Central Information Commission
A. Singh vs Department Of Telecommunications on 7 January, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/131416
A Singh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
M/o Communications,
Department of Telecommunications,
Director & CPIO, (UDS), Sanchar
Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New
Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.01.2026
Date of Decision : 07.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Jaya Varma Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.05.2024
CPIO replied on : 05.07.2024, 25.07.2024 & 23.08.2024
First appeal filed on : 15.07.2024 & 02.08.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.07.2024 & 12.08.2024
2nd Appeal dated : 25.09.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.05.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"(i). Provide Information as to whether the International Mobile Equipment Identity IME! Numbers: (i) 359959084992730 (ii) 359959084992731 (iii) Page 1 of 9 359959084992732 of mobile phones are valid or invalid, validity confirmation information be provided i.a.w. the Government mechanism for Validation/Verification of IMEI numbers.
(ii). Provide Information as to whether Government has issued any instruction/directions /orders to the Telecommunication Service Providers (TSPs)/Stakeholders in the year 2008-2009, and thereafter w.r.t the IMEI Numbers or not. If yes, provide certified copy of such instruction/directions/orders as issued w.r.t the IMEI numbers to the TSPs/Stakeholders."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 05.07.2024 stating as under:
"With respect to the information sought in para 1 it is to inform that the validity of IMEI number maybe check through know your mobile app or through CEIR portal or www.ceir.gov.in. The information w.r.t para 2 is not available in this office".
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 19.07.2024, held as under:
"1. PIO has clearly stated that the information regarding the validity can be ascertained by visiting the Portal. The PIO is being asked to elaborate on the process for the benefit of the applicant. The procedure as specified, be followed by the applicant to know the genuineness of IMEI.
2. Regarding information under point number (2), the PIO is directed to forward the copy of orders issued by DoT to the applicant, after collecting the same from other Sections, if not available in her Section.
The appeal is accordingly disposed off."
4. In compliance with the directions passed by the First Appellate Authority, Ms. Khushboo Sharma, Director (UDS), vide letter dated 25.07.2024, provided the following reply to the Appellant:
"With reference to your RTI application No. 9-06/2024-dated 05.06.2024 and your first appeal dated 15.07.2024 please find the following reply:-
1. W.r.t. the para no. 1 regarding validity of IMEI, the elaborated procedure for finding the validity of the IMEI number is as below:.
Visit the CEIR portal @ www.ceir.gov.in. (i) Page 2 of 9
(ii) Go to "Know Your Mobile" (KYM) section on the home page. Click on web portal option.
(iii) Fill the required details on IMEI verification page. OTP will be received on the mobile number mentioned by you on the IMEI verification page.
(iv) After filling OTP, it will ask IMEI which is to be verified. The IMEI, which is to be verified, may be put in it and status will be shown instantly after submitting.
2. Regarding the information sought in para no. 2, it is to inform that the instruction/directions/orders as issued by DoT with respect to IMEI number have been collected from other section and are attached here with.
3. In case you are not satisfied with the reply furnished here in above, you may prefer Ist appeal before Shri Vishwa Mohan, DDG (SA) & 1st Appellate Authority, Department of Telecommunications, 12th Floor, Sanchar Bhawan, 20-Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this letter."\
5. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant again filed a First Appeal dated 02.08.2024.
The FAA vide its order dated 12.08.2024, held as under:
"Sub: - Settlement of Appeal U/S 19 of RTI Act, 2005. This is with reference to your appeal dated 02.08.2024 on the information provided by CPIO on your RTI Application No. 9-06/2024 dated 05.06.2024,
1.It is noted that the information provided by CPIO in respect of query no. (1) is adequate to analyse the validity of IMEI.
2.CPIO is hereby directed to provide the certified copies of the documents available in her custody and in case some other official is the holder of some documents, he/she may be asked to furnish the certified copy of those documents to the appellant directly.
The Appeal is accordingly, disposed off."
6. In compliance with the directions passed by the First Appellate Authority, Ms. Khushboo Sharma, Director (UDS), vide letter dated 23.08.2024, provided the following reply to the Appellant:
"Sir, This is with reference to your RTI application dated 30.05.2024 and appeal thereafter dated 02.08.2024 on the information provided vide letter no. 9- 06/2024-RTI(Offline) dated 05.07.2024.
2.In this regard, following documents were provided by the undersigned:
i. Gazette notification dated 25.08.2027 and 26.09.2022. ii. Letter no. 20-40/2006-BS-III (Pt.)/ (Vol.I) dated 06.10.2008 issued by AS-II cell.Page 3 of 9
3. Since the document at 2(i) above are the Gazette notifications, hence the same may be downloaded either from the /(S(kqb3su3uwkjkaarzoj3kntew))/ GazetteDirectory.aspx https://egazette.gov.in or from https://dot.gov.in/circulars/prevention-tampering-mobile-device-equipment-
identification-number-rules-2017and https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Gazet te%20Notification%026092022%20regrding%20the%20prevention%20of%20ta mpering%20of%20the%20Mobile%20Device%20Equipment%20Identification%2 0Numbe r%20%28Amendment%29%20Rules%2C%202022.pdf respectively.
4. Further, regarding the document at 2(ii), the concerned public authority has been requested to provide the certified copy of the same."
7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Ms. Kanika Gambhir, CPIO-cum-Director (UDS), attended the hearing in person.
8. The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application.
9. The Commission interjected and asked the Appellant that why he had preferred two First Appeals in the instant case instead of directly approaching the Commission in Second Appeal after adjudication of his First Appeal dated 15.07.2024 , the Appellant apprised the Bench that the CPIO vide letter dated 25.07.2024, while complying the directions of the First Appellate Authority has mentioned that if the reply is not satisfactory, First Appeal may be preferred before Shri Vishwa Mohan, DDG (SA) & 1st Appellate Authority and that is why he had again preferred the First Appeal dated 02.08.2024 before the First Appellate Authority. The Commission reprimanded the Respondent for such a lackadaisical approach while dealing with the RTI matters and cautions them to be careful in future.
10. The Respondent submitted that in compliance with the directions passed by the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.07.2024, a revised reply was given to the Appellant vide letter dated 25.07.2024, wherein Page 4 of 9 the Appellant w.r.t to point No. 1 of the RTI Application was informed an elaborated procedure for finding the validity of the IMEI number. She added that w.r.t. to point No. 2 of the RTI Application, the Appellant vide letter dated 23.08.2024 was provided the relevant and available information i.e., Gazette notification dated 25.08.2027 and 26.09.2022. Thereafter, a certified copy of the Letter dated 06.10.2008 was also provided to the Appellant on 13.09.2024.
11. The Appellant interjected and raised apprehension that the Respondent has not provided the complete information against point No. 2 of the RTI Application. In response, the Respondent submitted that all the available information against point No. 2 of the RTI Application i.e. Gazette notification dated 25.08.2017 and 26.09.2022 and a Letter dated 06.10.2008, has duly been given to the Appellant and other than that no additional information was available in the records at the relevant time.
12. A written submission has been received from Ms. Kanika Gambhir, CPIO-
cum-Director (UDS), vide letter dated 02.01.2026, stating as under:
1. "The IMEI uniquely identifies an individual mobile device and consists of a number of fields totaling 15 digits. All digits have the range of 0 to 9 coded and values outside this range are not permitted. The first 8 digits of the IMEI constitute the Type Allocation Code (TAC) assigned by GSMA, the next 6 digits are the serial number assigned by the OEM, and the last digit is a check digit used for validation.
In order to leverage the uniqueness of IMEI for enhancing telecom security and consumer protection, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has developed and operationalized a centralized portal known as the Central Equipment Identity Register (CEIR). The CEIR portal enables checking genuineness of mobile devices using IMEI. The CEIR portal is secured through user authentication using One-Time Password (OTP). Once the user provides the IMEI, the system provides the make and model details against the said IMEI to the user on the screen.
Therefore, the reply provided by CPIO dated 25.07.2024 in this regard is adequate.
2. 1. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has issued directions to all the Access Service Providers vide letter No. 20-40/2006-BS-III(Pt.)/(Vol.1) dated 06.10.2008 vide which they were directed to make provision of EIR so that the calls without IMEI or that with IMEI with all zeros are not processed Page 5 of 9 and rejected. The certified copy of these directions have already been shared with the applicant.
2. Further, with reference to the Gazette Notification dated 25.08.2017 on the Prevention of Tampering of Mobile Device Equipment Identification Number Rules and the subsequent Gazette Notification dated 26.09.2022 issuing amendments thereto, DoT established a regulatory framework to prevent unauthorized alteration of IMEI of mobile devices. The rules prohibit intentional tampering or possession of tools for IMEI in the interest of national security and consumer protection. The details of these have already been shared by CPIO to the complainant and the same is attached herewith.
3. Subsequently, with the enactment of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the notification of the Telecom Cyber Security Rules dated 21.11.2024, the provisions relating to mobile device identification, including IMEI and other unique device identifiers, have been subsumed and strengthened under the new rules. Accordingly, matters relating to prevention of tampering of mobile device identification numbers shall henceforth be governed by the framework prescribed under the new Act and rules, thus superseding the earlier IMEI Rules to that extent. (copy enclosed)."
13. A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 05.01.2026, stating as under:
"GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
1. That, the public information officer has not provided any information with respect to point number 1 of RTI request. In this regard, the PIO has mentioned some procedure, which was never sought, in place of providing certified copies of printouts of information/data stored in records/computer/device w.r.t the confirmation of validity of IMEI numbers.
2. That, appellant sought certified copies of the printouts of information's stored in records/computer/device pertaining to the IMEI numbers as mentioned in RTI request.
3. That, the citizens have been conferred the right to obtain the printouts of the information's stored in records/computer/device in accordance with section 2(f)
(i) (d) & 2 (j) (iv) of the RTI act 2005.
4. That the sought information's are available with the PIO/Department of telecommunication, and are not being provided under the RTI Act to the appellant. The appellant sought information from the Information holding Public Authority/PIO, however, the PIO, in the name of providing information mentioning some procedure, how the information can be obtained. Therefore, Page 6 of 9 it is apparently established out that the sought information's are available & repeatedly being denied by the PIO, and legal right of appellant conferred under the Act is curtailed, which is gross a violation of the mandate/spirit/statute of RTI ACT 2005.
5. That, the information's with respect to Validity Confirmation of IMEI Numbers, as mentioned in RTI request are available in the form of electronic records in a computer/device with the PIO Department of Telecommunication, and the appellant is seeking the authenticated & certified copies of electronic records available the PIO of Department of Telecommunication.
6. That, the RTI Act 2005, casts obligation on the PIO/public authorities to provide the information's to the citizens, and accordingly, PIO/Public authority is duty bound to provide information's to citizens. It is also apparent that sought information's are available in any electronic mode & stored in a computer/device.
7. That, the RTI Act section 2(f) (i) (d) & 2 (j) (iv) casts obligation on PIO/public authority to provide certified copies of the printouts of information stored in computer/device. Accordingly, the appellant/citizens have the right to obtain the certified copies of the printouts of the information's stored in any computer/device.
8. That, the appellant has sought authenticated & certified copies of the printouts of information's stored in records/computer/device pertaining to the IMEI numbers as mentioned in RTI request.
In this regard, the RTI Act 2005 Section 283 held that.
(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;
(i) "record" includes-
(a) any document, manuscript and file:
(b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;
(c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and
(d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device; (1) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(1) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records, Page 7 of 9
(i) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
3. Right to information-Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.
PRAYER/RELIEF SOUGHT In view of the above facts, it is therefore, most humbly prayed before the Hon'ble Commission to set aside the orders of the PIO and FAA in entirety, and issue appropriate directions to the Public Information Officer for providing the authenticated and certified copies of the printouts of the information's stored in records/computer/device with respect to confirmation of validity of IMEI numbers as mentioned in RTI request, i.a.w with mandate and spirit of section 2(f) (i) (d) & 2 (1) (iv) of the RTI Act 2005."
Decision:
14. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent in compliance with the directions of the First Appellate Authority, has provided all the relevant and available information to the Appellant vide letters dated 25.07.2024, 23.08.2024 and 13.09.2024 at the relevant point of time. Now, the Appellant is contesting on the veracity of the same which is beyond the adjudicatory powers of the Commission. Hence, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasishta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26160943 Page 8 of 9 Copy To:
The FAA, M/o. Communications, Department of Telecommunications DDG(SA), Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, Delhi-110001.Page 9 of 9
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)