Central Information Commission
Mrsandeep Kumar Verma vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 22 August, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001720/5824
22 August 2014
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Verma
MO- Taksal, Najibabad,
Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh
Respondent : CPIO & DE (NOW-1)-CM
BSNL
Cellular Mobile Telecom Services
O/o the DGM (CMTS) Telephone
Exchange Shastri Nagar, Meerut - 250004
RTI application filed on : 06/04/2013
PIO replied on : 27/06/2013 & 02/07/2013
First appeal filed on : 01/06/2013
First Appellate Authority order : No Order
Second Appeal received on : 23/07/2013
Information sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:-
1. Who has asked for the call details of the mobile number 94125675 for the last two years upto 08/04/2013.
2. Whether mobile number 9412567578 was taken under surveillance/listening in the last year upto 08/04/2013. Provide the name of the departmental, Name & designation the officer directed for surveillance.
3. Provide the reason for keeping the mentioned number on surveillance.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Verma through VC Respondent: Mr. Aditya Singh CPIO through VC The appellant stated that as per his information his telephone was tapped in an unauthorized manner and he wants to know the details. The CPIO stated that telephones are put under surveillance only on the written instructions of designated security agencies and such information is exempt under Sections 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. He confirmed that no unauthorized tapping was done in the appellant's case.Page 1 of 2
Decision notice:
The CPIO has confirmed that the appellant's mobile phone was not tapped in an unauthorized manner.
The CPIO's submissions that information relating to tapping of telephone on the instructions of designated security agency is exempt under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act has merit and is in line with this Commission's division bench decision in appeal (No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00056 : Shri S.C. Sharma Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs dated 05/05/2006) which had taken the view that the matters connected with interception of telephones were governed by the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and were distinctly related to the security of India.
We, therefore, hold that the request of the appellant for information regarding tapping of his mobile phone attracts exemption under Section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2