Details regarding phone tapping not to be provided under RTI

Background

The appellant requested for the following information regarding Section 69(2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Rule 3 & 4 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules 2009. He asked for details of any direction issued by a competent authority for interception and monitoring of any information generated, transmitted, received, or stored in any computer resource. He also asked the rank of the officer who maintains record for such data. He also asked for the photocopy of the guidelines/circulars been issued in this regard.

The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused the information claiming exemption 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; 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; and 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; and section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA), relied on a combined reading of Section 24 read with Section 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act and rejected the appeal. He held that even generic data touches upon and is reflective of the functioning of the security and intelligence organizations, which in the legislative wisdom have been kept outside the operation of the RTI Act.

Proceedings

The respondent submitted that the number of orders of interception issued by the Competent Authority cannot be provided in view 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; 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 since disclosure of such information would infringe upon the security of the nation. It was claimed that since most of the agencies involved are security and intelligence organizations listed in schedule - II of the RTI Act, both 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; 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; and section 24 are applicable in the case. The disclosure of information would reveal the rigour exercised by such agencies and their manner of functioning, and hence revealing the information would also infringe upon security of the State. In respect of the rank of the officer who maintains record for such data and the photocopy of the guidelines/ circulars issued, it was informed that the relevant Act and Rules are on the website in the public domain and hence the information cannot be said to be held by or under the control of public authority.

View of the CIC

The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA. However, the CIC directed to provide the copies of the relevant rules regarding the information said to be in public domain.

Citation: Shri Talish Ray v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000084