The name of the owner of a particular BSNL SIM was sought - Respondent rejected the request u/s 8(1)(j) after following the process as u/s 11 as the subscriber objected to the disclosure of the information - CIC: order of PIO upheld

Information sought:

The appellant wants to know the name of the owner of the BSNL SIM no. 9434029887.

Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has denied the information under Section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act 2005.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present

Appellant: Mr. Md. Moktar Hossain (Ruku) through VC

Respondent: Mr. P. Dey CPIO’s representative through VC

The appellant stated that he wants to know the name of the subscriber of mobile no. 9434029887. The CPIO’s representative stated that they had carried out the process as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI Act but the subscriber has objected to the disclosure of the information, however, he will provide copies of the correspondence exchanged with the subscriber after redacting his name & address. The CPIO’s representative claimed exemption 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.

Decision notice:

BSNL is bound to protect the confidentiality of its subscribers and information relating to mobile/telephone connection of any subscriber cannot be disclosed to third parties being exempt under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure, however, as agreed by the CPIO’s representative the information as above should be provided to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Before parting with this matter it would be apt to quote the law as propounded by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 19/2/2014[W.P.(C) 3406/2012 CM APPL 7218/2012 – Union of India vs. R. Jayachandran] has held as under:

“7. Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions, this Court is of the view that the proper approach to be adopted in cases where personal information with regard to third parties is asked is first to determine whether information sought falls 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 and if the Court/Tribunal reaches the conclusion that aforesaid exemption is not attracted, then the third party procedure referred to in Section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act must be followed before releasing the information.”

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

BASANT SETH

Information Commissioner

Citation: Md. Moktar Hossain (Ruku) v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001674/5798