Central Information Commission
Neelsh Gajanan Marathe vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 22 August, 2019
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/MHOME/A/2018/125574
Neelesh Gajanan Marathe ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, ...प्रनतवािी /Respondent
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 21.01.2018 FA : 08.03.2018 SA : 19.04.2018
CPIO : 28.02.2018 FAO : 06.04.2018 Hearing : 05.08.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi seeking information on thirty one points pertaining to interception of mobile numbers, including, inter-alia, (i) whether his mobile number mentioned in the RTI application from the telecom service provider Vodafone India Ltd., Mumbai Circle was at any point of time under 'unlawful interception' from January, 2014 till January, 2018; (ii) what constitutes a lawful Page 1 of 4 interception; and (iii) factors considered by the competent authority while approving a request.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission, inter-alia, on the ground that an interception made by any of the law enforcement agency, without approval is "unlawful interception". Further, if such a sanction is not forwarded to a review committee, it would also be 'Unlawful'. Therefore the appellant prayed for the disclosure of information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Neelesh Gajanan Marathe was heard through video conferencing. Shri Shailendra V. Singh, DS and Shri Rakesh Kumar, US, representatives of Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that the information was not provided to his satisfaction. The appellant alleged that his phone number was unlawfully intercepted by the respondent public authority and that safeguards as prescribed by the apex court in the judgment of PUCL vs. Union of India (December, 1996) for phone interception were not complied with by the respondent public authority. During the hearing, the appellant also flagged point no. 22 of his RTI application and argued that the time limit to seek ex-post facto approval from the competent authority by the interception agency has not been provided by the respondent.
5. The respondent submitted that point-wise information as per the available records has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 28.02.2018. The respondent also submitted that lawful interception of communication messages is carried out under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1951 read with the Page 2 of 4 Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 in the interest of public safety, sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State etc. However, disclosure of information as to whether a particular telephone number is under interception or not, is not possible as it would defeat the inherent objectives of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The respondent further submitted that all the records/correspondence related to interception have been destroyed as per the provisions contained in sub rule-18 of Rule 419(A) of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The respondent also clarified that the time limit for seeking post facto sanction/ confimation of intercepions is provided in the proviso to Rule 419A (1) of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 as per which interceptions shall be got confirmed by the concerned competent authority within a period of seven working days and if the confirmation from the competent authority is not received within the stipulated seven days, such interception shall cease and the same message or class of messages shall not be intercepted thereafter without the prior approval of the Union Home Secretary or the State Home Secretary, as the case may be. Moreover, the respondent further submitted that the weblink to access the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 was intimated to the appellant by the CPIO. The respondent further submitted that the FAA vide order dated 06.04.2018 had upheld the reply of the CPIO. Hence, no further information remains to be provided to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that an appropriate response has been furnished to Page 3 of 4 the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 21.08.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानित सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority, Ministry of Home Affairs, CIS Division/ IS-IV Desk, North Block, New Delhi
2. The Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, CIS Division/ IS-IV Desk, North Block, New Delhi
3. Shri Neelesh Gajanan Marathe, Page 4 of 4