26/11 attacks: Mumbai court tells state info commission to reply to state’s objection to inquiry into cops’ call records
Mumbai city news: The government, however, argued in HC that the CIC does not have the powers to issue an inquiry, but can only make recommendations.mumbai Updated: Jun 29, 2017 17:20 IST
The Bombay high court directed the Maharashtra chief information commissioner (CIC) to file an affidavit responding to the state government’s objections to an inquiry into the call data records of the Mumbai police control room relating to the 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai.
Giving the CIC time till July 27 to file his affidavit, a bench led by justice Naresh Patil asked him to explain whether he had the power to pass strictures against the police and order an inquiry.
The court was hearing the plea filed by the state government challenging a 2014 order challenging a 2014 order passed by the state information commission (SIC) directing an inquiry against officials of the Mumbai police, including former police commissioner Rakesh Maria, over alleged discrepancies in the 26/11 call records.
During the previous hearing, a bench led by Justice Naresh Patil sought a response from the commission on the state’s appeal.
The government has challenged a July 2014 order passed by the then state chief information commissioner (CIC) Ratnakar Gaikwad directing the government to institute an inquiry headed by a sitting or retired judge under the Commission of Inquiry Act to probe why Vinita Kamte, wife of slain ACP Ashok Kamte was provided with “misleading information” when she had sought the call data records of the police control room on the night of the terror attacks on November 26, 2008.
The government, however, argued in HC that the CIC does not have the powers to issue an inquiry, but can only make recommendations.
Kamte claimed the call records given to her by the police were fake and did not match with the original call data records submitted by the police before the trial court that had been hearing the terror attacks case.
The bench, however, questioned whether the state had the locus standi to file the appeal, and whether the officers who were facing the inquiry shouldn’t approach the court individually.