SIC allows RTI plea of 11/7 serial train blasts convict on death row
NAGPUR: Nagpur bench of State Information Commission has allowed a Right To Information (RTI) plea filed by Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, a 7/11 Mumbai serial train blast convict, who was awarded the death sentence by the special court in 2002.
SIC directed authorities to provide copies of Siddiqui’s representations forwarded to the High Court, Prime Minister and Anti-terrorism Squad (ATS) seeking reinvestigation into the July 11, 2006, serial blast which killed over 200 people and injured 800 others.
Siddiqui has been lodged at a special cell of Nagpur Central Prison earmarked for death row convicts. The mandatory confirmation appeal to confirm the death sentence is pending before the High Court.
Considering the security implications, the appeal was heard online by State Information Commissioner Rahul Pande on Wednesday in the presence of jail superintendent Anup Kumre.
Siddiqui had written four letters in July 2019 questioning the probe conducted by ATS claiming that he was framed by senior ATS officers and sought a probe in the interest of justice. Siddiqui was not sure whether his letters were forwarded so he decided to file the RTI application on September 20, 2019, seeking details of the outward number and covering letter of jail authorities along with his original letters.
The jail authorities had only provided him with the outward number and refused to supply a covering letter.
The Public Information Officer’s order was upheld by the First Appellate Authority on November 6, 2019.
He, subsequently, filed a second appeal before the SIC on February 15, 2020. During the hearing, Siddiqui expressed apprehension about whether the letters seeking reinvestigation had reached the authorities and insisted on the supply of covering letters.
Finding substance in his plea, the SIC directed the Public Information Officer of Central Prison to immediately furnish the covering letters containing the proper outward numbers and other relevant official endorsements to the appellant free of cost within seven days.
In another appeal, Siddiqui had demanded the order copy by which he was lodged at Nagpur Jail. In response, the jail authorities had supplied him a communication from the Superintendent of Central Prison, Mumbai, dated October 26, 2016, addressed to Nagpur counterpart about the shifting of Siddiqui, who was awarded the death penalty by Special MCOCA Court in 2015.
Siddiqui claimed that the order passed by then ADGP (Prisons) dated 30-09-2015 about shifting him to Nagpur jail was quashed by Home Department in 2015 since confirmation case no 2/2015 was pending before the High Court and the communication by jail superintendent was not as per jail manual.
The SIC ordered the authorities to produce the original file and perused it before rejecting this particular appeal.
Referring to section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, the SIC found that the information available with Nagpur Prison authorities was duly provided to Siddiqui and hence the stance taken by PIO and First Appellate Authority was in consonance with RTI.