The Indian Army has refused to furnish information sought by 2008 Malegaon blast accused Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyaya under the Right to Information Act.
Upadhyaya had sought information on whether Colonel Prasad Purohit, another accused in the case, was given the task to infiltrate into the Students Islamic Movement of India (Simi) and other right-wing organisations and whether he was also entrusted with the task of carrying out blasts to implicate these organisations.
However, the Army has refused to give any information. Hearing the first appeal filed by Upadhyaya after his RTI application was rejected, Lt. General K. Surendranath, chief of the staff southern command, Pune dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it was personal information and had no relationship with public activities or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
Upadhyaya was arrested in 2008 for his alleged involvement in the Malegaon blast on September 29, 2008, in which six persons were killed and over 100 injured. He is accused of conspiring with prime accused Lt Col Purohit, who is also lodged inside jail.
Upadhyaya had filed an RTI application from central prison, Navi Mumbai to the CPIO, headquarters, southern command and asked whether Lt. Col Purohit was tasked with infiltrating into the Simi or any other right-wing organisation. He also asked queries like whether Mr Purohit was tasked to carry out or facilitate bomb blasts in different parts of the country and implicate innocents for political purpose. In one of the questions, he asked, “Under which rule Purohit has been getting full salary despite not performing military duty after the arrest?”
The CPIO refused to furnish information in the month of March. Later, Upadhyaya went for an appeal, which was also turned down on June 13, 2013.
Anuj Pandey, a retired army personnel and RTI activist upheld the decision and said, “The order, which was passed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is right and is enough grounds to reject the queries.” He added that the applicant could have got the required information if he had asked broader questions.