No right to information

BY Dipur Shaw| IN Media Practice | 16/11/2008
Even under the Right To Information Act, departments related to the case have denied information on what transpired in the Batla House encounter.
DIPU SHAW says one and a half months later the truth about the encounter still remains shrouded in mystery.

Part of what fuelled the anger of the Muslim community after the Batla House encounter in Jamia Nagar was the fact that  that they got little information afterwards on what exactly transpired. The September 19, 2008 police encounter in Delhi’s Jamia Nagar killed two suspected terrorists allegedly involved in Delhi serial blasts, Atif Ameen and Mohammad Sajed, along with a police officer, Mohan Chand Sharma.


One and a half months after the case, the truth about the encounter and subsequent arrests that followed it, still remains shrouded in mystery. Even under the Right To Information Act, departments related to the case have denied information. It leaves a suspicion that there is a deliberate attempt to camouflage the truth.


The Jaiprakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre of AIIMS has turned down the request to provide information about the post mortem reports saying that the case was related to Medico Legal Records. They refused to provide information under Sections 8(1) b and 8(1) h of the RTI to a petitioner, Afroz Alam Sahil.


Section 8(1) b of the Right To Information Act – 2005 states that information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court cannot be provided to a RTI petitioner.


Section 8(1) h states that information cannot be provided about matters which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of the offenders. 


Both do not apply to the Batla House Encounter case, according to a legal expert. "The arguments given by AIIMS is totally baseless", says Prashant Bhushan, Supreme Court lawyer. "No orders or ruling has been passed by the court to withhold information regarding the case. And by no means it can amount to contempt of court", he adds.


Asked if the information in any way could impede the process of investigation, the seasoned lawyer says, "What does it have to do with the investigations?"


The Delhi Police has also tried to evade questions on the issue. It prefers to answer only three out of the six questions asked in a RTI petition in connection with the encounter and subsequent arrests. These answers too are denials.

It declined to provide the post mortem report of the deceased in the case citing section 8(1)h of the RTI Act-05 as AIIMS had done. Interestingly, the Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime, Delhi, makes no mention of the other questions asked in the petition. The petitioner had also asked to provide the number of people arrested in connection to the serial blasts in the capital on September 13 and the places from where they were arrested. In addition, it was asked if the police have evidence against those who have been arrested. The Delhi police did not feel it was necessary to answer these questions.


According to the National Human Rights Commission, so far 2560 cases of police encounter/alleged fake encounter has come up before it. The Commission has so far granted compensation in sixteen cases of police encounter/alleged fake encounter. The statistics adds to the suspicion of the people. The Delhi Police has not done anything substantial to alleviate doubts from the minds of the people of the community. Poor reporting and confusion on the part of journalists has also increased doubts and distrust.  


Contact: Dipu Shaw,



Subscribe To The Newsletter
The new term for self censorship is voluntary censorship, as proposed by companies like Netflix and Hotstar. ET reports that streaming video service Amazon Prime is opposing a move by its peers to adopt a voluntary censorship code in anticipation of the Indian government coming up with its own rules. Amazon is resisting because it fears that it may alienate paying subscribers.                   

Clearly, the run to the 2019 elections is on. A journalist received a call from someone saying they were from Aajtak channel and were conducting a survey, asking whom she was going to vote for in 2019. On being told that her vote was secret, the caller assumed she wasn't going to vote for 'Modiji'. The caller, a woman, also didn't identify herself. A month or two earlier the same journalist received a call, this time from a man, asking if she was going to vote for the BSP.                 

View More