Central Information Commission
Anushka Jain vs Deptt Of Information Technology on 16 August, 2024
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/DEOIT/A/2023/636029.
Ms. Anushka Jain. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Deptt. of Information Technology.
Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024
Date of Decision : 13.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.03.2023
PIO replied on : 14.04.2023
First Appeal filed on : 08.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 30.05.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 26.07.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Please provide if CERT-IN has started sending out the notices to service providers to seek compliance with direction (iii) of Direction No. 20(3)/2022- CERT-In of 28.04.2022.
Please provide information about the total number of notices issued to demand compliance with direction (iii) of Direction No. 20(3)/2022-CERT-In of 28.04.2022. Please provide a month-wise record of the number of notices that have been sent by CERT-In seeking compliance with direction (iii) of Direction No. 20(3)/2022-CERT-In.
Please provide the deadline for complying with the notices seeking compliance with direction (iii) of Direction No. 20(3)/2022-CERT-In. Please confirm if non-compliance with notices seeking compliance with direction (iii) of Direction No. 20(3)/2022-CERT-In carries any consequences, and if so, have the concerned parties been duly notified?
Please provide a list of any services/ service providers who have been blocked as a result of non-compliance with direction (iii) of Direction No. 20(3)/2022-CERT-In. Please provide information on the initiation of proceedings as a result of non- compliance with direction (iii) of Direction No. 20(3)/2022-CERT-In, and if such proceedings have been initiated, kindly specify the number."Page 1 of 3
The CPIO vide letter dated 14.04.2023 replied as under:-
"Reply: The information sought is mostly related to unspecified third parties. In respect of sending notices by CERT-In to seek compliance of direction No
(iii) of Direction no 20(3) 2022-cert- In of 28.04.2022, it is informed that no separate and specific notices had been issued to any service providers, intermediates, data centres, body corporate and Government organisations seeking information on the compliance of direction No (iii) of Direction no 20(3)/2022- cert-In of 28.04.2022 except the notices issued to virtual private network services providers."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 30.05.2023 stated as under:-
"Reply: As requested an opportunity for hearing was provided to the appellant. The submission was made on 25.05.2023 by Adv. Gayatri Malhotra on behalf of the appellant.
Accordingly it is submitted that an appropriate reply to the RTI has been given by the the CPIO. the appeal is disposed off under section 8(g) of the RTI act,"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Ms. Gayatri Malhotra, Advocate and Ms. Rubayya Tasneem, Advocate- Authorised Representative of the Appellant- participated in the hearing.
Respondent: Ms. S.S. Sarna, Scientist G - participated in the hearing.
Written submission has been placed on the record by the Appellant during the course of proceedings.
Adv. Gayatri Malhotra stated that the information sought has not been furnished to the Appellant. She further stated that only statistical information has been sought with respect to notices issued by the Respondent with reference to compliance with direction (iii) of Direction No. 20(3)/2022- CERT-In of 28.04.2022. She stated that the FAA has denied information as per section 8(1)(g) of the RTI ACt which is not applicable in the instant case.
The Respondent stated that the generic information has already been furnished to the Appellant. He averred that the information sought is exempted from disclosure Section 8(1)(a) as it prohibits disclosure of information, which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; the security of the State can be compromised if any information is disclosed. Furthermore, as per Notification No. G.S.R 864(E) dated 23.11.2023 the "Indian Computer Emergency Response Team" has been included in the Second Schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005 and accordingly the Page 2 of 3 information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 24 read with Second Schedule of RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Appeal is disposed of 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) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)