The Orissa High Court in the case Chittaranjan Mohanty v. State of Odisha observed and has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation wherein seeking list of political prisoners which is detained under the draconian Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, during the national emergency.
In the present case, it bring a third plea which has been filed by Advocate Chittaranjan Mohanty with the similar prayers, after two analogous pleas were being disposed of earlier. The order passed being order of the Court while disposing the second plea, a fresh representation has been file by the petitioner to the Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha on 10.11.2022, wherein seeking the list.
However, it has been responded by the Department of Finance to the representation on 30.11.2022 states:
The Finance Department do not have any scheme or provision wherein providing the financial assistance to political prisoners of emergency unlike Freedom Fighters.
No list of the prisoners political under MISA or DIR during the period of Emergency which is being available in this Department.
The counsel, Sukanta Kumar Nayak appearing for the petitioner submitted before the court that as the representation was made to the Chief Secretary, the Government of Odisha, it only being he could have responded to the representation. It has also been contended by him that the Finance Department is not the proper authority to submit a reply in this case.
The Division bench headed by Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Murahari Sri Raman in the case observed and was being disinclined to accept such contention and stated that it is only being relevant Department which is handling the issue has to answer such representation. Thus, it being the Finance Department, who committed no error.
The court stated while delaying to pass the directions for extending of any financial assistance to such political prisoners.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the PIL, the counsel appearing for the petitioner requested the court for granting the permission to file a fresh application in this regard, but the said court did not entertain any such request.