Mumbai Twin Blast: Delhi HC Rejects Death Row Convict's Plea Seeking RTI Info On Intelligence Bureau Report, Officers Involved In Probe

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas moved by a death row convict in the Mumbai twin blast case (7/11 bomb blast) seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the Intelligence Bureau report as well as appointment of IAS and IPS officers who supervised the probe and accorded sanction to the prosecution relating to his arrest and conviction.

Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected two petitions moved by Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique, who was convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and National Investigation Act, 2008. He is presently serving his sentence in Nagpur Central Prison since July, 2006.

The court upheld the orders passed by the Central Information Commission ( CIC) refusing to provide the aforesaid information to Siddique under the RTI Act.

The CIC had held that the information on appointment of IAS and IPS officers, as sought by Siddique, would encroach upon the right to privacy of the officials, adding that since right to privacy is a continuous process, it will continue even after 20 years.

Upholding the said order, Justice Prasad observed that the information is of such a nature that if it is given to Siddique, it may expose the officers to grave danger.

“Admittedly, 20 years have not passed after the date of the incident, and therefore, in any event, the benefit of Section 8(3) of the RTI Act is not available to the Petitioner in the facts of the present case. Even if it is assumed that 20 years have passed, in such cases the right of privacy for these officers, who can be exposed to grave risk, cannot be diverged to an accused and that too when the accused has been convicted and sentenced to death penalty,” the court said.

It added that the protected interest is in the nature of danger to the life and property of the officers who were involved in the investigation relating to Siddique, and that disclosing their information to him would certainly outweigh the public interest that was claimed.

Furthermore, the court also upheld the CIC order which refused to provide information on the Intelligence Bureau report. It was Siddique's case that the report suggested false implication and arrest of the accused persons, and was placed before the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2009 for review of evidence in the bomb blast case.

Justice Prasad said that the information was sought on the basis of a newspaper article and that a report or an article published in a newspaper is considered only heresy evidence and is not a document through which an allegation of fact can be proven.

“The premise on which the Petitioner is relying, the publishing of such newspaper article, cannot be taken as gospel truth. Affidavits have been filed by responsible officers in the Court stating that no such report exists. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the Respondent,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Arpit Bhargava, Mr. Sarthak Sharma & Mr. Pankaj, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Advocate for UoI; Mr. Rahul Sharma, Central, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. C. K. Bhatt, Mr. Ayush Bhatt and Mr. Angad Gautam, Advocates for Respondent/ CPIO, Intelligence Bureau

Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 258

Click Here To Read Order