The Hindu: Chennai: Tuesday, November 27, 2018.
Says that a compiled copy of older orders
will be provided as per CIC’s direction
The Ministry of Home Affairs has informed
A.G. Perarivalan, one of the seven life convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi
assassination case, that the Central government did not frame any remission
rules under Article 72/73 or Section 432-435 of CrPC in light of the judgment
by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the Union of India vs
Sridharan alias Murugan & others case in December 2015.
The admission that no remission rules
were framed came almost two years after the convict moved a petition under the
Right to Information Act. On January 8, 2016, Perarivalan had petitioned to the
MHA seeking a copy of the remission rules framed by the Central government as
per the constitutional bench judgement of the Supreme Court dated December 2,
2015, in the matter of Union of India vs. V. Sriharan alias Murugan &
Others.
He also sought to access a copy of the
circular/order/bylaw issued by the Centre to all the State governments
restraining them from granting any remission/suspension/release in the matter
in which the apex court held that Centre to be the appropriate government.
After the Ministry refused to divulge any
details on the grounds that the matter was sub judice, the convict moved the
Central Information Commission (CIC). Passing orders on the appeal on August
14, 2018, Information Commissioner Yashovardhan Azad noted that the reply of
the MHA was not complete as regards rules and guidelines framed by the Central
Government on the matter of remission.
‘Blanket refuge’
“The Public Information Officer (PIO)
failed to apply his mind and sought a blanket refuge under the guise of the
matter being sub judice. It is well settled that that mere pendency of a matter
before a court of law does not render all information espousing the matter as
exempted under the RTI Act. There was no specific direction from the court to that
effect. Hence, the decision of the PIO was bad in law,” he held adding that all
the appellant wanted to know was the documented policy, rules governing the
remission of convicts in light of a judicial pronouncement.
Referring to the denial of copies of all
remission orders passed by the Central Government throughout the territory of
India, Mr. Azad said that the Public Information Officer had not taken a
position in this regard, but in hindsight opposed the disclosure of the same.
The Commission said it saw no impediment
if the remission orders were made public and directed the Public Information
Officer, MHA, to furnish details sought by the petitioner by September 30,
2018.
Complying with this order the MHA wrote
to the convict,presently lodged in the Puzhal Central Prison, Chennai, on
November 8, 2018, that no remission rules were framed by the Centre.
As regards copies of remission orders
already passed, the information was not readily available in the desired
format.
Once compiled, the information would be
provided to the petitioner.
‘No transparency’
K. Sivakumar, counsel for Perarivalan,
said there was no transparency in the way the MHA was handling the remission
files of convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
First, the Ministry rejected their
premature release by issuing an order in the name of the President. However, it
later came to light that the file was not referred to the President at all.
“When my client wanted copies, the MHA
refused and stated the matter was sub judice...now they are saying no remission
rules were formed. The Tamil Nadu Governor should not take these decisions into
consideration while deciding on the remission proposal of the State Cabinet,”
he said.
.JPG)
.JPG)
