SC stays Bombay HC order on Pradhan committee report

“What is the use of disclosing it to public? What is the advantage? Can the court prevent it? What they will score by knowing the secret information. It will only serve for television discussions,” a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan said while commenting on the order asking the state government to submit the report in a sealed cover to it.

The Bench stayed the High Court order directing the Chief Secretary Johnny Joseph to file an affidavit as to why sufficient equipment and bulletproof jackets were not provided to the ATS till date.

The High Court had also asked the Chief Secretary to explain about the steps taken after the June 17 meeting of the the state security council,formed after the attacks,which had discussed how digital technologies can be roped in for tackling terror.

The Bench was irked by the order asking the Chief of Anti Terrorism Squad K P Raghuvanshi to remain present in the court during the next hearing on August 6.

“What is the expertise with the court to give direction to the ATS Chief,” the Bench asked staying the order for his personal appearance before the High Court.

After the brief hearing,the Bench issued notices to Society of Indian Law Firm (SOILF),Indian Merchants Chamber and Mumbai-based advocate V P Patil on whose PILs the High Court had passed the directions to Maharashtra Government,and posted the matter for further hearing on August 21.

Advocate Lalit Bhasin,appearing for the SOILF submitted that whatever part of the report which could legitimately be disclosed should be allowed to be made public.

However,the Bench was not impressed with his submission and said that it will only serve the purpose of discussion.

“It will only become a matter of discussion at many public forums. Will it be a good thing for the country?” the Bench asked.

Senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi,appearing for the Maharashtra Government,assailed the High Court order saying that in view of the sensitivity of the matter,secret information should not be allowed to be disclosed.

However,Bhasin said the High Court and the public have a right to know about the impending threat as told by the public prosecutor during the hearing.

“How can we tell to the High Court what are the impending threats,” Salve said adding that it will only create panic.

Salve contended that secret measures cannot be disclosed and recalled the live telecast of the security action by the TV channels which was reportedly used by the terrorists to guide the ultras involved in the 26/11 attacks.

Bhasin said it is the duty of the state government,which “miserably failed” to provide safety and security to the citizens,to inform the court about the lapses on its part.

However,the submission was opposed by Salve who noted that there was failure on the part of the US when 9/11 occurred.

The PILs in the Bombay High Court had sought to make public the report of the Pradhan Committee and action against top police and intelligence officers for its inability to prevent the terror attacks.

The government had not tabled the findings of the panel before the Assembly during the recent monsoon session and instead presented an action-to-be-taken report. Maharashtra Government had constituted a two-member panel comprising former bureaucrat Ram Pradhan and former RAW official V Balachandran to go into different aspects of the Mumbai attacks.