Delhi HC rejects plea by Mumbai train blast convict for info on sanction prosecution

Justice Yashwant Varma said the petition lacked merit and endorsed the CIC's view that such information was exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by a 2006 Mumbai train bombings case convict against a Central Information Commission (CIC) order denying disclosure of information pertaining to the sanction granted for his prosecution under UAPA by the Maharashtra government.

Justice Yashwant Varma said the petition lacked merit and endorsed the CIC's view that such information was exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.  

The court observed petitioner Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique, a death row convict in the case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), failed to establish that some of the information sought was “severable” and fell outside the scope of the exemption under the law.

On July 11, 2006, seven explosions had ripped through seven western line local trains in Mumbai, leading to the death of 189 people and injuring 829.

“Bearing in mind the provisions made in Section 45 of the UAPA, the court is of the firm opinion that the disclosures that were sought and in the broad terms as were prayed for in the application, the respondents rightly invoked Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act,” the court said in a recent order.  

Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act states disclosure of information which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence is exempted.

“The submission of learned counsel (for the petitioner) that the CIC was obliged to consider whether the provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act would apply and that whether certain aspects of the information sought were “severable” and thus fall outside the scope of clause (a) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act is liable to be rejected since the petitioner has even on a prima facie footing failed to establish information that may ultimately lead to the issuance of the notification under Section 45 of the UAP Act would be severable. The writ petition lacks merit and shall stand dismissed,” the court said.