Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Vimal Sharma vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 27 August, 2020

Author: Vanaja N Sarna

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                        क य सच  ु ना आयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                           Baba Gangnath Marg
                        मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
                        Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                           File no.: CIC/BSNLD/A/2018/171826
In the matter of:
Vimal Sharma
                                                               ... Appellant
                                      VS
CPIO / Divisional Engineer(Admn.),
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd(BSNL),
O/O General Manager BB Network Circle,
Bengaluru-560005
                                                               ...Respondent
RTI application filed on          :   03/10/2018
CPIO replied on                   :   24/10/2018
First appeal filed on             :   31/10/2018
First Appellate Authority order   :   30/11/2018
Second Appeal dated               :   10/12/2018
Date of Hearing                   :   19/08/2020
Date of Decision                  :   19/08/2020

The following were present:
Appellant: Not present

Respondent: Ms Veena, Divisional Engineer & CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:

The appellant has soughtinformation about the procedure followed by BSNL as an ISP tomake sure that its administrators do not pass live browsing data of a customer to outsiders.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided incomplete and misleading information.
1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead his case despite the fact that he was duly informed about the audio hearings and service of valid hearing notice on 03.08.2020 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED596609253IN. During the hearing also, several attempts were made to connect to the appellant but the appellant failed to respond to the calls. Under such circumstances, the Commission will decide the case based on the contentions raised by the appellant in his second appeal memo and the merits of the case.

The appellant in his second appeal memo had submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and the FAA's order as both have failed to give the procedure followed to make sure that its administrators are not passing live data to any outsider.

The CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply dated 24.10.2018.She also explained that there is no system of passing live browsing data and hence the question of having any such procedure does not arise.

Observations:

From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and the FAA's order as there is no mention of the procedure followed by them make sure that its administrators are not passing live data to any outsider. The CPIO in his reply had stated that BSNL as an ISP is following all the security guidelines and instructions given by the Government of India and as such no live browsing data of a customer is passed on to outsiders, except to Law Enforcement Agencies-which is as per Government of India instructions, that also by the restricted/nominated officer exclusively for this purpose. No individual has any type of access to Live browsing data. The FAA in his order has further stated that theBSNL as an ISP is following all the security guidelines and instructions issued by the Government ofIndia. There is no access to live browsing Data for any officer. The question therefore of transferring the same to outside/third party doesn't arise. The Commission opines that even though the CPIO and the FAA have explained the factual position to the appellant, however, no categorical reply was given to the appellant as to whether there is any procedure followed by them or not. On a query to the CPIO whether there is any such procedure followed by them or not, the CPIO submitted thatthere is no system of passing live browsing data 2 and hence the question of having any such procedure does not arise. Since such a categorical reply was not given to the appellant, the CPIO is directed to give a specific and categorical reply to this effect to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a categorical reply to the appellant as per the discussions held during the hearing within a period of 03 days from the date of issue of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna(वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3