The name & designation of officer who directed for surveillance of a particular mobile telephone was denied u/s 8(1)(a) - CIC: matters connected with interception of telephones are distinctly related to the security of India; denial upheld
5 Nov, 2014Information sought: The appellant has sought the following information:-
1. Who has asked for the call details of the mobile number 94125675 for the last two years upto 08/04/2013.
2. Whether mobile number 9412567578 was taken under surveillance/listening in the last year upto 08/04/2013. Provide the name of the departmental, Name & designation the officer directed for surveillance.
3. Provide the reason for keeping the mentioned number on surveillance.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Verma through VC
Respondent: Mr. Aditya Singh CPIO through VC
The appellant stated that as per his information his telephone was tapped in an unauthorized manner and he wants to know the details. The CPIO stated that telephones are put under surveillance only on the written instructions of designated security agencies and such information is exempt under Sections 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act. He confirmed that no unauthorized tapping was done in the appellant’s case.
Decision notice:
The CPIO has confirmed that the appellant’s mobile phone was not tapped in an unauthorized manner. The CPIO’s submissions that information relating to tapping of telephone on the instructions of designated security agency is exempt under Section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act has merit and is in line with this Commission’s division bench decision in appeal (No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00056 : Shri S.C. Sharma Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs dated 05/05/2006) which had taken the view that the matters connected with interception of telephones were governed by the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and were distinctly related to the security of India. We, therefore, hold that the request of the appellant for information regarding tapping of his mobile phone attracts exemption under Section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act. The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Verma v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001720/5824