26/11: Cops get nod to challenge info panel order against Maria.

Indian Express: Mumbai: Thursday, 06 November 2014.

The state Home Department on Wednesday approved an appeal filed by the Mumbai Police, allowing them to approach the Bombay High Court to challenge an order passed by State Chief Information Commissioner Ratanakar Gaikwad in July, seeking a commission of inquiry against Mumbai Police Commissioner Rakesh Maria.

Gaikwad’s contention while passing the order was that Maria was trying to hide information relating to the 26/11 terror attacks sought under RTI by withholding and providing misleading information about the call logs of wireless conversations between the police control room and slain IPS officer Ashok Kamte’s van on the day of his death.

“An appeal memo vetted by the Mumbai Police was approved by the Home Department today. The Mumbai Police can now submit their appeal against the SCIC order in the High Court,” a state government official said on Wednesday. The appeal is based on the Mumbai Police contention that the SCIC exceeded his jurisdiction in calling for an inquiry against the police commissioner. “The main contention of the appeal is the jurisdictional overreach shown by the SCIC,” the official said.

Gaekwad and the police machinery have been at loggerheads for a while now. The police had earlier challenged in court his order in which he said that the Bombay Police Manual should be made public.

Gaikwad’s order against Maria came on an appeal filed by Vinita Kamte, wife of Ashok Kamte. She had submitted an application under the RTI in 2009, seeking log records of the South Mumbai Police channel. The information was earlier denied. Vinita then appealed to the SCIC and subsequently information was provided but there were serious discrepancies in the information given to her on November 2009 and February 2010.

Pulling up Maria, the SCIC had raised doubts on whether he was trying to hide information relating to the 26/11 attacks. He had also told the state government to institute a commission of inquiry into the entire incident on why misleading information was provided in an incident of such prominence.