The Delhi High Court has dismissed two petitions filed by a death row convict in the Mumbai twin blast case under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the grounds that divulging information related to the appointment of IAS and IPS officers who supervised the probe, may expose them to grave risk.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the petitions filed by Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique, seeking information under the RTI Act on the Intelligence Bureau report as well as the appointment of IAS and IPS officers who supervised the probe and accorded sanction to the prosecution relating to his arrest and conviction.
Siddique was convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and the National Investigation Act, 2008. He is presently serving his sentence in the Nagpur Central Prison.
Upholding the orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC), the High Court observed that the information is of such a nature that if it is given to Siddique, it may expose the officers to grave danger.
The CIC had ruled in its order that the information on the appointment of IAS and IPS officers, as sought by Siddique, would encroach upon the right to privacy of the officials, adding that since the right to privacy was a continuous process, it would continue even after 20 years.
The High Court noted that 20 years have not passed after the date of the incident and therefore, in any event, the benefit of Section 8(3) of the RTI Act was not available to the petitioner in the facts of the present case.
Even if it was assumed that 20 years have passed, in such cases the right of privacy for these officers, who can be exposed to grave risk, cannot be diverged to an accused and that too when the accused has been convicted and sentenced to death penalty, it added.
Justice Prasad noted that in view of danger to the life and property of the officers who were involved in the investigation relating to Siddique, disclosing their information to him would certainly outweigh the public interest that was claimed.
The petitioner had contended that the report suggested false implication and arrest of the accused persons, and was placed before the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2009 for review of evidence in the bomb blast case.
While dismissing the pleas, the High Court observed that the information sought was based on a newspaper article, which cannot be taken as gospel truth. A report or an article published in a newspaper was considered only hearsay evidence and not a document through which an allegation of fact can be proven. Besides, affidavits have been filed by responsible officers in the Court stating that no such report existed. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the Respondent, noted the single-judge Bench.
Advocates Arpit Bhargava, Sarthak Sharma and Pankaj appeared for the petitioner.