What use disclosing Pradhan report: SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Bombay high court order directing the Maharashtra state government to place before it the report of the Pradhan Committee which had inquired into the lapses of 26/11 terror attacks on Mumbai.

"What is the use of disclosing it (Pradhan Committee report) to the public? What is the advantage? Can the court prevent it? What will theyscore by knowing the secret information? It will only serve for television discussions," said a bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justice P Sathasivam and Justice B S Chauhan.

The bench also put on hold a high court order directing chief secretary Johnny Joseph to file an affidavit as to why sufficient equipment and bullet-proof jackets were not provided to 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 state security council, which had discussed how digital technologies can be roped in for tackling terror.
SC expressed its displeasure over high court order which had directed the chief of anti terrorism squad K P Raghuvanshi to remain present before it on August 6.

"What is the expertise with the court to give direction to the ATS chief", the bench asked while staying the order of the high court directing his personal appearance before it.

The bench also issued notices to the 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 the state government. It posted the matter for further hearing on August 21.

PILs in the 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 on Mumbai. The order of the high court was challenged by the state government in the apex court.

Senior counsels Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the government picked holes in the high court order. In view of the sensitivity of the matter, secret information should not be allowed to be disclose, they said.

However, advocate Lalit Bhasin, appearing for SOILF said, whatever part of the report which could legitimately be disclosed should be allowed to be made public.

Bhasin further said that the high court and the public have a right to know about the impending threat as told by the public prosecutor during the hearing.

This was contested by Mr Salve: "How can we tell the high court what are the impending threats," asked Salve adding, it will only create panic among the public.

Mr Salve said secret measures cannot be disclosed and pointed to the live telecast of the 26/11, which was reportedly used by terrorists to guide ultras involved in the 26/11 attacks.

Bhasin, however, said it was 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.

Opposing it, Mr Salve said, there was failure on the part of the US government too when 9/11 attack occurred.
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 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

The government had not tabled the findings of the probe panel before the assembly during the recent monsoon session and instead presented an action-to-be-taken report on the issue.