CIC/SA/A/2014/001813. Case: Chandra Kant Jha Vs Tihar Jail. Central Information Commission

Case NumberCIC/SA/A/2014/001813
Party NameChandra Kant Jha Vs Tihar Jail
CounselFor Appellant: Ajai Kumar, Advocate and For Respondents: R.R. Rathi, MO I/C
JudgesM. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), Information Commissioner
IssueRight to Information Act
Judgement DateMay 15, 2015
CourtCentral Information Commission

Decision:

M. Sridhar Acharyulu, (Madabhushi Sridhar), Information Commissioner

1. FACTS:

2. Appellant is a convict who was awarded death penalty. He filed an RTU application. In answer to that RTI application the PIO of Tihar Jail stated that convict wanted to commit suicide and hence authorities referred him to DDU hospital. Appellant filed another RTI request asking to give the copies of documents based on which he was sent to hospital. He also wanted the entire record of treatment, prescription or counselling etc by the psychiatrist. The PIO provided information on 12.11.2014/13.11.2014. Claiming unsatisfied, appellant filed First Appeal. FAA directed the PIO to furnish information to the appellant. Alleging non-compliance of FAA Order, appellant approached the Commission.

Decision:

3. Both the parties made their submissions. The advocate for the appellant submitted that he does not have complete information of appeal as he was not allowed to meet the appellant in the jail, who is a death-convict lodged in Tihar Jail. Therefore, he requested the Commission to issue a warrant directing the respondent authority to present the appellant physically before the Commission for hearing. On the other hand, the respondent officer submitted that there is no written record of appellant saying that he would commit suicide, he only stated it in the court and also before the jail authorities after coming out of court. In view of this, the jail authorities thought it would be desirable to refer him to a psychiatrist. Accordingly he was sent to DDU hospital where he was counseled.

4. The Commission heard the submissions and perused the record. The respondent officer explained that there was no court order to take him to the hospital. It was only based on the appellant's oral statement to the court and also to the medical...

To continue reading

Request your trial