Central Information Commission
Rakesh Kumar Singh vs Bureau Of Civil Aviation Security on 25 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा /Second Appeal No. CIC/BOCAS/A/2024/643826
Rakesh Kumar Singh ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 25/02/2026
Date of Decision : 25/02/2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Ashutosh Chaturvedi
Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on 26/05/2024
CPIO replied on 25/06/2024
First appeal filed on 09/07/2024
FAA's order dated 08/08/2024
Second Appeal dated 01/10/2024
Information sought:
The appellant has filed RTI application dated 26/05/2024 seeking the following information:
"1. All the addendums made to AvSec Order NO. 02/2022 dated 04-03-2022 till date Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/BOCAS/A/2024/643826 Page 1 of 4
2. File noting and correspondence with respect to imposing restriction to carry non-communicable handheld or differential GPS device required for survey purpose through addendum to AvSec order no. 02/2022 dated 19.02.2023.
3. Applicability of addendum to AvSec order no. 02/2022 dated 19.02.2023 on carrying non-communicable handheld or differential GPS device.
4. Detailed procedures for obtaining specific permission from the Ministry of Home (MHA) or Department of Telecommunication (DoT), Government of India to carry non-communicable handheld or differential GPS device.
5. Directions issued to airports and airlines about mandatory requirement to inform the passengers about restriction in carrying non-communicable handheld or differential GPS device and status of its compliance."
2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant dated 25/06/2024 stated as under:
"The AvSec Order No.2/2022, its Addendums contains sensitive aviation security information and classified as Restricted. Hence, it is exempted from disclosure of information under section 8(I) of RTI ACT, 2005.
File noting and some of the correspondence related to imposing restriction to carry of GPS device contains sensitive aviation security information and classified as Secret. Hence, it is exempted from disclosure of information under section 8(I) of RTI ACT, 2005. AvSec Order No. 2/2022 and its addendum is applicable on any GPS device which transmit or receives GPS signals.
Specific permission for carriage of satellite phones or GPS devices which are otherwise prohibited can be obtained from Department of Telecommunication, Govt of India through their web portal.
BCAS vide AvSec Order 5/2022 dated 17.6.2022 directed all entities operating at airports to sensitive all concerned regarding exiting provisions of the law in force."
3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal with the first Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 08/08/2024 stated as under:
"....In this connection it is informed that reply to the question in your RTI Application No. BOCAS/R/E/24/00046, has already been sent to you by CPIO (Policy), BCAS HQ on 25/6/2024. I agree with the reply provided by the CPIO.Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/BOCAS/A/2024/643826 Page 2 of 4
2. However, clarification to the specific query sought in the appeal w.r.t. to web link is closely pertains to DoT. Accordingly, relevant portion of appeal is hereby transferred to concerned department i.e. Department of Telecommunication under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of RTI Act, 2005 for further necessary action.
3. The instant appeal is accordingly disposed of."
4. Challenging the decision of the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant filed the Instant Second Appeal on 01/10/2024. Written Submission of the Respondent dated 23/01/2026 is taken on record
5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Naveen Chauhan, Joint Director/CPIO participated in the hearing in person The Appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the commission to contest his case despite due notice of hearing. The Respondent reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that the information on record has been provided.
DECISION In the light of the facts of the case, the material on record and the submissions made by the parties, the Commission observes that that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act from available official records, has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
It is further directed to the Respondent to send the copy of the written submission dated 23.01.2026 to the Appellant free of cost via email and speed post within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and accordingly send a compliance report to the commission within 7 days thereafter.
No further intervention of the commission is warranted. The Appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशुतोष चतुवदी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/ Date: 25.02.2026 Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/BOCAS/A/2024/643826 Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Address of the Parties:
1. CPIO Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), Safdarjung Airport, Udan Bhawan, Jorbagh, New Delhi-110003
2. Rakesh Kumar Singh Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/BOCAS/A/2024/643826 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)