Central Information Commission
Saptarshi Roy vs Delhi Police on 28 March, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/605829
Shri Saptarshi Roy ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 13.03.2025
Date of Decision : 24.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.11.2023
PIO replied on : 27.12.2023
First Appeal filed on : 07.01.2024
First Appellate Order on : 05.02.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Why was no valid search warrant obtained before seizing the mentioned device and accessories?
2. Under what provisions of the law was I made to disable the PIN and biometric authentication from the seized device?
3. Why was my fundamental right to privacy infringed upon when the policemen have since the date of seizure been calling contacts from WhatsApp chats obtained from the seized device under the guise of some investigation?
4. How is sensitive information like financial and medical records which are on the seized device safeguarded by the custodian(s) of the device?
5. What procedure was followed for the seizure of my mobile device along with the mentioned accessories? Was there a proper chain of custody? Were proper records made of the seized items? Was the seizure made in the presence of independent witnesses?
6. What steps have been taken to prevent tampering of the existing data on my seized device and accessories?
7. Why did it take three years to send the seized mobile device for forensics?
8. Why was no seizure list provided to me till date?
9. When are the seized items, as mentioned above, going to be returned to me?"
The PIO-cum Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South-East District, New Delhi vide letter dated 27.12.2023 replied as under:-
Page 1
1. to 9. "The requisite queries do not come under the provision of information as defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore the queries are barred by virtue of provision of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.01.2024. The FAA vide order dated 05.02.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present over call Respondent: Insp. Karamvir Singh, SI Sunil Dagar The CPIO vide written submission dated 21.2.2025 reiterated that "The requisite queries do not come under the provision of information as defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore the queries are barred by virtue of provision of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005."
The Commission noted that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint ... vs The Goa State Information Commission AIR 2008 BOMBAY 120, 2008 held that Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.
Decision:
Upon the perusal of the case records & submissions, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has been provided by the CPIO.
No further action lies.
Page 2 The Appeal stands disposed off.
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 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)