The Hindu: Chennai: Friday, July
29, 2016.
Seeks action
against information officers for not responding to his application.
A.G.
Perarivalan, the life convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, has
accused the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) of tossing his plea under the Right
to Information (RTI) Act seeking copies of the remission rules framed by the
Centre based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Union of India versus
V. Sriharan alias Murugan & others case.
Pointing out
that the information sought by him pertained to his life and liberty, the
convict alleged that three Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) in the
MHA had “shunted” his petition from one department to another instead of
collecting and providing the information.
When he went
in appeal aggrieved over the delay in getting the details sought, the first
appellate authority, the Joint Secretary, MHA, also failed to respond even
after 100 days.
The
petitioner appealed to the Central Information Commission (CIC) to take a
serious view of the issue and impose cost on the information officers besides
taking steps to provide the information sought by him.
Perarivalan,
currently lodged in Vellore central prison, said he was facing the 26th year of
incarceration since he was arrested at the age of 19.
The Supreme
Court commuted his death penalty to life imprisonment along with others facing
capital punishment in the case.
While
disposing of a writ petition seeking premature release from prison, the
Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court had ruled in December last that the
State Government had no suo motu power to remit sentences of persons who were
convicted under a Central law and cases investigated by a central agency like
the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The apex
court also clarified that decisions on remission in such cases had to be taken
in concurrence with the Centre.
Perarivalan
petitioned the MHA asking for copies of the remission rules framed on the basis
of the judgment. He also sought a copy of the order/circular sent by the MHA to
the States on the issue.
Representing
that his second appeal be admitted for inquiry, the convict urged the CIC to
direct three CPIOs and the first appellate authority (Joint Secretary, MHA) to
be present at the time of hearing and file an affidavit on why the information
was not shared.
He also
appealed to the CIC to seek a compliance report from the MHA on the action
taken to proactively disclose detailed information under Section 4 (1) (b) of
the RTI Act as regards the rules framed as per the Constitutional Bench
judgment.
He has
appealed to the CIC to intervene in the matter and also get him the information.
.JPG)
.JPG)
