Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Disclosure Of Documents Regarding Grant Of Sanction For Prosecution U/S 45(1) UAPA Can Be Exempted Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal
15 Sep 2022 9:30 AM GMT
Disclosure Of Documents Regarding Grant Of Sanction For Prosecution U/S 45(1) UAPA Can Be Exempted Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court
x

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a convict in the Mumbai Twin Blast case (7/11 Bomb Blast case) challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) denying him information regarding the proposal and all documents concerning grant of sanction for prosecution under sec. 45(1) of the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act (UAPA).Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique...

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a convict in the Mumbai Twin Blast case (7/11 Bomb Blast case) challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) denying him information regarding the proposal and all documents concerning grant of sanction for prosecution under sec. 45(1) of the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique 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 CIC, while upholding the view taken by CPIO of Ministry of Home Affairs, had found that the disclosures would stand exempted under sec. 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.

Upholding the CIC order, Justice Yashwant Varma was of the view thus:

"Bearing in mind the provisions made in Section 45 of the UAP Act, 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 rejected the argument of petitioner's counsel that the CIC was obliged to consider whether the provisions of sec. 10 of the RTI Act would apply and that whether certain aspects of the information sought were severable, thereby falling outside the scope of sec. 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner had, even on a prima facie footing, failed to establish what information that may ultimately lead to the issuance of the notification under sec. 45 of the UAP Act would be severable.

"The writ petition lacks merit and shall stand dismissed," the Court ordered.

Advocate Arpit Bhargava appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Case Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 867

Click Here To Read Order 


Next Story