New Delhi: Death row convict Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui in the 2006 Mumbai serial train blasts case battled from jail using a stream of RTI pleas and legal challenges before Delhi high court. Bombay high court overturned his conviction Monday, citing lack of evidence. But he had tried to build his defence long before the verdict came.Siddiqui routinely petitioned Delhi courts, contesting denials under RTI Act. His RTI applications and legal fights targeted confidential govt documents and intelligence dossiers, in a campaign he claimed was critical to proving procedural lapses in his prosecution.In 2020, Siddiqui moved Delhi HC through advocate Arpit Bhargava, questioning the timing of Maharashtra govt’s sanction for his prosecution. The sanction was granted in Jan 2007, while the official notification came only in June. He sought through RTI all proposal documents and file noting from Union home ministry to show the approval was “wrongly granted”.The following year, he pursued access to a 2009 IB report allegedly recommending a relook at the evidence in the blasts case. While IB told central information commission no such report existed, Siddiqui challenged CIC’s order in HC, accusing it of “blindly” trusting the agency’s claim. HC asked IB to clarify whether any such report was ever prepared and shared with the home ministry.Ultimately, the court upheld CIC’s decision, stressing that intelligence documents related to terrorism were exempt under RTI Act. It cited national security and sovereignty as overriding concerns.Siddiqui didn’t stop. He filed RTIs for “background notes” and reports from Centre and states, including Gujarat, Delhi, and Andhra Pradesh, concerning the 2008 ban on Indian Mujahideen — the group allegedly behind the bombings. When denied, he again challenged CIC’s ruling.Delhi HC sided with CIC and said disclosing such sensitive records would endanger public safety and national interests. “The information sought… would have a bearing on the sovereignty and security of the country,” the bench ruled.In 2019, Siddiqui turned to HC once more, saying he retained the right to access free education as a prisoner. He cited several Ignou courses completed from Nagpur central jail, and sought more books and study material under RTI.HC agreed, directing the jail superintendent to provide the requested books either physically or in soft copy.
