Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

Fight to Information

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • Personal Loan

    The popular perception is that it is impossible to gain convictions in riot cases. But after three years of sustained steadfastness shown by witnesses appearing before a fast track court in Godhra, justice won a rare victory when, in 2005, five accused were given life imprisonment for multiple-murders, arson, destruction of property and loot during the 2002 Gujarat carnage against Muslims.

    However, less than a month later, the well-connected lifers were seen roaming about in their village, repeatedly out on parole. Each time they were spotted, there was tension in the village. Those who had given evidence against them and were still material witnesses in other ongoing cases, feared for their safety. Throughout the trials there had been threats and intimidation. In this state of heightened fear, the witnesses turned to the police. They wrote to the chief of prisons, drawing attention to the frequent granting of parole and to the fear it caused. They also asked for protection. Typically, there was no response. Self-help seemed the only way out. Newly aware of their rights through their long battle in the courts, the witnesses used the Right to Information (RTI) Act to find out how frequently parole was being granted.

    Ads by Google

    A key witness, on July 6, 2006, sent an application under the act to the public information officer, Central Jail, Vadodara. He asked for the number of days of parole, the start and end dates, and grounds of parole for all five convicts. He also asked for the names of the authorities granting the parole, the procedure that was being followed and a copy of the parole orders. A reply came after three weeks. The jail authorities shot back their own queries. They said the applicant had failed to give the reasons behind making the application and also had not mentioned to what use he was going to put the information. Since the reasons were not mentioned he was asked to ‘remain present before the jail authorities on 21st July 2006’.

    ... contd.

    Next123
    Comments
    Post comment

    Be the first to comment.

    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.