The Wire: New Delhi: Friday, 16 September 2022.
The court was hearing a petition moved by 2006 Mumbai train blasts convict Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique, who had filed an RTI to seek information on the documents the MHA had used to press for his prosecution.
The Delhi high court has ruled that disclosure of documents relied upon by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to grant sanction for prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act can be denied under the Right to Information Act, according to Bar and Bench.
A single bench of Justice Yashwant Varma was hearing the petition moved by 2006 Mumbai train blasts convict Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique, who, through a Right to Information (RTI) application, sought to know the documents the MHA had used to press for his prosecution under Section 45 (1) of the UAPA. The said section deals with courts seeking sanction from Union or state governments before going ahead with the case. Siddique, who is currently lodged in the Nagpur jail, is on death row.
Justice Varma ruled that the information sought by the petitioner under RTI was exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. The particular section of the RTI states that there is no obligation on the part of the state to give citizens information that would affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, its security and its interests.
“Bearing in mind the provisions made in Section 45 of the UAP Act, the Court is of the firm opinion that the disclosures that were sought, and in the broad terms as were prayed for in the application, the respondents rightly invoked Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act,” Justice Verma said, according to Bar and Bench.
The court dismissed the petitioner’s plea which had said certain aspects of the information sought by him were “severable” and it fell outside the ambit of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, which had been invoked to deny the information he had sought.
To this, the court said the petitioner had failed to establish even on a prima facie footing what information was “severable” that may ultimately lead to the issuance of the notification under Section 45 of the UAPA law.
The case actually dates back to May 2017 when Siddique had moved an RTI application seeking the said information. The government rejected the information sought, invoking Section 8(1) of the RTI Act citing the impact it would have on the security and sovereignty of India.
After the information was denied, he filed an appeal which was also turned down. He then approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) in a second appeal which also met the same fate.
It was then that Siddique challenged the CIC order before the Delhi high court. The high court had then issued a notice to MHA for its response in January 2020. The MHA did not file its response until last week, September 9. Subsequently, the court then rejected Siddique’s plea.
The court was hearing a petition moved by 2006 Mumbai train blasts convict Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique, who had filed an RTI to seek information on the documents the MHA had used to press for his prosecution.
The Delhi high court has ruled that disclosure of documents relied upon by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to grant sanction for prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act can be denied under the Right to Information Act, according to Bar and Bench.
A single bench of Justice Yashwant Varma was hearing the petition moved by 2006 Mumbai train blasts convict Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique, who, through a Right to Information (RTI) application, sought to know the documents the MHA had used to press for his prosecution under Section 45 (1) of the UAPA. The said section deals with courts seeking sanction from Union or state governments before going ahead with the case. Siddique, who is currently lodged in the Nagpur jail, is on death row.
Justice Varma ruled that the information sought by the petitioner under RTI was exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. The particular section of the RTI states that there is no obligation on the part of the state to give citizens information that would affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, its security and its interests.
“Bearing in mind the provisions made in Section 45 of the UAP Act, the Court is of the firm opinion that the disclosures that were sought, and in the broad terms as were prayed for in the application, the respondents rightly invoked Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act,” Justice Verma said, according to Bar and Bench.
The court dismissed the petitioner’s plea which had said certain aspects of the information sought by him were “severable” and it fell outside the ambit of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, which had been invoked to deny the information he had sought.
To this, the court said the petitioner had failed to establish even on a prima facie footing what information was “severable” that may ultimately lead to the issuance of the notification under Section 45 of the UAPA law.
The case actually dates back to May 2017 when Siddique had moved an RTI application seeking the said information. The government rejected the information sought, invoking Section 8(1) of the RTI Act citing the impact it would have on the security and sovereignty of India.
After the information was denied, he filed an appeal which was also turned down. He then approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) in a second appeal which also met the same fate.
It was then that Siddique challenged the CIC order before the Delhi high court. The high court had then issued a notice to MHA for its response in January 2020. The MHA did not file its response until last week, September 9. Subsequently, the court then rejected Siddique’s plea.
.JPG)
.JPG)
