Central Information Commission
Ayush Johri vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 6 August, 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/2024/120924
Shri AYUSH JOHRI ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs
Date of Hearing : 29.07.2025
Date of Decision : 29.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.02.2024
PIO replied on : 02.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : 01.05.2024
First Appellate Order on : 04.06.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 27.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.02.2024 seeking information on following points:-
A. Kindly arrange to provide certified copy of any First Information Report, or investigation, as applicable, filed or pending against Ayush Johri, resident at C 146 Dayanand Marg Tilak Nagar Jaipur 302004.
B. Kindly arrange to provide certified copy of relevant documents regarding governing provision of law and present status of said First Information Report, or investigation, as applicable, filed and pending against Ayush Johri, resident at C 146 Dayanand Marg Tilak Nagar Jaipur 302004.
C. Kindly arrange to provide certified copy of relevant documents regarding interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through computer resource, mobile, call record, access to personal data, as applicable, against Ayush Johri, resident at C 146 Dayanand Marg Tilak Nagar Jaipur 302004, under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, the Telecommunication Act 2023 and the Information Technology Act 2000. D. Kindly arrange to provide recording of CCTV camera of any pending investigation, or First Information Report against Ayush Johri, resident at C 146 Dayanand Marg Tilak Nagar Jaipur 302004, as applicable, in compliance with order dated
02.12.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Page 1 case of Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and Others SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.3543 of 2020. E. Kindly arrange to provide certified copy of relevant document authorising or allowing access to any person other than the competent authority alongwith its basis regarding investigation or First Information Report, as applicable, pending against Ayush Johri, resident at C 146 Dayanand Marg Tilak Nagar Jaipur 302004.
The CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi vide letter dated 02.04.2024 replied as under:-
"2. Points A, B, D & E are not related to undersigned CPIO.
3. Point C: 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."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 04.06.2024 stated as under:-
2. "The appellant has filed first appeal dated 01/05/2024.
3. Whereas, 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 the following:
a. The RTI application was received in CIS Division, MHA through RTI Portal on 05.03.2024 and replied within specific time-frame b. The points A, B, D and E of your RTI application already replied by RTI Nodal Officer, MHA and its copy is enclosed for ready reference c. 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.
Page 2 Written submission has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing. Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Director- participated in the hearing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the PIO in their reply has mentioned that interception and monitoring are being carried out, but complete details have not been provided by the PIO.
The Respondent reiterated the contents of their reply and stated that the relevant information as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly provided to the Appellant. He averred that the queries raised by the Appellant speculative in nature and do not fall under the ambit of 'information' as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act. As regards the queries related to interception and monitoring, the PIO has only clarified the rule position in reference to interception and monitoring.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Commission notes that 'information' as defined in the section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority. Furthermore, the RTI Act, 2005 does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to create or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. Commission notes that giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. 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 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)