DNA: Mumbai: Thursday, January 29, 2015.
The state
government's decision- to challenge the judicial inquiry ordered by the state
information commission over apparent manipulation of 26/11 call records- was
based on a senior advocate's advice that the information commissioner was
"acting on extraneous consideration and shows bias" and "seems
to target Maria" (Rakesh Maria, Mumbai police commissioner). The state had
sought an opinion from senior advocate and legal expert, Shekhar Naphade.
It was
through a Right to Information (RTI) application that dna discovered the
government's reasons for challenging the order.
In the order
dated July 9, 2014, the state chief information commissioner Ratnakar Gaikwad
had torn into Rakesh Maria, Mumbai police commissioner, as well as the then
additional chief secretary for "withholding and giving misleading"
information. In the same order he had directed the chief secretary to appoint a
commission under an existing or a retired judge to probe the matter. The
information was sought by Vinita Kamte, widow of 26/11 martyr Ashok Kamte. She
wished to find out if there was an unreasonable delay in getting help to Kamte,
who eventually succumbed to his bullet injuries.
Vinita Kamte
had complained about getting two call records of the same period with
discrepancies in timings. Before the judicial enquiry, the commission had asked
the additional chief secretary to probe into these discrepancies. The
additional chief secretary had stated that the original content was the same
and that wrong copies were provided to Kamte. An aggrieved Kamte had again
approached the commission which had then passed the order about the judicial
enquiry.
In his
opinion that runs into three pages, Naphade stated that the commission order
was "perverse" and that it "seems to target Rakesh Maria"
as per his opinion. The advocate's opinion was based on the grounds that Maria
was not designated as an information officer or any other functionary under the
provisions of the RTI Act. "It appears that the notice issued to Mr.
Rakesh Maria is with a pre-designed purpose of targeting him," stated the
letter.
The letter
also makes mention of a "senior police officer" in private telling
Gaikwad that police did manipulate call records. The officer's name was not
disclosed by the information commissioner. "Mr. Jamal Khan, (advocate for
the state on some matters) made an application dated 1 July, 2014 and placed
above facts on records. By the said application the CIC was requested to
examine the police officer who gave information about the alleged manipulation
of records. These was no response from CIC to the said application. This
clearly shows that the CIC is acting on an extraneous consideration and shows
bias on his part," stated the letter signed by Naphade.
The letter
goes on to state that the commission can only deal with the role of assistant
information officer and information officer and not the police commissioner.
When dna contacted Gaikwad, in an sms reply he said, "No comments. It is
quasi judicial matter pl (sic)." Maria was lately allowed by the state to
approach the court for relief.
When
approached for comment, Vinita Kamte said, "I do not know about the
information commissioner targeting Maria. He (Gaikwad) is talking about
manipulations that prima facie appeared to have happened. And it is not that
Maria and the home department were not given an opportunity to make their say.
None of them turned up (to the hearings). Firstly, I shouldn't have been
fighting this also. They should have made sure that they call me, make me sit
across the table and convince me."
.JPG)
.JPG)
