Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’), Subramonium Prasad, J.*, noted that the information sought by the petitioner was on the basis of the newspaper article published in 2009, alleging there was an Intelligence Bureau report, which suggested false implication and arrest of accused persons, and was placed before the Ministry of Home Affairs for review of evidence in the bomb blast case, and opined that it had been well established that a report or an article published in a newspaper was considered only hearsay evidence. The Court opined that such a newspaper report, or article, was not a document through which an allegation of fact could be proven. Further, affidavits had also been filed by responsible officers in the Court stating that no such report exists, and there was reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the respondent.
Thus, the Court opined that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the CIC and dismissed the present petition.
Background
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death in the Mumbai Twin blast, also known as 7/11 bomb blast case which took place in 2006. The petitioner was sentenced to punishment of death for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Section 3(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 3(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and apart from this the petitioner was also sentenced for various offences under IPC.
The petitioner made an RTI application to the CPIO Intelligence Bureau seeking a copy of an alleged Intelligence Bureau report, which suggested false implication and arrest of accused persons, and was placed before the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2009 for review of evidence in the bomb blast case. However, the information as sought for by the petitioner was rejected by the CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, on the ground that the agency from which the information was sought was exempted from the purview of Section 24(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’).
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act with the designated First Appellate Authority (‘FAA’). The petitioner pleaded that Section 24(1) of the RTI Act would not apply as his case was one of human rights violation. The petitioner further added that the officers involved in the investigation of the Twin Blast case were awarded various medals and other monetary benefits for the arrest of innocent persons, which was an act of corruption and hence could not be excluded under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. However, the FAA rejected the petitioner’s appeal.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed the second appeal with the CIC, and the CIC in its order upheld the decision of the CPIO and FAA and stated that the query raised by the petitioner failed to satisfy two preconditions under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, that were, (i) the information being sought must relate to allegations of corruption / human right violations; and (ii) the same must be expressly barred under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Further, the petitioner filed the writ petition in this Court on the grounds that the information sought by the petitioner was related to allegations of violation of human rights. The Coordinate Bench vide Judgment dated 16-01-2019 held that the petitioner’s application was related to violation of human rights and the CIC’s conclusion was erroneous, and further remanded the matter back to the CIC to be considered afresh.
However, the CIC heard the matter afresh where the CPIO, Intelligence Bureau, contended that the no such report, as claimed by the petitioner, was submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thus, the CIC passed an order directing the CPIO to file an affidavit deposing that no such report was submitted in 2009 and therefore no such information could be provided to the petitioner.
Thus, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in the present petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the information sought by the petitioner was on the basis of the newspaper article published in 2009, alleging there was an Intelligence Bureau report, which suggested false implication and arrest of accused persons, and was placed before the Ministry of Home Affairs for review of evidence in the bomb blast case, and opined that it had been well established that a report or an article published in a newspaper was considered only hearsay evidence. The Court opined that such a newspaper report, or article, was not a document through which an allegation of fact could be proven.
The Court opined that no such gross error had occurred by the CIC in their adjudication of the order, and the premise on which the petitioner was relying could not be taken as gospel truth. Further, affidavits had also been filed by responsible officers in the Court stating that no such report exists, and there was reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the respondent.
Thus, the Court opined that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the CIC and dismissed the present petition.
[Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO, Intelligence Bureau, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1587, decided on 28-02-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Arpit Bhargava, Sarthak Sharma and Pankaj, Advocates.;
For the Respondent: Rahul Sharma, Central, Senior Panel Counsel with C. K. Bhatt, Ayush Bhatt and Angad Gautam, Advocates; Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Sunil, Advocate.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
