Central Information Commission
Jogi Venkata Koteswara Rao vs Department Of Telecommunications on 10 September, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/DOTEL/A/2019/654037
In the matter of:
Jogi Venkata Koteswara Rao
... Appellant
1. Central Public Information Officer,
Director General Telecom,
Head Quarters, 20, Sanchar Bhawan,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001
2. Central Public Information Officer,
Director General Telecom, O/o the DDG(Admn & West),
2nd Floor, Khurshid Lal Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi 110001
3. Director(CIS - II) / CPIO
Ministry of Home Affairs, CIS Division/ CIS - IV Desk,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 18/06/2019 CPIO replied on : 22/07/2019 First appeal filed on : 07/07/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 17/07/2019 Second Appeal Filed on : 15/10/2019 Date of Hearing : 09/09/2021 Date of Decision : 09/09/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Shri Karan Goyal, ADG & rep of CPIO, Shri Rakesh Kumar, Under Secretary & CPIO, MHA, both present over intra VC 1 Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the information regarding surveillance or tracking or tapping of his mobile numbers/landline numbers and his wife's mobile numbers mentioned below.
(i) 90326-35092, (ii) 95538-30131(iii) 08644-241846 (iv) 08644-227846 (v) 08644-225559 (vi) 94481-40216 (vii) 88618-21459.
2. Provide the details of the official who had given direction to keep the aforesaid mobile nos., landline nos., and browsing activity under surveillance. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided incomplete, misleading and incorrect information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead his case despite service of hearing notice on 23.08.2021 vide speed post acknowledgment No. ED959839077IN. However, in his second appeal memo he had stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him. He also submitted that the MHA and DoT both have failed to segregate lawful interception from unlawful interception.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply dated 22.07.2019.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the CPIO had denied the information claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(a), (g) and (h) of the RTI Act while stating that the lawful interception is done by the Law Enforcement Agencies, duly authorised by Central and State Government as per the provisions contained in Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. Any disclosure of intercepted related information defeats the very purpose of lawful interception. He had also relied on an order passed by CIC in File No. CIC/VS/A/2014/000378/SB dated 01.09.2015. The Commission does not find any flaw in the reply of the CPIO, moreso, when the appellant has failed to substantiate the fact as to how he thinks that his phone was intercepted. It appears that only on the basis of his apprehension he was claiming that his phone was intercepted.2
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO and does not find any scope for intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) सरना सूचना आयु!) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy अिभ$मा%णत स(या)पत $ित) (अिभ$मा%णत $ित ऐ.के. असीजा) A.K. Assija (ऐ असीजा Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3