Using RTI to obtain information regarding tapping of mobile phone
14 Jun, 2013Background
The appellant got some information that his mobile number has been recorded/ tapped. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the matter is related to the commercial confidence of BSNL and hence the information was exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. As the query raised that how the information is related to commercial confidence and its disclosure would harm the competitive position of BSNL, the respondent was unable to give any justifiable explanation. The respondent stated that since the tapping order would have come from a law/ security enforcement agency, he would follow the process as laid down under section 11 of the RTI Act and thereafter give his submissions in the matter. The CIC adjourned the hearing.
During the second hearing before the CIC, the respondent submitted that they have checked their records and their system and have found that the appellant’s mobile phone has not been tapped and the same has been intimated to him. The appellant contended that in the aforesaid letter the respondent have only confirmed having checked their records and not their system. The respondent further stated that they have checked both their records and the system and will confirm the same in writing to the appellant.
View of CIC
The Commission directed the PIO to confirm the same in writing to the appellant.
Citation: Mr. Santosh Kumar Agnihotri v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000323/2415
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1364
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission