Key witnesses in Gujarat riots cases have used the Right to Information Act 2005 to ensure that those serving life sentences for rioting, murder and looting stay in jail

In 2005, after three years of hearings, a fast-track court in Godhra, Gujarat, sentenced five people to life imprisonment for multiple murder, arson, destruction of property and looting. This rare verdict was largely attributed to the consistency shown by key witnesses for the prosecution.

However, less than a month later, the accused were spotted moving about freely in the same village near Ahmedabad where they had committed their crimes. Apparently well-connected, they had had no problems in repeatedly being granted parole. Their presence caused a lot of anxiety in the village among those who had testified against them, as they had been subjected to threats and intimidation throughout the trial. People who were still material witnesses in other ongoing cases also feared for their safety.

The witnesses approached the local police and wrote to the chief of prisons, drawing attention to the frequent granting of parole to convicts and the fear that it was causing among them. They also asked for protection.

When the police failed to help them, self-help seemed like the only recourse. They used the Right to Information (RTI) Act to find out how frequently convicts were being released on parole.

On July 6, 2006, a key witness sent an application under the Act to the public information officer, Central Jail, Vadodara. He asked for the number of days of parole, the beginning and end dates of each parole period, and the grounds on which parole had been granted to each of the five convicts. He also asked for the names of the authorities granting parole, the procedure that was being followed, and a copy of the parole order.

In reply to this application, three weeks later, the jail authorities said the applicant had failed to provide reasons for his application and had also not stated how he was going to use the information. He was asked to present himself before the jail authorities on July 21, 2006.

This response clearly contradicts the spirit of the RTI Act since there is no provision requiring an applicant to give his/her reasons for seeking information, or requiring the applicant to state what use he/she is going to make of it. And there is certainly nothing in the Act that allows a public information officer anywhere, let alone a prison official, summon the applicant before him.

The applicant stated as much in a letter to the jail authorities. A clear response was sought as to whether or not the information was going to be provided. If not, the applicant would appeal.

This worked, but it took months. On August 8, the applicant heard from the Vadodara jail superintendent asking him to deposit a fee and collect the information. The letter was dated July 31, but it was received only on August 8. On August 23, the applicant sent the fee by money order to the Vadodara Central Jail. There was no response; no receipt was issued, no information was provided.

Several calls to the jail superintendent elicited no response. Neither did inquiries at the post office. Finally, a complaint to the postmaster confirmed that the money order had been received by the jail 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 he wanted. 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 is 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.

In the present case, none of the above criteria had been 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 convicts. In all cases, there had been no opposition to parole either from the magistrate's court or the high court. Despite expressed fears and protests from witnesses, there did not appear to have been any police objection to the frequent releases.

Source: The Indian Express, October 30, 2006