Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui (‘petitioner’), who is a death row convict in 7/11 Mumbai train serial bomb blasts in Mumbai challenging an order passed by Central Information Commission upholding that information sought regarding disclosure of the proposal and all documents in the Department’s file relating to issuance of the notification under Section 45(1) of the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA’), Yashwant Varma, J. held that Central Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’)- respondents rightly invoked Section 8(1)(a) of Right to Information Act, 2005 rejecting the disclosures sought and prayed for in the application.
Counsel for petitioner submitted that certain aspects of the information sought by the Petitioner were “severable” and thus, fall outside the scope of clause (a) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
The Court while rejecting the contention noted that the petitioner has, even on a prima facie footing failed to establish what information that may ultimately lead to the issuance of the notification under Section 45 of the UAPA, 1967, would be severable.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition being devoid of merits.
[Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2927, decided on 08-09-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Arpit Bhargava, Advocate, for the Petitioner;
None, for the CPIO.
*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.
