7/11 Mumbai blasts: Delhi High Court rejects death row convict's RTI plea for details on probe officers

The Delhi High Court recently rejected a plea filed by a death row convict in the 7/11 Mumbai train blast case seeking details under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) about the officers who investigated the case and granted sanction for his arrest and prosecution [Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique v CPIO, Department of Personnel and Training]..Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea filed by Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique while observing that the information may expose the officers to grave danger. It is in the public interest that the details sought are not disclosed, the Court concluded. “The information as sought by the Petitioner (Siddique) is against the officers who were involved in the investigation and who were also involved in granting sanction to the prosecution relating to the arrest and conviction of the Petitioner. The information is of such a nature, if given to the Petitioner, may expose these officers to grave danger,” the Court said..Siddique had been awarded the death sentence by a special court in 2015 for his involvement in the blasts that ripped local trains in Mumbai killing 189 people and injuring over 800. He is lodged in the Nagpur Central Jail. .In an order passed on February 28, 2024, the High Court noted that train blasts had happened in the year 2006 and since 20 years have not passed since the incident, the benefit of Section 8(3) of the RTI Act is also not available to Siddique. Section 8 of the RTI Act deals with classes of exempted information or information that cannot be provided under the Act. Section 8 (3) lays down that even exempted information may be provided if it relates to a matter that took place 20 years earlier. However, the Court said that even if 20 years had passed since the blast, it may still not be possible for Siddique to get the information sought. “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,” Justice Prasad explained.He added that Siddique had not brought out any element of public interest warranting the disclosure of such information, which could outweigh the reasons why such information must not be disclosed. “Rather in the facts of this case, 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 the Petitioner and that disclosing their information to the Petitioner would certainly outweigh the public interest that has been claimed," the Court said. .Siddique had moved the Delhi High Court against an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) denying his request for information about 13 Indian Police Service (IPS) officers and four Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers who had supervised the investigation and the train blasts and granted sanction for his prosecution.He had sought copies of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) form and other documents related to the appointment of these officers..Justice Prasad has now upheld the CIC order..In a separate judgment passed on the same day, Justice Prasad also rejected Siddique’s plea seeking a copy of an alleged Intelligence Bureau (IB) report submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) which suggested that some people were falsely arrested and implicated in the 7/11 bomb blasts..Siddique had relied on newspaper articles published in the year 2009 which alleged that the IB report was placed before the MHA for review of evidence in the bomb blast case.IB had said no such report was ever sent to the MHA..The Court held that newspaper reports cannot be taken as gospel truth and that there was no reason to disbelieve the IB’s affidavit.Justice Prasad said that CIC did no wrong in rejecting Siddique’s plea.“This court is of the opinion that no such gross error has occurred by the CIC in their adjudication of the order. 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..Advocates Arpit Bhargava, Sarthak Sharma and Pankaj appeared for Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique.The IB was represented through advocates Rahul Sharma, CK Bhatt, Ayush Bhatt and Angad Gautam.Central Government Standing Counsel Rakesh Kumar along with advocate Sunil appeared for the Central government. .[Read Judgments]