Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique – Appellant
Versus
CPIO (IS-I) (IS-IV DESK) Ministry of Hime Affairs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner-Mr. Estesham Qutubuddin Siddique is a death row convict, who is currently in the Central Prison, Nagpur, Maharashtra. He has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 13th June, 2019 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereinafter, ‘CIC’) under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Vide the impugned order, the CIC rejected the Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner, challenging the order dated 10th November 2017 passed by Respondent No. 1-CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs (Internal Security Division-I) under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, and also non-issuance of the First Appeal Order (FAO) by the First Appellate Authority (FAA), under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act qua his RTI application.
4. The Petitioner has been convicted in the 11th July, 2006 Mumbai Train Blast Case (‘7/11 bomb blast’). The 7/11 bomb blast was stated to be carried out by the terrorist organisation Indian Mujahideen (hereinafter, ‘the Organisation’).
5. The Petitioner filed an RTI application on 16th October, 2017 seeking the following information (‘said information’) from Respondent N
The exemption under the RTI Act in disclosing information must be considered in light of public safety and security, sovereignty, and integrity of the country.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of exemptions under the RTI Act, including Section 8(1)(a), Section 8(1)(h), and Section 24, to justify the non-disclosure of infor....
Newspaper reports are considered hearsay evidence and cannot be relied upon to prove allegations. Affidavits filed by responsible officers can be considered as credible evidence.
RTI exemptions under S.8(1)(g),(h) upheld for Review Committee minutes on interceptions due to national security and investigation impediments.
Documents related to prosecution sanction in ongoing corruption case exempt under RTI Sections 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h), 24; disclosure would impede trial, endanger safety, reveal sources despite completed i....
Disclosure of inquiry reports into public servant misconduct is vital for transparency, and blanket denials under RTI must be justified with clear evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless the information sought relates to human rights or corruption, exempt organizations like RAW are not required to disclose the informatio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
