Central Information Commission
Shri Shivsagar Dwivedi vs Ministry Of Home Affairs, (Mha) on 2 September, 2009
TO BE ISSUED IN HINDI
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00585 dated 5-3-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Shivsagar Dwivedi,
Respondent: Ministry of Home Affairs, (MHA)
Decision announced on 2.9.'09
FACTS
By an application of 30-8-2007 Shri Shivsagar Dwivedi of Kadipur Khurd, Sultanpur, U.P. applied to the CPIO, MHA seeking the following information:
"1. On which date the accused in the assassination of former Prime Minister Late Smt. Indira Gandhi was announced death sentence. And on which date did the court decide that the death sentence be executed, and on which date the Mercy Petition was submitted in the Office of President of India and on which date it was received in MHA and by which date it was again presented before the President of India after scrutiny. On which date the application was dismissed by the President and on which date he was sentenced to death.
2. When the Court has announced death sentence to Shri Dhananjay Chatterjee accused in the West Bengal episode. And on which date did the court decide that the death sentence be executed. On which date the Mercy Petition was submitted in the Office of President of India and on which date it was received in MHA and by which date it was again presented before the President of India after scrutiny. On which date the application was dismissed by the President and on which date was he
3. hanged?
4. When the Court has announced death sentence to Shri Afzal Guru. And on which date did the court decide that the death sentence be executed. On which date the Mercy Petition was submitted in the Office of President of India and on which date it was received in your Office.
5. In above two cases of Late Smt. Indira Gandhi and Shri Dhananjay Chatterjee which rules/ sub rules have been adopted. Whether now some changes have been done in that if so please provide the copy of the same rule/ sub rule."1
To this he received a response dated 17-10-07 from CPIO, Shri N.N. Perumal, Director who has received the application on 7-9-07:
"Ans. To Ques. Nos. i, ii & iii: The information is attached. Ans. To Ques. No. iv. : There is no change."
Attached with this are the different dates asked for including date of issue of all death warrants and, where applicable, the date of execution. Upon this Shri Dwivedi moved an appeal before the Appellate Authority, MHA pointing out the following issues on which he was dissatisfied with the information provided:
'1. Which date was fixed by the court to give death sentence to the prisoners in case of Smt. Indira Gandhi? This date has not been mentioned.
2. On which date the MHA has completed the formalities in this case and produced before the President of India. This date has not been mentioned.
3. The date of Mercy Petition ahs been shown as October 1988 but that date has not been mentioned.
4. Which date was fixed by the court to give death sentence to Shri Dhananjay Chatterjee? This date has not been mentioned.
5. On which date the MHA has completed the formalities in case of Shri Dhananjay Chatterjee and produced before the President of India. This date has not been mentioned.
6. Which date was fixed by the court to give death sentence to Shri Afzal Guru accused in the case of attack on Parliament? This date has not been mentioned.
7. That the enclosure with letter No. F. 16/9/2007 Legal Cell dated 17th October, 2007 has not been certified by any competent officer and the application of applicant dated 30 August 2007 has been shown as 3rd September, 2007, which in any case as per the version of PIO does not come under the RTI Act whereas it comes in the category of incomplete, misleading and fraudulent."
Upon this Shri Shashi Bhushan, JS MHA in his order of 4-12-07 responded in detail as follows:
"In case of death of Smt. Indira Gandhi:
Answer to Q.1: The Session Judge, Delhi has issued warrant on 12-10-1998 to give death sentence to the prisoners Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh.
Answer to Q.2: This Ministry has sent the file of prisoners for the orders of President of India on 17-10-1988. Answer to Q.3: No mercy petition was received from Satwant Singh or Kehar Singh, whereas Shri Rajinder Singh son of Kehar Singh has sent one petition on 14-10-1988.2
In case of Dhananjay Chatterjee:
Answer to Q.4: The Addl. Session Judge, Court No. II, Alipore has issued warrant dated 25-9-1994 and 26-6-2004 to give death sentence to the prisoner Dhananjay Chatterjee. Answer to Q.5: This Ministry has sent the file of prisoner for the orders of President of India on 9-6-1994 and again on 2- 7-2004.
In case of attack on the Parliament:
Answer to Q.6: The Addl. Session Judge, Delhi has issued warrant dated 20-10-2006 to give death sentence to the prisoner Mohammed Afzal.
Answer to Q.7: The signed copy of Annexure is attached with letter No.16/9/2007-RTI dated 17-10-2007"
Still not satisfied, however, appellant moved an appeal before us with the following prayer:
1. "The appellant may be provided information from the respondent that when the different courts have issued orders for giving death sentence in case of Smt. Indira Gandhi, Dhananjay Chatterjee and attacks on Parliament.
2. That appellant be awarded Rs. 250/- a day from the respondents for harassing him till the date of providing information.
3. That disciplinary action be taken against the respondents and compensation be awarded to the appellant whichever is in the interest of appellant."
The appeal was heard through videoconference on 2-9-2009. The following are present.
Appellant at NIC Studio, Sultanpur.
Shri Shivsagar Dwivedi.
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi Shri Shashi Bhushan, Joint Secretary (J), AA. Shri Mohinder Singh, Director (J), CPIO. Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, SO (JII0 Shri Dwivedi was asked to clarify which specific information he felt has not been provided. He pointed out the following sentence in his initial application:
"And on which date did the court decide that the death sentence be executed."3
Upon this he was informed by JS Shri Shashi Bhushan that it is not the practice of the Court to lay down a date of execution. Upon this appellant Shri Dwivedi stated that this is the only piece of information that he required and this should have been provided to him in the initial stage.
DECISION NOTICE The only issue remaining outstanding before us was the specific date sought by appellant. It is not the practice in law that such dates are specified by the Court. CPIO, therefore, cannot be faulted for not having provided this date or clarified that this is not the practice in law, since this amounts to a simple legal opinion not necessarily applicable only to the information sought by appellant. Nor did appellant press his plea of harassment. Nevertheless, the information sought having now been supplied to the appellant Shri Shivsagar Dwivedi to his satisfaction, this appeal may be treated as disposed of.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 2-9-2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 2-9-2009 4