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.

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’.

This response was clearly contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act. There is no provision requiring an applicant to give reasons why information is being sought or requiring the applicant to state what use he is going to make of it. There is certainly nothing that allows the public information officer anywhere, let alone a prison official, to summon the applicant before him. All this was put down in a letter to the jail authorities. A clear response was sought as to whether the information was going to be provided. If not, the applicant would go into appeal.

This worked. On August 8, the applicant heard from the Vadodara jail superintendent asking for fees to be deposited and the information to be collected. Though the letter was dated July 31, it was received only on August 8. On August 23, the applicant sent the fees by money order to the Vadodara Central Jail. There was no response, no receipt, no information. Several calls to the jail superintendent elicited no response. Inquiries at the post office met with the same fate. Finally a complaint to the post master confirmed that the money order had been received on September 14. This proof of payment was photocopied and sent off with yet another letter to the jail superintendent. On September 31, the applicant finally received the information. It had taken three and a half months.

The information revealed that parole is not easily given; that it is a privilege prisoners get under very restricted circumstances and in particular to attend to personal emergencies; that before parole is granted, the police are required to make on-the-ground inquiries and send their assessment back to the authorities; that the police almost routinely object to parole on the grounds that it may give rise to a law and order problem; that the entire process takes a long time, even when an application is successful.

But in the present case, none of this applied. The papers revealed that on a couple of occasions a mother’s illness, then a daughter’s illness and finally ‘own need for specialised treatment’ were cited as reasons for parole by the convict. In all the cases, there had been no opposition to the parole either from the magistrate’s court or the high court. Despite the oft-expressed fears and protests of witnesses, there does not appear to have been any police objection to these frequent releases.

Taking the matter to its logical conclusion would require further battles. For this applicant, it is too hard a road. However, ever since the request for the information the convicted murderers have not been spotted in their village.

Daruwala is director and Kotwal is project coordinator, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative