Central Information Commission
Kirti Vardhan Rathore vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 1 July, 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/MHOME/A/2024/627789
Shri Kirti Vardhan Rathore ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.06.2025
Date of Decision : 30.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.03.2024
PIO replied on : 03.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : 08.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 16.04.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 27.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.03.2024 seeking information on the following points for the period between February 2022 to 18.03.2024:-
"1. Surveillance activities directed at Mr. Kirti Vardhan Rathore by any government or private entity or organization. The surveillance may be human surveillance, electronic surveillance or cyber surveillance.
2. Any case(s) in court, decree(s), judicial order(s) or warrant(s) which involve Mr. Kirti Vardhan Rathore."
The CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs vide letter dated 03.04.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply: The information sought is speculative in nature and amounts to seeking an interpretation of the CPIO, which is outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act-2005. Further, any disclosure of information related to lawful interception/phone tapping is exempted under section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, However, the lawful interception and monitoring are being carried out by the Authorized Law Enforcement Agencies with due permission of the competent authority under the legal provisions of section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 & Section 69 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and as per procedure defined in Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules-1951 & the Information Technology (Procedure and safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules-2009."Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 16.04.2024 held as under:-
3. "The undersigned being the Appellate Authority in the matter, after having checked the available records on the file and relevant provisions of the RTI Act, has noted that the application was replied on time. The Lawful Interception, wherever required, is done strictly as per the provisions of the Act. Further, the records pertaining to lawful interception are regularly destroyed as per provisions contained in Sub-rule 18 of Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. All documents related to Lawful Interception are classified as 'Top Secret' which are exempted under section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Lastly, the information can be given only in regard to such requests which are within the framework of law and only if the information is available with the CPIO."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant has submitted an application dated 28.05.2025 seeking that the personal details like name, address, phone number, email address or any other information which can be linked to him, be withheld from being made publicly accessible on website. He has requested that his personal information be withheld from disclosure on public domain to prevent unwarranted invasion of his privacy and to prevent any chance of professional or personal harm to him.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta - Director(MU) and Shri Rakesh Kumar Pandey
- JS representing CIS, MHA were present during hearing.
Both parties reiterated their respective contentions, wherein the Appellant relied upon the records submitted by him, as already discussed in details hereinabove. The Respondent on the other hand reiterated the contents of the FAA's speaking order relying on the provisions of Rule 419A(18) of the Telegraph Rules, 1951, which lays down that: "Records pertaining to such directions for interception and of intercepted messages shall be destroyed by the relevant competent authority and the authorized security and Law Enforcement Agencies every six months unless these are, or likely to be, required for functional requirements." Moreover, the Respondent contended that lawful interception and monitoring of any message is carried out by the Authorized Law Enforcement Agencies, with due permission of the competent authority strictly under the legal provisions of section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 & Section 69 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and as per procedure defined in Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules-1951 & the Information Technology (Procedure and safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules-2009. It was further averred by the Respondent that all documents related to lawful interception are classified as 'Top Secret' and exempt under section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Lastly, the Respondent also submitted that information can be given only in regard to such requests which are within the framework of law and only if the information is available with the CPIO Page 2 of 3 Decision:
Perusal of records of the instant case and averments of the parties during the course of hearing reveals that the RTI application filed by the Appellant is based on conjectures and surmises wherein he has sought information about human, electronic and cyber surveillance, harassment and interference into his life and activities organized by unknown perpetrators. The Appellant's contention reveal that he has complained before law enforcement agencies in this regard but has been unable to obtain desired result. Hence he has filed the instant RTI application searching for possible information from the MHA.
Upon examining the factual position of the case, on the one hand there are queries of the Appellant based on indeterminate, uncertain and possible surveillance of his activities and on the other hand the Respondent's response stating the factual legal position about lawful interception of messages under the framework of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Information Technology Act, 2000 as per procedure defined in Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules-1951 & the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules-2009. Moreover, such lawful interception of messages being strictly confidential in nature are carried out by only a handful of law enforcement agencies, only on the basis of approvals from competent authority. The Respondent has further stated clearly that records of surveillance are destroyed every six months, in terms of provisions of the telegraph Rules and IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules-2009.
Based on the above discussion, it is evident that the Respondent furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, in terms of the provisions of the Act. Considering the fact that the response of the PIO is legally appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
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 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)