Central Information Commission
Mr. T Srinivasan vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 6 May, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No.CIC/BS/A/2012/000500/2413
06 May 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. T. Srinivasan
S/o Thukkaram
187, Chengam Road,
Thiruvannamalai- 606603
Respondent : CPIO & DGM (Admn/EB&IT)
BSNL
O/o the General Manager,
Vellore (SSA),
Vellore - 632001
RTI application filed on : 13/02/2012
PIO replied on : 02/03/2012
First appeal filed on : 09/03/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 23/03/2012
Second Appeal received on : 12/04/2012
Information sought:
2.1 Furnish the complete details of the Certified copy of the incoming and outgoing call list of Mobile Phone no.+91 9443379677 from the periods of January 2010 to February 2012.
2.2 Furnish the Audio Recordings of the conversation between Mobile Phone No.+91 9443379677 and +91 9841679819 (Vice Versa) from the period of January 2010 to February 2012.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has refused to give the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Ms. S.V. Umavati CPIO through VC The appellant was given an opportunity to participate in the hearing, however, he is absent. The CPIO stated that the appellant in his RTI application dated 13/2/2011 had asked for call details of third party subscribers and since he has not cited any larger public interest to justify the disclosure of information exemption has been claimed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It is seen from the appellant's 2nd appeal to the Commission that he has contended that the mobile Page 1 of 2 phone belongs to a public servant who is a sitting government judicial officer and, hence, the information should be disclosed.
Decision notice:
The Commission in the past has held that CDR of mobile/land line telephones of subscribers cannot be disclosed to third parties being exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless the seeker of the information is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure.
As regards the appellant's contention that he is entitled to the information sought as it relates to an official phone provided to a public servant the Commission in an earlier order in appeal F.No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000836 dated 09/03/2010 has held as under:-
"5. From all accounts, the facility of telephone provided by a public authority to its employees was to facilitate their work. It is also obvious that the installation, maintenance and the usage of these phones were financed by the public authority's budget. Norms and guidelines have been provided covering the usage of the phone, especially about when the private use of the 'phone was to be paid for by the employee. Such call details, where public as well as private calls are intertwined, cannot be provided to avoid invasion of privacy under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act."
We are in agreement with the above decision. There is every possibility of certain call(s) being personal; hence, in the absence of any public interest the appellant's contention cannot be sustained.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Page 2 of 2