The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertained Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui plea, a convict in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, challenging the rejection of his Right to Information (RTI) application by the Central Information Commission (CIC).
In his RTI request, Siddiqui had also urged the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to obtain sanction from the Central government for a fresh investigation into the terror attack, as he claims he was falsely implicated.
A single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad expressed that there are limits to the scope of the RTI Act and clarified that the Act does not empower the issuance of directions for further investigation or re-investigation of a case. The Court emphasized that the RTI Act pertains solely to seeking information, not providing directives.
Justice Prasad highlighted that determining whether Siddiqui was wrongly accused is a matter for the trial process. If he seeks a new investigation, he must approach the Court for recourse, Justice Prasad pointed out.
Furthermore, the bench cautioned that it may impose costs on the petitioner, even though the petition was filed through the legal aid cell. The Court underlined that there are limitations to both the usage of the Act and the scope of legal aid.
Subsequently, Siddiqui’s counsel chose to withdraw the plea. The Court proceeded to conclude the matter by noting that it is not appropriate for seeking information but rather for directing the Central government to initiate a fresh investigation. Initially inclined to dismiss the plea with costs, the Court adopted a sympathetic stance considering the petitioner’s withdrawal, and thus, the petition was disposed of.
Siddiqui had been sentenced to death by a special court in 2015 for his involvement in the blasts that targeted Mumbai’s local trains, causing the deaths of 189 people and injuring over 800. He is presently incarcerated in Nagpur Central Jail while his appeal is pending before the Bombay High Court.
However, he has approached various forums, alleging that he was framed in the blasts and that evidence was fabricated by officers seeking promotion. He asserts that his claim is substantiated by news reports from 2017 that implicated members of the Indian Mujahideen in the blasts.
