Number of requests received by CCA to investigate any contraventions of IT Act in the last 3 years denied due to an objection from IB – Appellant: mere statistical information cannot impact confidentiality - after adjournment by CIC, information provided
1- Under Section 28 of the Information Technology Act 2000 the Controller of Certifying Authority (CCA) has the power to investigate any contraventions of the provisions of the Act. Please provide us information as to how many requests / references have been received by CCA for such investigation from Intelligence Bureau, M/o Home Affairs, or other agencies of the Govt. of India as well as the state Government in the last three years.
2- Kindly provide us with the number of notices issued under Section 28 of the IT Act to various service providers /intermediaries seeking details for the purpose of an investigation in the last three years.
3- Kindly provide us the names of all such service providers/intermediates on who have been such notices.
4- Kindly provide us the number of service providers/intermediates on whom a fine under Section 44(A) of the IT Act has been levied.
5- Kindly provide us information with regard to the methodology followed by CCA for the scrutiny of requests sent by the Intelligence Bureau, M/o Home or other agencies of the Govt. like for a notice to be issued to service providers/intermediaries. Please provide us any rules/guidelines or file notes that may have been prepared for the procedure to be followed with respect to such requests.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The PIO has not given satisfactory information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 26/07/2013: The following were present Appellant: Ms. Talish Ray Respondent: Mr. Prianceu Pandey CPIO’s representative The appellant stated that she is pressing for information on point 1 of her RTI application dated 10/01/2012. She contended that she is only seeking the numerical count/number of requests and not the contents or the name of the agency from whom the request was received. She argued that mere statistical information cannot impact confidentiality. The CPIO’s representative stated that the information relates to security agencies and they had carried out the process as outlined in Section 11 of the RTI Act and the Intelligence Bureau has advised them not to disclose the information. He produced a copy of the IB response for scrutiny by the Commission. To a query from the Commission as to how the statistical information under point 2 (which has been disclosed) is different from that sought under point 1 the CPIO’s representative requested that adjournment may be granted to enable him to make written submissions in the matter.
Interim Decision notice dated 26/07/2013:
After hearing both the parties it is decided to grant adjournment and invite written submissions from the CPIO. Accordingly, the CPIO should furnish his submissions to the Commission (endorsing a copy to the appellant) by 26/08/2013. The hearing is adjourned for 29/08/2013 at 4.30 PM.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 29/08/2013: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Prakash Deb Ray appellant’s representative Respondent: Mr. P Ramachandran CPIO The appellant’s representative accepted that he has received the information from the respondent.
The information has been provided. The matter is closed.
Citation; Ms. Talish Ray v. M/o Communications & IT Department of Information Technology in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000614/3342