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