news details |
|
|
| SIC upholds orders of District Police Jammu | | Info that made applicant a History sheeter | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 5: The State Information Commission (SIC) has upheld an order by the Jammu district police wherein some confidential information was denied under RTI to an information seeker from Jammu. The information seeker has been declared as history-sheeter by the Jammu police on the recommendations of the reports which according to police are confidential reports and the RTI applicant was denied information about the same. As the case landed before State Information Commission (SIC) , the SIC also upheld the orders of the Jammu police ie SDPO Jammu City North and SP (Hqs) Jammu. The Information seeker in addition of seeking other details had sought details about a police source who is alleged to have provided some vital clues which made the information seeker a history sheeter
Details available with Early Times reveal that one Syed Shabir Ahmad Shah, S/o. Late Mohammad Abdullah Shah, R/o Mohalla Baba Jivan Shah, Jammu moved an application dated: 07.03.2015 before the Public Information Officer (PIO) in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu wherein he sought certain information about a confidential report issued by SDPO City North Jammu vide No. SDCN/2012/3212-14 dated: 09.04.2012 regarding opening of history sheet against the applicant.
The applicant was provided some information by the concerned PIO on 30.03.2015 vide office No. 5518/SPCN and 5517/SPCN and after that the appellant filed first appeal dated: 06.04.2015 before the Superintendent of Police (Hqs) who happens to be the First Appellate Authority (FAA) district police Jammu. The appellant alleged in his 1stappeal that the information provided by the PIO was incomplete and ambiguous and requested that the PIO be directed to provide complete and unambiguous information as sought by him in his RTI application.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) ie SP (Hqs) Jammu disposed of the appeal vide office No. 4808-10/SPHqrs dated: 01.05.2015 with the observations that a fresh/detailed report has been sought from the SP City North, Jammu under letter No. 7242/SPCN dated: 27.04.2015.
The appellant feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the First Appellate Authority filed 2nd appeal on 24.06.2015 before the State Information Commission (SIC) wherein he has alleged that PIO as well as First Appellate Authority have provided him incomplete and ambiguous information, amounting to denial of information and requested that the PIO as well as First Appellate.
Authority be directed to provide the requisite information at the earliest without further delay.
The commission (SIC) after receiving the 2nd appeal listed the matter for hearing on 09.07.2015 and 10.08.2015.
On both the dates of hearing, the appellant opted to remain absent. The matter was again listed for hearing on 28.08.2015.
The appellant as well as SHO, Police Station, Peer Mitha were present in person. During the course of proceedings held on 28.8.2015 at SIC office Jammu , the RTI application of the information seeker was discussed threadbare. The SHO, Police Station, Peer Mitha in his cunter-satement submitted that the appellant has filed a number of RTI applications wherein he has sought some secret/vital information pertaining to cases registered against him.
The SHO, Police Station, Peer Mitha further submitted that the appellant wants to seek the clarification about the correspondence of the senior officers as well as the names of the sources who informed the police authority about the registration of cases against him and the circumstances under which the history-sheet was opened against him and it has been intimated to the appellant that the correspondence between senior police officers and the names of the sources could not be disclosed due to the reason that the work of police is executed under the order of the senior officers and is part of confidential discussion which cannot be disclosed.
The crux of the stand taken by the police authorities in denying the information to the information seeker is based on Section 8(1), (f) and (g) of the Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009. Both the clauses.
"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, there shall be no obligation give any citizen:-
(vi) Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
(vii) Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;"
The SIC order reads as: "The Commission is of the considered view that the information sought by the information seeker, is purely confidential and it pertains to record on the basis of which history- sheet has been opened against the appellant and the disclosure of such information can identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.
Its disclosure may also endanger the life or physical safety of the persons, who provide the information to police in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes for keeping surveillance over the persons who have a tendency to commit the crime otherwise it would not be possible to keep a check on the criminal activities of potential offenders. Disclosure of such information may also impede the process of investigation or prosecution of potential offenders who have a tendency to commit the crimes. In the light of above observations the appeal is dismissed". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
