Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Lawful Interception & Monitoring of Telecom Service Providers whose excerpts were published by Hindu were denied u/s 8(1)(a) - CIC: Provide the introduction, types of requests, reconciliation & consequences
2 Nov, 2015Information sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:-
1. Provide a copy of guidelines titled ‘Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Lawful Interception and Monitoring of Telecom Service Providers (TSP)’, bearing No. 5-4/2011/S-II and dated January 2, 2014. 2. Provide copies of the file notes relating to said guidelines.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing 24/06/2015: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Arjun J
Respondent: Mr. R. Shakya CPIO (011 23372630)
The appellant stated that vide his RTI application he has sought copy of guidelines titled
‘Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Lawful Interception and Monitoring of Telecom Service Providers (TSP)’, bearing No. 5-4/2011/S-II and dated January 2, 2014 and file notes relating to said guidelines. He contended that the guidelines were accessed by the newspaper Hindu and excerpts were published in its edition of 10/01/2014, a copy of which was attached to RTI application. The respondent 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; of the RTI Act stating that the information sought is a restricted document and related to the security of the nation. The appellant submitted that the requested information does not fall within the ambit 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 information contains purely procedural guidelines to be followed while lawfully intercepting communications, its disclosure will not in any way prejudicially affect the security of the State. He has further submitted that while the content of interception may be classified, the procedure to be followed in interception is not per se classified.
He argued that the CPIO has claimed 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; of the RTI Act without offering any explanation whatsoever, and the Appellate Authority merely termed the requested SOP ‘a restricted document having detailed procedure…’. In neither instance was the applicant informed as to how the disclosure of requested information might translate to a real-world compromise of the security of the State. The appellant requested that the CPIO and Appellate Authority could have applied Section 10 of the RTI Act and provided at least that part of the information, which can reasonably be severed from any part that is believed to contain sensitive information. That much of the content of the requested SOP is already in the public domain, owing to significant media coverage of the matter the annexed news report for instance provides details on the structure of the SOP and part of its content, which removes basis, if any, of the CPIO’s contention or apprehensions about security.
The CPIO reiterated that the SOP is sensitive document and contains confidential guidelines for the service provider to ensure integrity of the process of interception and if this information is brought into public domain it is possible that some miscreant may misuse the process and unauthorizedly intercept communication. The appellant produced copy of notification dated 1st March 2007 giving details of the guidelines to be adopted while exercising power of interception under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act. He argued that the respondent should be able to apply Section 10 and provide that part of the record which does not contain sensitive details. The CPIO argued that the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act and the process / guidelines to operate the provisions of the aforesaid section are available in public domain and copy of same had also been given to the applicant. He further stated that he is willing to share certain sections of the document which are concerned with protection of privacy of individual.
Interim Decision notice dated 24/06/2015:
It is decided to grant adjournment and invite written submissions from both the parties demonstrating their respective stand on the issue at hand, so that full facts are brought on record. Accordingly, both parties should furnish their submissions to the Commission (endorsing a copy to each other) by 10/07/2015.
The matter is adjourned for 21/07/2015 at 03.00 PM.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 21/07/2015: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Arjun J
Respondent: Mr. R. Shakya CPIO
The respondent in his written submission dated 10/07/2015 has stated as under:
“(1) The document titled 'Standard Operating Procedures of Lawful Interception & Monitoring for Law Enforcement Agencies' sought by Shri Arjun J is a classified document categorized as 'Restricted', which limits the scope of providing this document only to the addressees of the document.
(2) This document has been issued to the Telecom Service Providers to ensure systematic and tamper proof monitoring of target numbers, and to have uniformity on critical issues of interception & Monitoring; which is a sensitive subject having bearing on national security.
(3) This document provides the internal structure and mechanism within the Telecom Service Providers' organisation. Making public such information potentially exposes the information about number and level of people handling lawful interception cases within the Telecom Service Providers organisation, who can be connived by unscrupulous/ miscreants for illegal interception of communication.
(4) This document also provides the mechanism for flow for information within the network. Making such mechanisms known in public domain potentially exposes the network for cyber attacks.
(5) This document contains all the formats for exchanging the communication between Telecom Service Providers & Lawful Enforcement Agencies. If such formats are made available in open domain, potentially these can be vulnerable to get forged leading to unlawful interception.
(6) This document also provides for Validation process for interception request. If the details are known in public domain, one can possibly forge the documents in such a way that desired checks are made leading to unlawful interception.
(7) This document also contain the process of actual provisioning of targets in the various Switching network elements of Telecom Network. Exposing the same in public can be exploited by unscrupulous people for unlawful interception.
(8) It is further to submit that Lawful Interception & Monitoring is governed by the provisions of Section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act' 1885 read with Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 amended from time to time. It is also bring to your kind notice that Rule 419A has been amended in light of the direction from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the PUCL Vs. Union of India. These regulations are available in the public domain. A copy of these regulations has also been provided to Shri Harjodh Singh, a colleague of Shri Arjun working in the same company called SFLC.
(9) It is further submitted that as expressed during the hearing in the case on 24th June, 2015, certain portions of said document such as introduction, types of requests, reconciliation, Consequences can be shared with the appellant.
Thus, in light of above averments, it is requested that the said document may not be given to the RTI appellant as it has bearing on the national security.” To a specific query the CPIO stated that as mentioned in the earlier hearing certain sections of the SOP viz. introduction, types of requests, reconciliation, purging process, consequences and list of law enforcement agencies can be disclosed after redacting some sensitive portions. The appellant agreed.
Decision notice:
The appellant has accepted the CPIO’s offer agreeing to disclose certain sections of the SOP viz. introduction, types of requests, reconciliation, purging process, consequences and list of law enforcement agencies, after redacting some sensitive portions. Hence, no lis has been presented to the Commission for adjudication. The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Arjun J. v. Department of Telecommunications in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/001361/8149