MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged a Memo dtd. 11/3/2022 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) disclosing certain documents under The Right to Information Act, 2005, with reference to an ongoing police case. The documents in question are a series of WhatsApp chats between one Rashika Jain (since deceased) and Abhishek Padia from 26/11/2014 -22/7/2019. The documents also include photographs of Rashika Jain and Abhishek Padia. The petitioner is the father of the deceased Rashika Jain and seeks a restraint on the disclosure of the WhatsApp chats between his late daughter and her friend Abhishek Padia.

(2.) The reference made above to an ongoing P.S Case is relevant for a more complete appreciation of the concerns of the parties before the Court. The petitioner's daughter Rashika Jain and Kushal Agarwal (son of respondents Naresh and Nilam Agarwal) were married on 9/2/2020. Rashika Jain died on 16/2/2021 under mysterious circumstances. The Jains and the Agarwals thereafter filed criminal proceedings against each other. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the Alipore P.S on 17/2/2021 against Kushal Agarwal and his parents (the Alipore P.S. Case). The Agarwals lodged a case in the Kalighat P.S on 22/7/2021 against the petitioner and his wife for removal of jewellery belonging to Rashika Jain from the locker of the Axis Bank (the Kalighat P.S Case). The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 21/6/2022. Kushal Agarwal, the husband of late Rashika Jain, is presently in custody and an application for bail has recently been rejected.

(3.) The contention of learned senior counsel Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, Mahendra Kumar Jain, being the father of the deceased Rashika Jain, is that the WhatsApp chats between the petitioner's late daughter and Abhishek Padia could not have been disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. Counsel submits that the information is required to be kept secret since the investigation in the Alipore P.S Case against the Agarwals is continuing. Counsel relies on Regulation 71 (g) of Chapter V of the Police Regulations, Calcutta 1968 where the contents of a case diary and statements of witnesses are regarded as privileged information. Counsel submits that the authority acted in breach of Articles 19 and 21 of The Constitution of India. Counsel urges that in the present case, the information was supplied without due regard to the requirements under the aforesaid Sec. .