Should inward and outward call lists of official phone be provided under RTI?
6 Jun, 2013Background
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) seeking the inward and outward call lists in respect of a particular telephone number for certain period. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to give the information under RTI Act.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information is related to third party and is exempt under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. Further, the appellant has not cited any public interest in seeking the information. The appellant argued that in a similar case the BSNL authorities have given him third party information and hence, MTNL should do likewise. He further contended that the telephone for which he is seeking the information is an official phone.
View of CIC
The Commission referred to two of its earlier decisions (Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/09/00329) and (Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000836) wherein it was held that the facility of telephone provided by a public authority to its employees was to facilitate their work. The installation, maintenance and the usage of these phones are financed by the public authority’s budget. Norms and guidelines have been provided covering the usage of the phone, especially about when the private use of the ‘phone was to be paid for by the employee. Such call details, where public as well as private calls are intertwined, cannot be provided to avoid invasion of privacy under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that there is every possibility of certain call(s) being personal; hence, in the absence of any public interest the appellant’s contention cannot be sustained. The appellant’s other argument that BSNL authorities have disclosed third party information and hence, MTNL should do likewise is without merit.
Citation: Mr. Sanjay Bose v. MTNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000509/2414
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1344
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission