HC hears govt plea against probe of officers in 26/11 case

An application challenging a departmental inquiry order on city’s former top cop Rakesh Maria and other senior officials of the home ministry in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack was heard by a division bench of Justice Naresh Patil and Justice Bharati Dangre of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday.

Pleas of the state’s Chief Information Commission (CIC) which passed the inquiry order will also be heard by the court.

The CIC passed the inquiry order in July 2014 for not providing correct information pertaining to the call data records of the police control room during 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks.

Passing several strictures against Maria and other senior officials including the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), the CIC had also directed the government to constitute a commission under a retired HC judge and initiate an inquiry against the officials.

The commission was responding to a plea filed by Vinita Kamte, wife of slain officer Ashok Kamte, who was killed in the terror attacks. She had sought the information pertaining to the call record of the police control room on the night of the attacks.

According to Kamte, she was initially denied information but was allowed to inspect the records only after the orders of the Appellate Authority. Inspecting the records, Kamte claimed that the officials had provided false and misleading information.

Highlighting the ‘discrepancies and inconsistencies’ in the information provided to her, Kamte had approached the CIC seeking action against the officials of Mumbai Police which was then headed by Maria.

The CIC, then, directed the ACS Home along with Maria and other officials to file their replies. However, their failure led to the orders which are now impugned by them and the government.

Government pleader Abhinandan Vagyani argued that the CIC has no powers to direct the government to conduct a commission for inquiry. He also urged the bench to set aside the order passed by the CIC.

Agreeing partially, Kamte’s counsel told the bench that it can quash the operative part of the directions pertaining to the commission of inquiry but objected to setting the entire order aside.

He contended that the CIC has given certain observations and findings that are essential to the case.

The matter is accordingly, posted for further hearing on June 14.