Central Information Commission
Mr.Prashant Singh vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 3 November, 2011
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000893
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
B - Wing, 2nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000893
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
Appellant : Shri Prashant Singh (present in person along with
Shri Rasan Saluja and Shri Ashu Kapoor)
Respondent : Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New
Delhi (through Shri Dharmendra Sharma, Joint
Secretary (IS-I) & FAA)
Date of Hearing : 29/09/2011
ORDER
1. The present Appeal emanates from the Appellant's RTI Application dated 01/01/2011 wherein the information was sought on the following points:
"Kindly recall that the Department of Telecommunication has issued a written statement on 30.12.2010 on Unauthorized Tapping titled as "Unauthorized Tapping to be dealt with firmly:Govt" kindly supply of a official copy of a written statement to the undersigned and also kindly let me know:
a. Which are the government agencies who are authorize to request for interception of telephone conversation? b. What would be the conditions / terms and conditions for seeking the sanction for interception? c. The name of the competent authority who can grant sanction for interception?1
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000893 d. After grant of sanction whether the interception would be done by the investigating agency or by the Service Provider/Telephone Company?
e. What are the safeguards to be followed in this regard to avoid unauthorized tapping/interception? f. As per Rule 419-A there is a provision of review committee and the said committee will sou motu investigate the matter put up before them for review within seven days. Please let me know the current members of the review committee?
g. To whom the decision of the review committee is intimated?
h. Which department monitor the meetings of the review committee?
i. Whether further action on telephonic conversation/tapping would be initiated after the decision of the review committee or before the decision of the review committee?
j. If, any interception order is not reviewed or not put up before the review committee, whether the material of interception in that case would be illegal? k. How many such cases come to the notice of the DoT for illegal/unauthorized tapping?
l. Names of the officers against whom any action has been taken for unauthorized tapping/interception? m. When the interception/tapping is done in a most confidential and strict manner, then how the intercepted conversation are leaked in the media and what action/rules/provision are adopted to avoid unauthorized leakage of interception material.
2. The concerned CPIO of the Respondent Ministry gave a point-wise reply to the queries raised in the said RTI Application vide his Order dated 2 Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000893 08/02/2011. In his reply, the said CPIO directed the Appellant's attention to Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 as well as Section 5 (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The first appeal of the Appellant was similarly disposed of by the concerned FAA of the Respondent Ministry vide his Order dated 09/03/2011. Unsatisfied with the FAA's Order, the Appellant has preferred second appeal before this Commission.
3. The Commission has carefully perused through the material placed on record and duly heard the submissions made by the parties. During the hearing, the Appellant has pressed only upon Queries 1 (a), (g), (h) and (i) of his RTI Application and therefore, the Commission will address the issues involved only to the same extent.
4. So far as Query No.1(a) is concerned, the Commission finds merit in the reply tendered by the CPIO. The names of the Government agencies which are authorized to request for interception of telephone conversations is covered as information exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act. Shri Dharmendra Sharma, FAA/Joint Secretary, of the Respondent Ministry is correct in stating that the disclosure of such information may prejudicially affect the strategic and security interests of the country and the Commission fully agrees with the said view. The Appellant has also conceded and quite rightly agreed during the hearing that there is force in the argument forwarded by the FAA of the Respondent 3 Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000893 Ministry on this point. Therefore, the Order of the respondent is upheld and the information on Query No.1(a) is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act.
5. Coming to Query Nos.1(g) and 1(h), which have been commonly dealt with by the CPIO of the Respondent Ministry, the Commission understands that the reply tendered by the CPIO lacks clarity. Though Rule 419A (17) of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 has been cited by the CPIO nevertheless, the reply raises more questions than it answers. A careful perusal of Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951as a whole would be sufficient to answer the query raised by the Appellant; however, from the point of view of the RTI Act, a citizen is entitled to obtain clear and unambiguous information. Even the FAA of the Respondent Ministry has agreed during the hearing that a clarified reply needs to be provided to the Appellant on these two points. Therefore, the Commission directs the concerned CPIO of the Respondent Ministry to provide a clear and unambiguous clarification to the Appellant with regard to Query Nos.1(g) and 1(h) of the RTI Application.
6. Finally, with regards to Query No.1(j) of the RTI Application, the FAA has clarified the stand taken by the CPIO while dealing with the question raised. The CPIO had cited Rule 419A (2) of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 in response to the said query and the FAA has further informed the Appellant that the very matter which is contained in Query No.1(j) is presently sub- 4
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000893 judice in the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WAMP No.273 of 2007 of AW No.161 of 2007. Therefore, it was not possible to answer the said query of the Appellant with complete certainty. The Commission endorses the view taken by the FAA on this point as it is not practically possible for the FAA of the Respondent Ministry to provide complete information on this query as on date. The FAA has clarified the legal position subsisting as on date to the Appellant and that seems a sufficient reply on the face of record. The Appellant has also concurred with the Commission's observations during the hearing and has agreed that the Order of the FAA is sufficient and clear. Therefore, the reply given by the FAA of the Respondent Ministry is upheld so far as Query No.1(j) is concerned.
7. The Appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Third Day of November, 2011 Authenticated True Copies (D.C. Singh) Deputy Registrar 5 Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000893 Name & Address of Parties:
Sh. Prashant Singh, Advocate, 7/21, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi - 110 002 The PIO/CPIO, Department of Telecommunication, (Access Services Wing), R. No. 907, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110 001 The PIO/CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Internal Security DivisionI), North Block, New Delhi - 110 001 The First Appellate Authority & Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Internal Security DivisionI), North Block, New Delhi - 110 001 6