The
Hindu: Chennai: Saturday, September 15, 2018.
CPIO
of Rashtrapati Bhavan replies to RTI application by Perarivalan on remission of
sentence
At
a time when the Tamil Nadu government has renewed its efforts to get the seven
life convicts in the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi assassination case
released, Rashtrapati Bhavan has said the President’s Secretariat had not
received the State’s previous recommendations for remission of sentences of
these prisoners.
Replying
to an application filed under the Right to Information Act by A.G. Perarivalan,
one of the seven convicts, seeking copies of the files relating to his petition
for premature release forwarded by the State, the Chief Public Information
Officer (CPIO), Rashtrapati Bhavan, said his petition [58720/CTS-VIA/2008 dated
02/03/2016] “has not been received in the concerned sections of this
Secretariat.”
Referring
to queries on the Cabinet/Ministry of Home Affairs recommendations, the
President’s Secretariat forwarded the petition to the Ministry of Home Affairs
stating that the information asked for pertained or closely related to the
functions of the Ministry.
Perarivalan
had filed the application under RTI Act days after the Home Ministry in its
communication dated April 18, 2018 said “the Central Government, in pursuance
of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not concur with
the proposal of the Government of Tamil Nadu contained in its communication
dated 02/03/2016 for grant of remission of sentence to the seven convicts.”
This
Home Ministry letter was signed “By order and in the name of the President of
India” by V.B Dubey, Joint Secretary to the Government of India.
Option
of appeal
Since
the President’s Secretariat said it did not receive any proposal on remission
from the Tamil Nadu government and also gave an option of appeal to the
petitioner, Perarivalan, lodged in Puzhal central prison in Chennai, has
written to the appellate authority in Rashtrapati Bhavan.
He
stated that since the order was issued in the name of the President, the CPIO
of President’s Secretariat ought to have either provided the details of the
information sought or refused to provide the same.
However,
he transferred the RTI request to the MHA defying logic.
Though
every executive action of the Government of India is undertaken in the name of
the President of India, the template “By order and in the name of the President
of India” is not used in all orders.
Emphasising
his right to know who took a decision on his remission/release, Perarivalan
said the CPIO of President’s Secretariat ought to have provided the rules and
informed as to why the order (of the MHA) containing the template was issued in
the name of the President when his petition forwarded by the State was not
received at all.
.JPG)
.JPG)
