Central Information Commission
Harjeet Inder Singh vs Department Of Telecommunications on 31 May, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Appeal No.CIC/BS/A/2016/900900
Name of Appellant: Mr. Harjeet Inder Singh,
H. No. 689, Phase 6, SAS Nagar,
Mohali-160055, Chandigarh.
Name of Respondent: Central Public Information Officer,
Director/DS-II,
Ministry of Comm. & I.T.,
Deptt. of Telecom,
Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110001.
Date of Hearing: 29.5.2017
Date of Decision: 29.5.2017
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 3.8.2015 seeking a complete list of the websites banned in India by Deptt. of Telecommunication.
2. The CPIO responded on 27.8.2015 (CPIO letter not on record). The appellant filed first appeal dated nil with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA response is not on record. The appellant filed a second appeal on 16.3.2016 with the Commission on the grounds that information should be furnished to him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant participated in the hearing alongwith his counsel Shri Bhuvan Vats. The respondent Shri S.K. Arya, Director DS-II participated in the hearing personally.
4. The appellant stated that he has requested the Deptt. of Telecom to give information on list of the banned websites with broad reasons for banning them. The appellant further stated that information has been denied both by the CPIO and FAA. He said that the information requested by him has been denied by the respondent quoting the I.T. Act, 2002 whereas the RTI Act, 2005 supersedes it by virtue of its section 22. The appellant said that, if at all, the respondent can deny the information u/s 8 of the RTI Act. The appellant said that as a citizen of this country he has the right to access the information which has been blocked by the Govt.
5. The respondent stated that it is to be noted that section 69(A) of I.T. Act has been inserted vide an amendment in 2008. The section 69(A) reads as follows:-
"where the Central Government or any of its officers specially authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section(2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource."
6. The respondent stated that under the above Amendment Act, Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 were approved and laid on the table of the House (Parliament) on 27th October, 2009. Further, clause 16 of above said rules states that strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and action taken thereof.
7. The appellant stated that in this instant case section 22 and section 24 of RTI Act shall apply. The appellant further stated that by denying the information on banned website, Fundamental Right as enshrined in Article 19 will be violated.
8. The respondent stated that as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in case No.167 of 2012 titled Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India, section 69(A) and Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 of I.T. Act are constitutionally valid. Discussion/ observation:
9. It is observed that RTI Act as well as I.T. Act and rules thereof are not inconsistent and are in fact harmonious. Both the Acts inter-alia state that the information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity, defence of India, security and strategic interests of the State, cannot be disclosed unless public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
10. In the context of the aforesaid RTI application, the list of the websites which have been banned by the Deptt. of Telecommunication and which do not affect the interests of the State etc. as stated above, can be disclosed to the appellant by using severability clause under Section 10(1) of the Right to Information Act. The list of such sites along with broad reasons for banning them can be furnished.
Decision:
11. The respondent should take action as per para 10.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar