Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Aman Konark Modi vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 28 June, 2021

                                 के ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2019/603765
                                     CIC/MHOME/A/2019/637639

Shri Aman Konark Modi                                      ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs                            ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri Shailendra Vikram Singh

Date of Hearing                       :    28.06.2021
Date of Decision                      :    28.06.2021
Chief Information Commissioner        :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.

  Case      RTI Filed    CPIO reply       First appeal     FAO        2 nd Appeal
   No.         on                                                    received on
 603765    01.01.2019    11.01.2019       19.01.2019   26.02.2019          Nil
 637639    14.01.2019    25.01.2019       25.01.2019 & 26.02.2019          Nil
                                          19.01.2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

(1) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/603765 (2) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/637639 The Appellant filed RTI applications dated01.01.2019 & 14.01.2019 seeking information on following 2 points:-

(i) Whether my bsnl No. 9425166566 Mobile number has been placed under surveillance or tracking or tapping by any agency, if so please provide the complete detail from date 01.01.2016 to 16.12.2018.

(ii) Under whose direction and by which agency my phone has been placed under surveillance or tracking or trapping.

The CPIO/Director (CIS-II)vide 11.01.2019 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2019. The FAA/Joint Secretary(CIS) vide order dated 26.02.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

The Appellant has placed copies of the Delhi High Court decision dated 20.11.2018 in the case of TRAI vs. Kabir Shankar Bose and the Supreme Court's celebrated judgment in the case of Retd. Justice K S Puttaswamy along with the Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and Appellant reiterated the above contentions and stated that the information sought by him was denied by the Respondent. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kabir Shankar Bose vs TRAI in WP (C) No 12388/2018 dated 20.11.2018, the Appellant stated that as per the said decision information pertaining to surveillance of consumer's own mobile number should be provided by the Respondent Public Authority.

The Respondent reiterated that information had been provided to the Appellant in a point wise response provided by the CPIO and stated that disclosure of interception related information defeats the very purpose of lawful interception/ phone tapping and referred to the decision of the Commission in CIC/VS/A/2014/000378 decided on 02.09.2015 wherein a similar view taken by the Public Authority was concurred by the Commission.

Decision In view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. The Commission also finds that the facts of the decision cited by the Appellant of [Kabir Shankar Bose vs TRAI in WP (C) No 12388/2018 dated 20.11.2018] is not applicable nor relevant in this case since in the said matter the information was sought from the telecom regulator i.e., TRAI and the issue raised in the matter before the Hon'ble High Court was regarding accessing information from a private body (Vodafone) by a government authority (TRAI). However, in the case at hand, the information has been sought from the M/o Home Affairs, and the reasons for denial are quite different.

In the light of the above mentioned observations, the Commission is of the view that no further intervention is required in the above Second Appeals, since information permissible within the ambit of the RTI Act has already been disclosed by the Respondent.

The appeals are thus disposed off.

Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3