Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Amrinder Pal Singh Sehgal vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 24 June, 2021

                              केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                           बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2020/661354

Shri Amrinder Pal Singh Sehgal                             ...
                                                       अपीलकताा /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                     ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs
Date of Hearing                      :    22.06.2021
Date of Decision                     :    24.06.2021
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   13.09.2019
PIO replied on                        :   10.10.2019
First Appeal filed on                 :   07.11.2019
First Appellate Order on              :   03.12.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   31.12.2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.09.2019 seeking information on following 20 points:-

Etc. The PIO /Director (CIS-II) vide letter dated 10.10.2019 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.11.2019. The FAA/Joint Secretary (CIS) vide order dated 03.12.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the information provided by the Respondent was misleading and unsatisfactory. He referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kabir Shankar Bose vs TRAI in WP (C) No 12388/2018 dated 20.11.2018 and stated that as per the said decision information pertaining to surveillance of his mobile number should be provided by the Respondent Public Authority. He stated that the said decision was made by a Higher Court and was decided subsequent to the 2015 CIC decision cited by the CPIO in its reply. The Appellant also referred to the decision of the Commission in Apar Gupta vs M/o Home Affairs, CIC/MHOME/A/2019/122458, 122459, 122457, 122456, 122450 and 122455 decided on 18.05.2021 in support of his contention.

The Respondent represented by Shri Shailendra Vikram Singh, Director participated in the hearing through audio conference. He referred to the point wise response provided by the CPIO and stated that disclosure of interception related information defeats the very purpose of lawful interception/ phone tapping and in exempted as per Section 8 (1) (a) (g) and (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. In support of his contention, Shri Singh referred to the decision of the Commission in CIC/VS/A/2014/000378 decided on 02.09.2015 wherein a similar view taken by the Public Authority was concurred by the Commission.

Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kabir Shankar Bose vs TRAI in WP (C) No 12388/2018 dated 20.11.2018 which is cited by the Appellant is not applicable in the present instance since in the said matter the information was sought from the telecom regulator i.e., TRAI and the issue raised in the matter before the Hon'ble High Court was regarding accessing information from a private body (Vodafone) by a government authority (TRAI). However, in the present matter the information is sought from the M/o Home Affairs. Similarly, the recent decision of the Commission cited by the Appellant in Apar Gupta vs M/o Home Affairs, CIC/MHOME/A/2019/122458, 122459, 122457, 122456, 122450 and 122455 decided on 18.05.2021 also does not lend itself in support of the Appellant's contentions in the instant matter. In the said matter general statistical information was sought by the information seeker and the Commission had clearly observed that the Appellant has not sought any personally identifiable information in respect of any individual, or even the locations in which the orders under Section 69 of the IT Act were passed, hence there is no question of endangering the life or physical safety of any person. The information sought by the information seeker therein did not seek disclosure of any assistance given in confidence for law enforcement and security purposes either.

In the light of the above mentioned observations, the Commission is of the view that no further intervention is required in the instant Second Appeal which is disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4