Action taken by NHRC on a request to review its decision - Appellant: her husband died in police custody and a S.I. was censured - CIC: inform about the action taken by NHRC on the letter dated 29.02.2011 of the Additional SP Police, Gorakhpur
Action taken by NHRC on a request to review its decision regarding the appellant’s complaints in connection with murder of her husband - Appellant: her husband died in police custody and a S.I. had been awarded the penalty of censure after departmental enquiry - Appellant: the report submitted by CBCID, U.P. to the NHRC based on which the complaint was rejected by NHRC, was incorrect and contrary to the facts of the case - CIC: inform the Appellant about the action taken by the NHRC on the letter dated 29.02.2011 of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur, U.P.
The present appeal, filed by Ms. Anita against National Human Rights Commission, was taken up for hearing on 14.10.2013 when the Respondents were present through Shri Jaimini Kumar Srivastava, CPIO and Shri Khaleel Ahmad, Asstt. Registrar (Law). The Appellant was present through her authorised representative, Shri Indrasan Prasad.
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.09.2012 before the CPIO, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi seeking certain information in respect of action taken/outcome of her letter dated 28.05.2012 by which she had requested the NHRC to review its decision dated 28.03.2012 on the Appellant’s complaints dated 26.06.2007 and 22.02.2012 in connection with murder of her husband. The NHRC through its letter dated 28.03.2012 had rejected the Appellant’s complaints as time barred. The Appellant also made certain generic queries, such as how many cases have been closed by NHRC since 1990 on the basis of incorrect or nonfactual reports; what action has been taken by NHRC after knowing the fact that reports were incorrect or nonfactual.
3. Since the Appellant did not receive any reply from the CPIO within the stipulated time period of 30 days, she filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 19.11.2012.
4. On the same day, the CPIO also vide his letter dated 19.11.2012 furnished pointwise reply / information to the Appellant.
5. The Appellate Authority disposed of the Appellant’s appeal vide his order dated 13.12.2012 holding that the information has been furnished to the Appellant.
6. The Appellant thereafter filed the present appeal before the Commission alleging that the information given by the CPIO is incorrect and incomplete.
7. During the hearing, the respondents inform the Commission that the Appellant had filed two complaints dated 26.06.2007 and 22.02.2012 before the NHRC regarding murder of her husband. The complaints were registered vide case No. 12935/24/34/0708 and case No. 440/25/5/2012. In case No. 12935/24/34/0708 the NHRC called for CBCID report, which revealed that her husband was mentally ill. In the intervening night of incident he left his house for a village. On his way he was intercepted by the villagers, who took him for a thief and beat him to death. Two villagers were chargesheeted in the matter upon consideration of the report. The NHRC then closed the case. As for case No. 440/25/5/2012, the Respondents inform that this case was dismissed as time barred by the NHRC vide order dated 28.03.2012. The Appellant then filed an application before NHRC seeking review of its decision on said case which was also dismissed and then filed by the NHRC. Thereafter the Appellant filed the present RTI application, interalia, seeking information about the action taken on said review application. In response, the CPIO informed the Appellant that her review application had been filed, while also answering her other general queries.
8. On the other hand, the representative of the Appellant states that the Appellant’s husband died in police custody and that the official (viz., Shri Jogdhari Ram, S.I.), who was found to be responsible for this, had been awarded the penalty of censure after departmental enquiry. The fact of award of penalty to Shri Jogdhari was communicated to the NHRC by a letter dated 29.02.2011 of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur, U.P. This letter was originally addressed to the Home Department, Lucknow with a copy to the NHRC. It has thus been alleged on behalf of the Appellant that the report submitted by CBCID, U.P. to the NHRC on the subject case, based on which the complaint in question of the Appellant was rejected by NHRC, was incorrect and contrary to the facts of the case.
9. The representative of the Appellant thus requests the Commission (on behalf of the Appellant) that the Appellant be informed about the action taken by the NHRC on the letter dated 29.02.2011 of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur, U.P., as also that the Appellant be provided with certified copies of documents relating to the action taken on said letter. According to him this would satisfy the Appellant’s requirement for information in the present appeal.
10. In view of the above, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to inform the Appellant the action taken by the NHRC on the letter dated 29.02.2011 of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur, U.P. mentioned hereinabove, and provide certified copies of documents, if any, relating to the action taken on said letter.
11. Appeal is disposed of with the above direction, which are to be complied with within 2 weeks of receipt of this order.
Citation: Ms. Anita v. National Human Rights Commission in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000422