Central Information Commission
Anushka Jain vs Delhi Police on 4 July, 2022
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604037
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/606116
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/630157
Ms. Anuskha Jain ... अपीलकता /Appellant
Through: Ms. Shreya Munoth, Ms.
AmalaDasarathi and Ms. Anandita Mishra-
Advocates
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police (Crime)
Through: Dr. Rakesh Kumar - ACP, HQ/Crime;
Shri Shivaji Chauhan - ACP/CRO and Inspector
Randhir Singh
Date of Hearing : 29.06.2022
Date of Decision : 04.07.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
604037 23.10.2020 25.11.2020 03.12.2020 06.01.2021 05.02.2021
606116 23.10.2020 25.11.2020 03.12.2020 06.01.2021 05.02.2021
630157 22.02.2021 17.03.2021 24.03.2021 03.05.2021 13.06.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604037 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.10.2020 seeking information on 05 points related to the use of facial recognition technologies by the Delhi Police:-
1. Please provide information with regard to whether the technology has been used in conjunction with any ongoing investigation being conducted by the Delhi Police.Page 1 of 7
2. Please provide information with regard to whether any arrests have been made based on the results obtained from the facial recognition technology system.
3. Please provide information with regard to the accuracy rates of the facial recognition technology being used by the Delhi Police.
4. Please provide information with regard to the databases with which the Delhi Police is matching the photographs/videos obtained through their facial recognition technology system.
5. Please provide information with regard to whether any privacy impact assessment was done before use of the technology was commenced by the Delhi Police.
The PIO/DCP, Crime, Delhi Police vide letter dated 25.11.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.12.2020. The FAA/Jt. Commissioner of Police, Crime vide order dated 06.01.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing of the case was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and Appellant's representatives placed reliance on voluminous submissions and multiple decisions of court and the CIC to substantiate their case. The primary contention of the Appellant was that the denial of information was wholly incorrect because the provision of law viz. 8(d) of the RTI Act, cited by the PIO does not exist in the RTI Act. She further stated that even if for the sake of argument, the provision of Section 8(d) cited by the Respondent is replaced by the correct sub section, i.e. Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, there is no applicability of the said provision in the case at hand. The provision of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act relates to information related to commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property of a third party, disclosure whereof could harm competitive position of a third party. It has been argued on behalf of the Appellant that information sought in this case is related to ongoing criminal investigation methodology adopted by the Respondent and whether facial recognition technology is being used or not. Hence exemption under the RTI Act to protect commercial confidence of a third party is clearly not applicable in this case.
Respondents present during hearing are unable to provide any reasonable and cogent explanation for denial of information in this case.Page 2 of 7
Decision Perusal of the records of the case, reveals that the Respondent has erred in denial of information sought in this case, more so by invoking Section 8(d) of the RTI Act. First and foremost, the provision of law quoted by the Respondent is incorrect as such, because there is no section 8(d) in the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, the Appellant has sought information like i) whether the technology has been used in conjunction with any ongoing investigation, ii) accuracy rates of the facial recognition technology, iii) whether any arrests have been made based on the results obtained from the facial recognition technology system. Such queries have no bearing with information related to commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property of a third party. Hence, the provision of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act,2005 should not have been invoked to deny information as it is not likely to adversely impact competitive position of a third party. Thus the reply given by the PIO and incorrectly upheld by the FAA's order suffer from legal infirmities and indicate no application of mind by either the PIO or the FAA.
Hence the PIO's reply is set aside and it is hereby directed that the PIO shall furnish a revised reply furnishing accurate information to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act,2005. The revised reply shall be sent by the Respondent within three weeks of receipt of this order and the Respondent shall submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard with necessary proof of service by 31.07.2022.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/606116 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.10.2020 seeking information on 16 points relatedto the intelligent traffic management system which has been deployed by the Government of Delhi across the National Capital Territory of Delhi:-
1. Please provide a copy of the legislative framework, rules, guidelines or policies governing the use of the intelligent traffic management system.
2. Please provide information with regard to whether any security audit or privacy impact assessment was done before the installation of these CCTV cameras. If yes, please provide a copy of the report of the audit or assessment carried out.
3. Please state the total number of CCTV cameras or similar video recording devices installed till date or proposed to be installed in the future.
4. Please provide an exhaustive list of all locations where such cameras have been installed or proposed to be installed in the future.
5. Please state the total number of signboards and their respective locations informing the public that they are being recorded by such cameras as of date.
6. Please state the total expenditure incurred (in rupees) on procurement, installation and maintenance of the intelligent traffic management system with an annual breakdown.Page 3 of 7
7. Please provide a copy of tender(s) issued for the installation, procurement and/or maintenance of the intelligent traffic management system.
8. Please state the names of organizations/firms/bodies awarded the tender(s) mentioned in query no. 7 with respective dates.
9. Please state whether the data (including video footage and metadata) collected by CCTV cameras or similar video recording devices is encrypted while at rest and/or during the course of transmission.
10. Please state the brand name and model name of all CCTV cameras or similar video recording devices installed or proposed to be installed in the future.
11. Please provide an exhaustive list of persons and/or organizations authorised to get access to the data of the intelligent traffic management system under the scheme.
12. Please state whether access to the footage of such cameras to the above persons and/or organizations mentioned in Query No. 11 is provided continuously or only in specific circumstances. If access is only granted to the data in specific circumstances, please state the circumstances under which access is granted.
13. Please provide an exhaustive list of locations/control rooms from where the footage of such cameras can be viewed.
14. Please state whether such data can be viewed remotely or from handheld devices. If yes, please provide an exhaustive list of persons and/or organizations who have remote or handheld viewing access to the data.
15. Please state the duration for which the data from such cameras is stored.
16. Please provide a copy of directions issued by the government under any law, rules, guidelines or policy for installation of the facial recognition technology system.
The PIO/DCP, Crime, Delhi Police vide letter dated 25.11.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.12.2020. The FAA/Jt. Commissioner of Police, Crime vide order dated 06.01.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.Page 4 of 7
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing of the case was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and have reiterated their respective contentions as noted hereinabove. The Appellant contested the denial of information on frivolous grounds like non availability of information and citing an incorrect and irrelevant provision of the Act.Respondent clarified during hearing that information with respect to only point number 16 relates to the Crime Branch, while the rest relates to Delhi Police, Traffic and Communication Division. Clearly the averments made by the Respondent are not in line with the PIO's reply dated 25.11.2020 which indicates that only points no.1,2, 5-10 and 13-15 "do not relate to their unit".
Decision Perusal of records of the case and averments of the parties prima facie indicate a failure on the part of the Respondent in dealing with the case at hand. The PIO's reply is deficient, evasive and untenable in law and even the FAA has not bothered to rectify the lapses which are reflected in the PIO's reply. The PIO while denying information with respect to points no. 1-2, 5-10 and 13-15 stated that the information does not relate totheir unit, but he did not bother to transfer the RTI application to the relevant custodian of information, in terms of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Likewise denial of information on the remaining points including about CCTV cameras is found unconvincing and unacceptable. Hence, the PIO's reply is hereby set aside.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Commission hereby directs the PIO, Crime Branch to furnish a revised point wise reply, strictly in terms of the RTI Act, using the provisions of the law correctly. Since the Respondent-PIO, Crime Branch had failed to transfer the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, at the relevant point of time to the actual custodian of information, it is directed that the PIO shall now obtain the information from all the relevant sources and furnish the same to the Appellant within six weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent-PIO, Crime Branch shall submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard with necessary proof of service by 31.08.2022, failing which appropriate proceedings shall be initiated as per law.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/630157 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2021 seeking information on the following 09 points related to a report titled, DNA fingerprints, facial recognition used to probe riots cases, says Delhi Police Chief, published in The Print on February 19, 2021:-
1. Please provide information with regard to whether facial recognition technology has been used to investigate over 750 cases related to the northeast Delhi riots.Page 5 of 7
2. Please provide information with regard to the accuracy rate of the facial recognition technology used.
3. Please provide information with regard to all the databases which were accessed for use in conjunction with facial recognition technology. Please provide an exhaustive list.
4. Please provide information with regard to whether facial recognition related data or information will be used as evidence in the case against the citizens arrested. If yes, please provide information related to the section of the IPC and CrPC under which this data will be made admissible in Court.
5. Please provide information with regard to the technology/software vendor from whom this technology was acquired. Please provide a copy of the tender document as well as the agreement between Delhi Police and the vendor for maintenance and upkeep of the technology.
6. Please provide information with regard to whether the Delhi Police has used this technology for other investigations as well which are not related to the February, 2020 riots in Delhi. If yes, please provide information with regard to all the other investigations in which this technology has been used. Please provide the specific number of times this technology has been used.
7. Please provide information with regard to the stage of the investigation when use of this technology is commenced.
8. Please provide information with regard to whether use of this technology has become a common practice within the Delhi Police or whether it is used in specific investigations. If it is used in specific investigations only, please provide information with regard to which specific investigations is this technology used in.
9. Please provide a copy of all documents related to the queries herein.
The PIO/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime vide letter dated 17.03.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.03.2021. The FAA/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Crime vide order dated 03.05.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing of the case was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and have reiterated their respective contentions as noted hereinabove. The Respondent has Page 6 of 7 submitted a reply dated April 2021 whereby the PIO, Provisioning and Logistics had provided accurate information with respect to query number 5.
Decision:
In the light of the facts which emerged during the course of hearing, it is noted that though PIO,Provisioning and Logistics had responded appropriately with respect to the query number 5 raised by the Appellant, the remaining queries have not been dealt with appropriately by the PIO, Crime Branch. The denial of information with respect to queries 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 citing section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is legally flawed because the information sought by the Appellant has no bearing with information related to commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property of a third party. Hence, denial of information citing the provision of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act,2005 is untenable and set aside accordingly.
Under the circumstances, the PIO is directed to furnish a revised reply furnishing accurate information to the Appellant, with respect to queries 1 to 4 and 6 to 8,strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act,2005. The revised reply shall be sent by the Respondent within three weeks of receipt of this order and the Respondent shall submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard with necessary proof of service by 31.07.2022. It is made clear that non-adherence of these directions shall attract penal action as per law.
In view of the patently incorrect application of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by the Respondent public authority in all the instant cases, the PIO is warned to be careful in handling RTI application in future. The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of their duties and responsibilities.
The appeals are thus disposed off.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 7 of 7