New Delhi, Jul 12 (PTI) The Central Information Commission (CIC) has granted partial relief to former Rohini jail superintendent Sunil Kumar, who claimed he was implicated in a criminal case linked to alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.
The CIC directed Delhi Prisons to disclose select records he sought under the RTI Act to defend himself.
The case pertains to alleged irregularities during the incarceration of Chandrasekhar.
Kumar, who is among the prison officials charged by Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in the alleged Rs 200-crore extortion case involving Chandrasekhar, had filed 10 RTI applications seeking prison records related to the latter’s stay in Rohini Jail between 2020 and 2021.
The information sought included jail entry and exit registers, inspection reports of visiting judges, lodging records, CCTV installation and surveillance records, details of vacant barracks, search reports and records relating to Chandrasekhar’s transfer and stay in the prison.
In one of the RTI applications, Kumar said the documents were required “to defend the case properly”.
The records sought by Kumar are closely related to the allegations levelled against him by the EOW.
The agency alleged that Chandrasekhar was provided an exclusive barrack in Rohini jail in violation of prison rules, enjoyed unrestricted access to mobile phones and other prohibited items, and was able to operate an extortion racket from inside the prison with the connivance of jail officials who allegedly accepted bribes.
It also alleged that opaque curtains were installed in the superintendent’s chamber to shield Chandrasekhar’s activities from CCTV cameras and prison staff were strategically deployed around his barrack to facilitate his activities.
During the hearing before the commission, Kumar submitted that he had been implicated in the criminal proceedings alleging violations of prison rules while serving as superintendent of the jail and the requested records were necessary for his defence.
The CIC observed that the RTI applications were “largely raised based on his impleadment in criminal proceedings arising from allegations that he violated prison rules and committed irregularities while handling/seizing a particular article of an inmate.” Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam directed prison authorities to provide Kumar with his own entry and exit records from the jail after redacting third-party personal information and security-sensitive details.
The CIC also ordered disclosure of the date on which prison authorities took possession of newly installed CCTV cameras in 2020, holding that the respondents had failed to satisfactorily justify withholding that information.
It further directed the authorities to issue a revised reply on Kumar’s request for the total number of vacant barracks during the relevant period, observing that the CPIO had not cited any specific exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act while denying the information. If no exemption applied, the information should be disclosed, the commission said.
In another appeal concerning CCTV surveillance records, the CIC directed the respondent to issue a revised reply in line with the First Appellate Authority’s earlier directions and explain why those directions had not been complied with despite nearly a year having elapsed.
The commission, however, rejected Kumar’s remaining appeals, holding that prison authorities had rightly invoked exemptions under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in matters involving prison security and third-party information.
“It may not be out of place to mention that law legitimately protects personal information or identities under Section 8, therefore, in case the information sought involves names of individuals, or personal details of individuals disclosure of which may affect their physical safety, the exemption clauses under Section 8(1)(g) and (j) of the RTI Act may be rightly invoked,” the Commission said.
Kumar also sought register entries relating to a wristwatch worn by Sukesh Chandrasekhar when he was shifted to Rohini Jail in 2020. The CIC declined his request for the watch’s entry date, saying it was not part of the original RTI application. The wristwatch has separately figured in a prison inquiry. PTI MHS MNK MNK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.