Appellant: Was a particular telephone tapped & by whose orders? PIO: telephones are intercepted only on the written instructions of law enforcement agencies & such information cannot be disclosed being exempt u/s 8(1)(a)&(g) - CIC: order of PIO upheld

Information sought:

The appellant has sought the following information regarding the tapping of two landlines phone

01744-221076 and 01744-228800:-

1. Whether these numbers were tapped during this period August- October 2011?

2. If so, on whose orders and period of such tapping?

3. A copy of the order of competent authority who granted permission?

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The CPIO has denied the information 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; & (g) of the RTI Act 2005.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present

Appellant: Absent

Respondent: Ms. Gyatri Deshwal APIO through VC

The APIO stated that telephones are intercepted only on the written instructions of law enforcement agencies and such information cannot be disclosed being 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; &(g) of the RTI Act. She contended that Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; exempts from disclosure information “which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement and security purposes” and interceptions clearly fall within the said exemption. While concluding the APIO stated that the custodian of the information has informed that the two landlines mentioned by the appellant were not tapped. The appellant is not present for canvassing his case/contesting the APIO’s submissions.

Decision notice:

It is seen that a Coordinate bench of this Commission vide its decision dated 27/11/2006

(File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00379 - S P Singh vs Ministry of Home Affairs) has observed as under:

“7. This is not the first case of this type which has come before the Commission. In an earlier case, (Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00056 : Shri S.C. Sharma Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs), the Commission 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. Any matter, except the most obvious such as the officer designated to authorize interception of messages and the organization so authorized, must therefore be construed to be security related. In that sense disclosure of the category of information required by the present appellant will necessarily attract provisions of 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. The character of the information will not be altered if the charges subsequently brought against the person are not for violation of any security-related law but under provisions of an anti-corruption law. xxx xxx xxx

10. It is abundantly clear that a public authority in receipt of information from any source for law enforcement or security purposes can claim the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; and refuse to disclose such information. The information now requested by the appellant squarely falls in this category. Under the Indian Telegraph Act, the orders issued by the Union Home Secretary to intercept the appellant’s phones were in the interest of the security of the State on the basis of the information received from various sources. The information received by the Union Home Secretary and his order therefore sub-serve the objective of security and law enforcement, which Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; bars from disclosure”

The submissions of the APIO are in line with the above cited decision and cannot be faulted. The matter is closed.

BASANT SETH

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001420/5623