Image source - Opindia |
Justice Subramonium Prasad, presiding over the case, refused to overturn the orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC), which denied Siddiqui's requests under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Siddiqui's argument, presented by his advocate Arpit Bhargava, emphasized that the information was being sought 20 years after the officers' appointments, suggesting it should be accessible.
However, the High Court maintained that revealing such information could jeopardize the safety of the officers involved, especially given the seriousness of the crime for which Siddiqui was convicted. The court highlighted that even if the 20-year threshold had passed, the officers' right to privacy and safety superseded Siddiqui's request.
Furthermore, the court rejected Siddiqui's claim that disclosing the information would serve public interest, emphasizing the potential risk to the officers' lives and property. The bench stressed that protecting the officers outweighed any perceived public interest in divulging their details.
Siddiqui's requests for information included details about IPS and IAS officers who supervised the investigation and granted sanction for his prosecution. Despite his appeals being rejected at various levels, including by the CIC, Siddiqui persisted in seeking this information through RTI applications.
In one instance, Siddiqui also sought a copy of an alleged Intelligence Bureau report, which the court deemed as relying on hearsay evidence. The court emphasized that newspaper articles cannot be taken as definitive proof, especially when responsible officers have denied the existence of such reports.
Ultimately, the High Court upheld the decisions denying Siddiqui's requests for information, emphasizing the importance of protecting the officers involved in the case and dismissing Siddiqui's claims of public interest.
#PRIMELIVE16 #MUMBAI #BLAST #MUMBAIBLAST
Post a Comment
0Comments