Central Information Commission
Amritpal Singh Khalsa vs Ministry Of Electronics & Information ... on 29 January, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/158545
Shri Amritpal Singh Khalsa ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry Of Electronics & Information ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Technology
Date of Hearing : 29.01.2024
Date of Decision : 29.01.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri HeeralalSamariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.08.2022
PIO replied on : 16.08.2022
First Appeal filed on : 29.09.2022
First Appellate Order on : -
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 14.12.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.08.2022 seeking information on following points:-
1. Please provide certified copy of the complaint/request received by the Designated Officer under Rule 5 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking New Access of Information by Public Rules, 2009, herein after referred as Said rules for the sake of brevity)
2. Please provide certified copy of the interim directions issued for blocking the Sidhu Moosewalas SYL Canal song under Rule 9 of the said rules
3. Please provide me compliance as of Rule 9(3) of the said rules.
4. Please provide me certified copy of the final report of the committee.
5. Please provide me certified copy of the final order by the Secretary, Dept of Information and Technology after the recommendations of the committee.
6. Name, designation, contact details of 1 appellate authority in this regard. The CPIO and Scientist 'E', Cyber Laws Division, MeitY vide letter dated 06.09.2022 provided point-wise information to the Appellant as under: Page 1 of 4
"Answer I and 5: MeitY is empowered to issue directions for blocking for access of information by public under section 69A of The Information Technology Act, 2000.
The due process being followed is defined in The Information Technology (Procedure and safeguards for blocking for access of information by public) Rules, 2009. A copy of the said Rules is enclosed.
Section 69A of the IT Act. 2000 empowers Government to block information from public access under specific conditions of : (i) interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) defence of India, (iii) security of the State. (iv) friendly relations with foreign States or (v) public order or (vi) for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above. The detailed process for blocking of websites/URLs is notified through Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information for Public) Rules. 2009.
As per Rule 16 of Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules. 2009, strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof.
The information asked in the RTI comes under Rule 16 of Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 which is confidential in nature.
Further. As section 69A of The Information Technology Act, 2000 and its matters are related to sovereignty and integrity of India. the security of Nation, relation with foreign State. Thus. it attracts provisions of Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005. Hence, the information asked is exempted as per RTI Act.
Answer 6: Appellete Autority of Cyber Law, Ms. Tulika Pandey, Scientist F, MeitY at [email protected]."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.09.2022 which was not adjudicated by FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: 1. Dr Girija Nandan Jaiswal, CPIO and Scientist D;
2. Dr Gaurav Gupta, Scientist 'E' Page 2 of 4 The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation. Several attempts made by the Commission to contact the Appellant through audio conference went in vain as the calls remained unanswered. On perusal of the Second Appeal it is found that the Appellant has primarily contended that his application was rejected only on the grounds of confidentiality and rejection was not made as per Section 8/ 9 of the RTI Act, 2005. He further stated that the first appeal was not adjudicated within the stipulated time period. The Appellant therefore prayed for direction to PIO to disclose the information free of cost and to direct the FAA to adhere to the timelines stipulated under the RTI Act, 2005.
Dr Girija Nandan Jaiswal reiterated the written submission sent to the Commission dated Nil, the relevant extracts of which are as under. Dr Jaiswal added that a copy of the submission is also shared with the Appellant through e-mail.
"Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 empowers Government to block information from public access under specific conditions of: (i) interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) defence of India, (iii) security of the State, (iv) friendly relations with foreign States or (v) public order or (vi) for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense relating to above.
The due process being followed is defined in The Information Technology (Procedure and safeguards for blocking for access of information by public) Rules, 2009.
The information requested in the RTI has been dealt under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 published with Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, which is confidential in nature and cannot be disclosed.
Further, as per Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof.
Further, as section 69A of The Information Technology Act, 2000 and its matters are related to sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence. Thus, it attracts provisions of 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, the requested information is exempted under the RTI Act."
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 in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. However, it is noted that as per available records, the first appeal has not been decided by the FAA within the stipulated time period. The Commission therefore directs the FAA and Scientist 'F', MeitY to ensure that Page 3 of 4 timelines stipulated in the RTI Act, 2005 regarding disposal of first appeals are strictly complied with in future.
Dr Girija Nandan Jaiswal, CPIO and Scientist D is also directed to re-send his written submission on his official letter head, duly signed and stamped to the Appellant through speed post by 15.02.2024 under intimation to the Commission.
The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya(हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4