Central Information Commission
Virender Singh vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 31 July, 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 Nos. CIC/ MHOME/A/2018/624159
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/618641
Virender Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, ...प्रनतवािी /Respondent
CIS Division/CIS-IV Desk,
North Block, New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal: Hearing On: 10.07.2019
Sr. SA
File Nos. RTI CPIO FA FAA
No.
1. CIC/MHOME/A/2018/624159 20.02.2018 08.05.2018 09.05.2018 24.05.2018 20.06.2018
2. CIC/MHOME/A/2018/618641 20.02.2018 23.03.2018 27.03.2018 25.04.2018 02.05.2018
ORDER
1. The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs seeking information on ten points pertaining to lawful Page 1 of 5 interception/phone taping done by Law Enforcement Agencies including, inter- alia, (i) Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) memorandum bearing no. 14/7/2011-1 dated 08.01.2016 of the monitoring unit (Internal Security-1 Division) and (ii) MHA Memorandum bearing no. 14/7/2011-T dated 19.05.2011 vide which standard operating procedure for interception, handling, use, sharing, copying, storage and destruction of messages/telephone/email etc. and certification was issued.
2. The two RTI applications both dated 20.02.2018 have been clubbed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and will be disposed off by this common Order.
3. The appellant filed two second appeals dated 02.05.2018 and 20.06.2018 before the Commission on the grounds that the information was wrongly denied to him claiming exemption under Section 8 (1)(a), (g), (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. On appeal, the FAA concurred with the CPIO's reply dated 23.08.2018. The appellant requested the Commission to provide him information that is not 'top secret' and can reasonably be severed viz. details of the term enquiry in clause 3 (iii) (xx) of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and other safeguards to prevent leakage of intercepts.
Hearing:
4. The appellant attended the hearing through video-conferencing and the respondent Shri S K Bhalla, Director (Cyber and Information Security) and (CPIO), and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Under-Secretary, MHA were present in person.
Page 2 of 55. The appellant submitted that in his second appeal, he asked for information pertaining to the safeguards taken by the Law Enforcement agencies against misuse of interception. Specifically, the extent to which interception can be used in departmental enquiries against government employees. He further submitted that information pertaining to measures taken to prevent misuse of interception by the authorized agencies must be revealed in larger public interest. With reference to the classified documents, he requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information after severing information which is not disclosable under the RTI Act. He further insisted that the details of measures taken for the safe custody of the interceptions must also be revealed in larger public interest.
6. The respondent submitted written submissions dated 09.07.2019 and the same have been taken on record. The respondent further submitted that the information sought for is classified as 'secret'. Moreover, the disclosure of the same would prejudicially affect the national security of India. Hence, it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent affirmed that OM pertains to SOPs related to interception. Further the SOPs sought for has only meant for law and enforcement agencies. The respondent clarified that appropriate safeguards mechanisms, under Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, have been provided to prevent misuse of lawful interception by duly authorized Law Enforcement Agencies and same are available in public domain.
Page 3 of 5Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the lawful interception/phone taping is done by the Law Enforcement Agencies, duly authorized by Central and State Governments under the classified legal regime in the interests of sovereignty, and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence as per the provisions contained under Section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 read with Rule 419-A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. Hence, disclosure of documents/ information/ file noting/ orders/ directions etc. related to lawful interception would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security interests of the State. Thus, its disclosure is exempted under Sections 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 29.07.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानित सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला( Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs CIS Division/ CIS-IV Desk North Block, New Delhi
3. Virender Singh Page 5 of 5