Very complex, very sensitive issues are being discussed, which, of course, many perceive very emotionally," Peskov said - though he added that everyone should be "very cautious" with nuclear rhetoric. US envoy Steve Witkoff is due to visit Russia on Wednesday, according to Russian media. Medvedev - who in recent years has espoused increasingly extreme rhetoric online - had accused Trump of "playing the ultimatum game" with Russia after the US President set a new deadline for Vladimir Putin to end the war with Ukraine. Medvedev did not react to Trump's response and has not been active on X since sending the offending post. Relations between the US and Russia improved significantly after Trump took office in January - although in recent months the US President has signalled he suspects Putin may not be truly committed to ending the war in Ukraine, which began when Moscow launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Hans India
29 minutes ago
- Hans India
Use RTI to seek reasons for public employment and policy deviations
Recently, an RTI questioner from Coimbatore sought some very useful information. The query was built around RTI's utility in questioning the re-employment order by the Department of Higher Education, with a focus on the use of RTI queries as a tool for public accountability. In a compelling example of how the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be used to challenge administrative decisions, a former professor and RTI activist has raised critical questions about a recent order issued by the Department of Higher Education in Tamil Nadu, which allows re-employment of certain college-level administrative officers beyond the age of superannuation. On July 31, the department issued an order permitting the re-employment of those engaged in administrative functions, even after crossing the age of 60 years. This move, based on a request from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, sparked concern over its legality and consistency with existing government norms. RTI activist seeks answers: N R Ravisankar, an RTI activist and former Head of the Mathematics Department at CBM College, Coimbatore, submitted a formal representation to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, raising a red flag on the order. He cited Government Order (G.O.) 192 dated November 12, 2024, which had categorically barred re-employment for such positions beyond the age of 60. Prof. Ravisankar argues that the new order contradicts this amendment to G.O. 92, which states: 'Every government servant in the superior as well as basic service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which they attain the age of 60 years. They shall not be retained in service after that age.' Questions raised under RTI: The activist's move highlights how RTI can be effectively used to demand transparency and rationale behind policy reversals or deviations. Through RTI applications and petitions, the following key questions can be posed to the Department of Higher Education and relevant authorities: Did the Higher Education Department consult the Law Department before issuing this July 31 G.O.? If yes, provide copies of such legal opinions. Has any review committee or expert panel been constituted to examine the impact of re-employment on governance, recruitment opportunities for younger candidates, and institutional autonomy? How many officials have been re-employed under this new order? Please provide a district-wise list with names, designations, and dates of reappointment. Was the re-employment order placed before the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly or its relevant committee for oversight, especially in light of its policy implications? Is there any provision under existing UGC regulations or the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules that permits administrative staff to continue beyond superannuation age, specifically in aided colleges? What was the rationale behind cancelling re-employment in an earlier instance—such as the case of a government-aided college in Coimbatore where a new principal was directed to be appointed upon the previous incumbent's retirement? Does the July 31, 2025 G.O. apply to government-aided institutions as well? If yes, how does this comply with the statutory and financial norms applicable to such institutions? Legal and ethical dilemma: Prof Ravisankar underscores that such re-employment orders not only defy the retirement age rule but also block opportunities for younger aspirants in the education sector. 'If the rule is clear that retirement is mandatory at 60, how can administrative exceptions be allowed selectively? It defeats the very purpose of uniformity and public interest in service rules,' he said in his representation. His RTI-based challenge exemplifies how citizens and professionals can act as watchdogs over executive discretion, especially in sectors like education, where transparency and accountability are vital for fair governance. An administrative question: Whether the Department of Higher Education will issue a clarification or revoke the July 31 order remains to be seen. To reinforce the utility of the Right to Information (RTI) in questioning government re-employment policies post-superannuation, we can refer to a landmark decision by this author (Prof. (Dr.) M. Sridhar Acharyulu, former Central Information Commissioner (CIC)). This answer underscored citizens' right to seek reasons and file queries regarding public employment and policy deviations, especially those affecting transparency and equal opportunity. In File No: CIC/SA/A/2016/001978, the CIC ruled that: 'Public authorities are bound to give reasons for selection, extension, or re-employment of public servants, especially when there is a departure from standard procedure or existing policy.' This judgment arose in the context of an RTI applicant seeking details about the re-employment of a retired officer in a central government department. The Central Information Commission directed the public authority to: Disclose the note sheets and file notings showing the rationale for re-employment. Provide copies of approval orders, correspondence, and minutes of meetings that led to the decision. Clarify whether any rules were relaxed or amended to allow such re-employment. In his detailed reasoning, he emphasised: 'When a government servant is re-employed post-retirement, especially when young and qualified aspirants are awaiting regular appointments, the authorities must place on record the compelling public interest that justified such a move.' This principle is directly relevant to the July 31, 2025 re-employment order issued by the Tamil Nadu Department of Higher Education. Based on that ruling, the following implications arise: Citizens can question: Activists like Prof Ravisankar can seek: 1. The file notings, justifications, and correspondence from the Higher Education Department and Collegiate Education Commissioner-On whether any rules under G.O. 92 or G.O. 192 were amended or bypassed. 2. Lack of transparency violates the RTI mandate-If the July 31 order does not disclose public interest justifications, it could be seen as arbitrary or opaque, inviting challenge under RTI as well as judicial review. 3. Re-employment must serve public interest, not individual continuity-As noted in the order: Public offices are not meant for the convenience of individuals but for the service of the public. 4. RTI is a tool to uphold equality and fair opportunity-Re-employment of individuals beyond 60, without open recruitment or advertisement, raises serious concerns about denial of opportunity to eligible younger candidates, which can be pursued through RTI. Activists or citizens can file RTIs asking for: Copy of the July 31 G.O. with background file notes and recommendations; Details of consultation with the Law Department, if any. This judgment of CIC affirms that RTI is a powerful legal mechanism to challenge arbitrary re-employment, demand transparency in administrative decisions, and protect the rights of deserving aspirants. In the current Tamil Nadu case, this precedent strengthens the position of public-spirited individuals like Prof Ravisankar in ensuring that public policy does not become a tool for preferential or non-transparent governance. (The writer is a former CIC and Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
