A.G. Perarivalan, one of the life convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, has lodged a complaint with the Maharashtra State Information Commission (SIC) seeking action against the Public Information Officer of Yerwada central prison, Pune, and the First Appellate Authority for “wrongfully denying” information sought by him under RTI Act on actor Sanjay Dutt’s release from jail.
The convict had sought to know the provisions of law under which the actor was given the benefit of premature release from prison. After considerable delay in responding, the Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the information sought related to “third party person” and hence rejected. Aggrieved over this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Deputy Superintendent, Yerwada central prison, who also rejected the plea.
.
The decision of the State to remit and release a convict and processes involved were based on legal provisions and hence there could not be any room for denial of such information, Perarivalan contended.
The information sought was regarding adherence to the judgment of Supreme Court by the State Government (Maharashtra). This served a served larger public interest.
The public authority had exercised its discretion on the release of Mr. Dutt and such lawful act required transparency. After prolonged hearing, the FAA also rejected the appeal by stating that the information pertaining to Mr. Dutt’s release could not be furnished.
In his complaint to the SIC, Perarivalan alleged that the PIO and FAA had failed to furnish information about the premature release of a prisoner stating that the information related to third party person, which was apparently false and malafide, “and was stated so only in order to protect the influence of powerful people who are behind this decision of premature release.”
They also failed to specify how the denial clause was applicable to the information sought. The convict urged the SIC to impose cost and direct initiation of departmental proceedings against the PIO and FAA for “wrongfully denying” information.
