[FIR on leaking confidential information] Maharashtra govt opposes maintainability of plea by IPS officer Rashmi Shukla in Bombay High Court

The Mumbai Police on Saturday opposed the maintainability of the plea filed by IPS Officer Rashmi Shukla in Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the first information report (FIR) registered in connection with leaking of confidential information about police postings in the State. .Senior Advocate Darius Khambata appearing for Mumbai Police, stated that the FIR pertained to data theft and leakage. He argued that the documents in question were admittedly confidential and "leaking of such documents which eventually found their way into the public domain was a serious offence to be investigated into". The FIR was filed against unknown persons and yet the submissions made by Shukla seemed like a confession that she was named in the FIR, Khambata said. .Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appearing for Shukla argued that the Maharashtra government had lodged the FIR against Shukla only to make her a scapegoat in the illegal phone tapping case in order to shield State Chief Secretary Sitaram Kunte.He stated that this entire exercise of summoning Shukla for investigation showed the malafide intentions of the State against a whistleblower who sought justice and truth. "The FIR is to suppress the crime of corruption in police transfers and postings by not letting CBI or ED scrutinise this, only to protect the actual criminals.." Jethmalani stated in conclusion. .Made a scapegoat to protect Maharashtra Chief Secretary Sitaram Kunte who sanctioned phone tapping: Rashmi Shukla to Bombay High Court.Terming such allegations as "frivolous", Khambata argued that the FIR did not concern itself with the corruption in the transfer and postings of police in the State, or what Kunte purportedly said in response to Shukla's report. It was against leaking of extremely confidential documents, "which was as important an offence as corruption charges in police postings," Khambata emphasised. .It was also Khambata's argument that in a petition for quashing of FIR, Shukla by focusing on the supposed malafide intentions of the State without arguments on the FIR itself, gave an impression that she did not want investigation into the offence of data leakage."And the FIR does not even name her (Shukla)," Khambata added. .Khambata also pointed out that the lengthy arguments on malafides had been advanced even before notice was issued on the plea. The Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar pointed out that since all respondents had been present and it was an understanding that the petitions will be heard finally, no notice was issued formally. .Khambata submitted that though he had no objection to the petition being heard finally, he did not want there to be an assumption that the allegations made in the petition had been admitted since there was no written opposition to the same. .In light of such submissions, in order to grant time to the police to file their formal reply, the Bench issued a formal notice to the respondents and deferred the hearing till September 13, 2021. The State government assured the High Court that the statement of no coercive steps, including Shukla's arrest will continue till September 14, 2021. .IPS Officer Rashmi Shukla won't be arrested if she co-operates with investigation: Mumbai Police to Bombay High Court.Jethmalani was assisted by advocates Gunjan Mangla and Sameer Nangre.