Vellore Prison official's u-turn in Priyanka-Nalini meeting

Chennai, May 6 (UNI) The Vellore Women's Prison Superintendent, who had denied reports of any meeting between late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's daughter Priyanka Vadra and Nalini, a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, has made a volte-face and admitted that the meeting did take place on March 19.

Superintendent Rajasoundari, who had denied that any such meeting took place in her letter dated April 11, later admitted that the meeting happened and conveyed the same to Mr D Rajkumar, son of senior counsel S Duraisamy, who had appeared for Nalini in the case.

The Superintendent, in her letter dated April 28, informed Mr Rajkumar that Ms Vadra had met Nalini in the prison, after he threatened to seek action against her for providing false information.

It may be noted that when Mr Rajkumar filed a petition under the Right to Information Act, seeking details of the meeting and under which provisions of law it was allowed, the Superintendent, in her reply, had denied such a meeting.

Now with the Superintendent admitting that the meeting did take place, the lawyer had petitioned her to furnish him details of what transpired in the meeeting between Ms Vadra and Nalini, under section 8(i)(g) of the RTI Act.

Reacting to the Superintendent's suggestion that he could get the details of what transpired in the meeting from Nalini, he said the Superintendent was bound to provide him the details and she need not advise him as to how he should get the details.

He said when Ms Vadra visited the prison, there should have been entries in Form 21 and 22 in the main gate register numbers 24 and 25 and wanted the Superintendent to furnish him photocopies of the entries.

Referring to the Superintendent's admission about the meeting, Mr Rajkumar wanted to know ''what is true and what is false.'' If one thing is false, she had given false information, he pointed out.

Mr Rajkumar had moved the State Information Commission, demanding action against the Superintendent for giving false information about the meeting. He demanded an inquiry against the Superintendent for providing false information to him under the RTI Act and appropriate action against her.

UNI XR-WS RR DB1917