Centre ignoring RTI pleas: Perarivalan

Seeks action against information officers for not responding to his application

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

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.

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.

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

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.