Financial
Express: Delhi: Thursday, January 17, 2019.
The
Delhi High Court Wednesday said the information sought by a convict in the 2006
Mumbai train bombings case regarding an Intelligence Bureau report purportedly
calling for review of evidence in the matter, did pertain to human rights
violation and asked the Central Information Commission to consider his request
afresh. Justice Vibhu Bakhru said the Central Information Commission (CIC)
“erroneously” concluded that the information sought by the convict, Ehtesham
Qutubuddin Siddique, did not pertain to allegations of corruption or human
rights violation.
“The
gravamen of his allegation is that he has been falsely implicated by the
respondent despite the respondent having information that the petitioner was
not involved in the July 11, 2006 blast case. This court is of the view that
the said conclusion is erroneous, as the information does relate to violation
of human rights,” the judge said. With the observation, the court set aside the
CIC’s March 26, 2018 order denying the information sought by the convict, and
remanded the matter back to the commission for fresh consideration.
The
order came on a plea by Siddique, represented by advocate Arpit Bhargava,
seeking directions to the Intelligence Bureau (IB) to provide him with the
report which was tabled before the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2009. Siddique,
presently lodged in the Nagpur Central Jail, was given capital punishment for
the July 11, 2006 serial blasts when seven RDX bombs ripped through as many
Western line local trains in Mumbai leading to the death of 189 persons and
injuring 829. In his plea, filed through Bhargava, he had claimed that he was
falsely implicated in the case which amounts to violation of his human rights
and therefore, he needed the IB report which purportedly called for review of
the evidence in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case.
The
IB, represented by advocates Rahul Sharma and C K Bhatt, had opposed the plea
saying since Siddique was convicted after trial by a court set up under the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), he could not in another
forum claim that he was falsely implicated. The IB’s lawyers had also contended
that the convict was “trying to create a parallel trial” since the death
sentence to him was pending confirmation in the Bombay High Court.
The
court while sending the matter back to CIC for a fresh consideration, made it
clear that merely because information regarding allegations of corruption and
human rights violations falls within the purview of RTI Act does not mean it
has to be disclosed. It said the commission will examine whether the
information sought was relevant and if it found that it was not, then approval
for disclosure would not be granted.
(Copy of Order)