ADVERTISEMENT

Centre ignoring RTI pleas: Perarivalan

July 29, 2016 12:00 am | Updated 06:17 am IST - CHENNAI:

Seeks action against information officers for not responding to his application

A.G. Perarivalan, the life convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, has accused the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) of tossing his plea under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking copies of the remission rules framed by the Centre based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Union of India versus V. Sriharan alias Murugan & others case.

Pointing out that the information sought by him pertained to his life and liberty, the convict alleged that three Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) in the MHA had “shunted” his petition from one department to another instead of collecting and providing the information.

When he went in appeal aggrieved over the delay in getting the details sought, the first appellate authority, the Joint Secretary, MHA, also failed to respond even after 100 days.

ADVERTISEMENT

The petitioner appealed to the Central Information Commission (CIC) to take a serious view of the issue and impose cost on the information officers besides taking steps to provide the information sought by him.

Perarivalan, currently lodged in Vellore central prison, said he was facing the 26th year of incarceration since he was arrested at the age of 19.

The Supreme Court commuted his death penalty to life imprisonment along with others facing capital punishment in the case.

ADVERTISEMENT

While disposing of a writ petition seeking premature release from prison, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court had ruled in December last that the State Government had no suo motu power to remit sentences of persons who were convicted under a Central law and cases investigated by a central agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The apex court also clarified that decisions on remission in such cases had to be taken in concurrence with the Centre.

Perarivalan petitioned the MHA asking for copies of the remission rules framed on the basis of the judgment. He also sought a copy of the order/circular sent by the MHA to the States on the issue.

Representing that his second appeal be admitted for inquiry, the convict urged the CIC to direct three CPIOs and the first appellate authority (Joint Secretary, MHA) to be present at the time of hearing and file an affidavit on why the information was not shared.

He also appealed to the CIC to seek a compliance report from the MHA on the action taken to proactively disclose detailed information under Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act as regards the rules framed as per the Constitutional Bench judgment.

He has appealed to the CIC to intervene in the matter and also get him the information

This is a Premium article available exclusively to our subscribers. To read 250+ such premium articles every month
You have exhausted your free article limit.
Please support quality journalism.
You have exhausted your free article limit.
Please support quality journalism.
The Hindu operates by its editorial values to provide you quality journalism.
This is your last free article.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT