14 years after Paramakudi riots, CBI refuses to disclose status of investigation under RTI Act
Fourteen years after seven persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste were killed and many others injured in police firing and the violence that followed on September 11, 2011, at Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram district the CBI's Special Crimes Branch in Chennai invoked exemption provisions of the Act to reject queries about the status of the case.
The RTI Act petition was filed by C. Selvakumar, who sought copies of the FIR, names of investigating officers, details of accused persons, and information on whether any interim or final report had been filed in the case.
In his response, the Chief Public Information Officer said: 'In view of the provisions under Section 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h) and Section 24 of the RTI Act, the requisite information cannot be provided to you and accordingly your application is rejected.'
Mr Selvakumar's first appeal alleging the response was incomplete, false and misleading was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority, which upheld the CPIO's decision. He then approached the Central Information Commission (CIC).
After hearing both parties, Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam ruled that the CBI was exempted from disclosure under Section 25 of the RTI Act. While closing the appeal, she directed the agency not to cite Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24 together to deny information.
Enquiry commission's findings
A one-man commission of inquiry headed by Justice Sampath had earlier concluded that the police opened fire in 'self-defence.' The report praised the officers for the 'admirable way' in which they handled the tense situation but criticised the conduct of some personnel after the riots, calling it 'disgraceful' and contrary to police standing orders, citing instances of rioters being beaten up.
However, the State government rejected what it described as the commission's 'disparaging remarks' against the police.
The firing occurred when large numbers of members of the Scheduled Caste assembled in Paramakudi to pay homage to their leader Immanuel Sekaran on his 54th death anniversary. Violence broke out after the arrest of Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) leader John Pandian, whose supporters demanded his release. The protest escalated, leading to riots, arson, injuries to policemen, and the subsequent firing.
Prosecution sanction withheld
Police sources said the CBI, which took over the probe on the orders of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, had sought the State government's sanction to prosecute certain officers. The then AIADMK government denied the request.
As a result, the case has not yet been chargesheeted. It was not clear whether a departmental inquiry or disciplinary action was insisted any official for the high-handedness, some of which was captured on camera, in the riots, the sources said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
No housing society on govt land opts for self-redevelopment in Mumbai
Mumbai: Not a single housing society in Mumbai on govt land has opted for self-redevelopment, information obtained under the Right to Information Act has revealed. There are 3,000 cooperative housing societies in Mumbai city and suburbs on land leased either by the govt or collector's land, called occupancy class II. Salil Rameshchandra, president of the Federation of Grantees of Govt Land (FGGL), who sought information on the conversion of land to freehold under the RTI Act, said last year the govt came up with a concessional scheme reducing the premium to be paid for conversion to freehold. Under the 5% concessional scheme, housing societies are required to pay only 5% of the Ready Reckoner (RR) rate for conversion if they opt for self-redevelopment and ensure it is undertaken within two years of the conversion. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai | Gold Rates Today in Mumbai | Silver Rates Today in Mumbai Further, 25% of the additional area is to be given to the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana . If residents fail to implement the scheme within two years, they are given another two years' extension, but thereafter the land goes back to its original status, and the housing society stands to forfeit the amount paid. "It is clear that this scheme is ill-conceived and is impractical; hence, it has remained only on paper," said Rameshchandra. A number of housing societies have come forward for the second concessional scheme of paying 10% of the RR Rate as a premium for land conversion to freehold. The RTI information shows that six housing societies opted for the conversion when the premium was 15% (prior to March 2024), and 62 societies have opted for it after the govt reduced the premium to 10%. Rameshchandra said the low response is owing to several reasons, such as residents of most housing societies on govt land are either middle-class or low-income senior citizens, and the amount is too large to pay. "The conversion to freehold also requires clearing of violations, especially membership transfer approvals. The red tape and corruption also create their own problems," he said. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Tihar Jail, India's largest prison, under scanner for ‘extortion racket'
Long infamous for chronic overcrowding, India's largest and most high-security prison, Tihar Jail, is now under the scanner for an 'extortion racket' running within its four walls, allegedly involving officials and inmates. On August 11, the Delhi High Court, acting on a petition filed by a former inmate, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR and investigate what it described as 'very disturbing and startling' allegations. The case stems from a petition filed by businessman Mohit Kumar Goyal, who was lodged in Tihar Jail between June 4 and August 6, 2024, in connection with a cheating case before being granted bail. In his plea, Mr. Goyal alleged that during his two-month incarceration he was repeatedly coerced into paying 'protection money' by prison officials in collusion with certain inmates. The former inmate told the court about a senior official warning him that refusal to pay up would invite dire consequences. Mr. Goyal alleged that the threats included being grievously harmed or having his face disfigured with a blade. He alleged that certain officials introduced him to inmates, who acted as their operatives. In the petition, filed through advocate Sachin, the businessman said he was forced to pay nearly ₹15 lakh as extortion money. The modus operandi to extort money from the inmates is to have their family members transfer a fixed sum of money to the relatives of the other inmates who are part of the alleged racket, Mr. Goyal told the court. In return, the inmates are allowed unlimited use of videoconferencing facilities for 'eMulakat', online interviews with family members and legal representatives, as well as access to phones. An inmate who refused to pay up, the businessman claimed, exposed himself to harsh punitive measures and threats of bodily harm. Court-ordered probe Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the court on September 26 last year directed the Inspecting Judge of Tihar Jail to examine the allegations and submit a report. On May 2, the court perused the report, which was filed in a sealed cover. A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that 'very disturbing and startling facts have been revealed pointing not only to certain irregularities and illegalities in the functioning of Tihar Jail but also to issues touching upon even criminal activities going on there'. The report was based on a detailed inquiry conducted by the Inspecting Judge on examining the inmates, the prison authorities, and other individuals whose names were disclosed by the petitioner. The report also analysed the call detail records to examine calls made by inmates to people outside. It purportedly also highlighted 'how the official landline number in the jail was misused by vested interests for promoting nefarious activities'. While the report also questioned the conduct of the petitioner, it confirmed the existence of an extortion network operating in connivance with jail authorities. The court directed a two-pronged action — a preliminary probe by the CBI and an administrative inquiry by the Delhi government's Principal Secretary (Home), to identify officers responsible for the lapses. Upon examining the CBI's preliminary inquiry report, the High Court noted that the findings 'reflected various malpractices prevalent in jails' and indicated collusion between inmates and officials in corrupt activities. Meanwhile, in compliance with the court's earlier orders, the Delhi government informed the Bench that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against nine jail officials. Some of them have been suspended and others transferred, with further action being pursued under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the government told the court.
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Economic Times
Alleged Land-for-Jobs scam: CBI court slams co-accused for 'contrived' bid to delay case
Synopsis A special CBI court rebuked an accused in the land-for-jobs scandal, Ram Ashish Singh, for attempting to delay the framing of charges. Singh sought to exclude a letter he wrote to the CBI, claiming it was a confessional statement. The court dismissed his application, viewing it as a tactic to avoid arguments on the charges against him. IANS New Delhi: A special CBI court has chided a co-accused allegedly involved in the land-for-jobs scandal for moving an application in a "contrived manner" to avoid arguments on framing of charges against reported by ET, a special court here is conducting day-to-day hearing on the framing of charges against the accused involved in the alleged scandal. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has charge sheeted the then Union Railways Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, sons Tejashwi and Tej Pratap Yadav, daughters Misa Bharti and Hema Yadav in the said case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Around 84 of the 99 total accused have concluded their arguments opposing the framing of charges. These include Tejashwi, Tej Pratap Yadav and others. A local court, in an order passed last week, came down heavily on Ram Ashish Singh for moving an application to "delay" the proceedings of the case. The dispute in question pertains to a letter dated June 27, 2022 relied upon by the CBI vide which the accused, a principal of a school in Bihar, had responded to CBI's query revealing that few job aspirants had procured forged mark sheets and transfer certificates to secure jobs in the Railway Department. The accused moved court seeking deletion or exclusion of the said document from CBI's charge sheet on the ground that it is in the nature of a "confessional statement". The same was strongly opposed by CBI. Refusing to entertain the plea the court, in its order dated August 8, came down heavily on the accused. The CBI court held that "the court finds the insistence of the counsel for accused upon the application being decided before he may lead other arguments to be a conscious ploy to seek a truncated and piecemeal as well as premature finding from the court on issues relating to the charge". More so, the order reads, "when the document in question is a letter from the accused to the investigating officer and is not cited as a confession or a disclosure statement by the CBI. The heightened insistence of the counsel is perceived by the court as a disguise for delay".Refusing to grant any relief, the court ruled that "the court is therefore not inclined to allow the prayer for a standalone order to be pronounced on the present application which calls upon the court to first reach a finding as to whether the said letter sent by accused to the IO, is a confessional statement and then disregard it. When the charge itself is not contemplated as a mini trial, no such exercise can be conducted for appreciating the tenor or admissibility of a document even prior to an order on charge".The court held that "being conscious that any eager, animated or inflexible assertion of the counsel ought not to prejudice the accused, the court would refrain from making further observations regarding the contrived manner in which the application has been moved so as to avoid arguments on charge on other aspects".
