CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel.: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2007/00601/SG/0241
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00601/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr Subodh Jain
B-320,
MIG Falts,
East Loni Road,
Delhi - 110032.
Respondent 1 : Ms. Manisha Saxena
PIO & Addl. Secretary - Home,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi-
RTI filed on : 22/12/2007
PIO replied : 19/02/2007
First appeal filed on : 23/02/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 15/03/2007
Second Appeal filed on : 24/04/2007
The appellant has sought information on appeal filed against Mr. Afjal’s prayer for
condonation of death sentence:
SL. INFORMATION SOUGHT PIO'S REPLY
1. Dose state government's suggestions Yes
sought on death sentence.
2. If yes? Then does Delhi Government Yes
have received Mr. Afjal's appeal?
3. If yes? Then When? and what is the We have received his Mercy Appeal from
time duration for the Government to Superintendent, Tihar Jail, though no time duration
finalize ? has been specified to finalize it.
4. Do you have any similar appeal No.
pending?
5. If yes? Name the culprits with dates ? No, Not applicable.
and the time duration ?
6. Provide names of the officers/officials Home ministry has sought suggestion from Delhi
whose suggestions/decisions are sought Government.
on mercy petition?
7. Officers give their suggestions / Not applicable.
decisions as per Law or any other
provisions ? kindly give details.
8. What are the reasons for delay of Mr. There is no delay.
Afjals's petition.?
9. Kindly provide details of progress made State government gives their suggestions only.
on Mr. Afjal's petition? And Roles of
State Government.
10. When will Delhi Government forward Pending for Consideration
petition to the Home Ministry?
11. If petition forwarded to Home Ministry Not applicable.
then what government has suggested?
The First Appellate Authority ordered.
“The matter had been examined and it had been found that the information sought by appellant in
their application had been supplied by the SPIO / Addl. Secretary (Home) in SPIO letter. The
information asked for by you from SPIO/Addl. Secretary (Home) was very sensitive and related to
national security and had its repercussion on international relations. Thus, it is not possible to provide
any more information than had already been provided, as per the provision of Section 6 of RTI Act,
2005. Since the information had already been supplied, nothing survives in the present appeal and
therefore, the same is dismissed.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent.
Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar on behalf of Ms. Manisha Saxena
The respondent stated that he had provided information on all the points as per the factual position.
On points 3 to 11 the appellant has shown dissatisfaction in his appeal. The Comission felt that on
point 6,’ Provide names of the officers/officials whose suggestions/decisions are sought on mercy
petition?’ it is certainly possible to give names and esignations of the officers whose opinions would
necessarily be taken. The respondent has not claimed any exemptions for this.
Decision:
The appeal is partially allowed.
The information on point 6 will be provided to the appellant before 30 November, 2008.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
18th November, 2008