Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Binod Kumar Giri vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 20 April, 2026

                                     के ीय सूचना आयोग
                                Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                                 Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं     ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/129135

Binod Kumar Giri                                             ....अपीलकता/Appellant
                        VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs
2. PIO, Dept. of Telecommunication                          ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Date of Hearing                    :      02.04.2026
Date of Decision                   :      20.04.2026

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 24.05.2024              FA      : 19.07.2024 SA           : 05.09.2024
 CPIO : 27.06.2024             FAO : 19.08.2024 Hearing : 02.04.2026

 Date of Decision: 20.04.2026
                                 CORAM
            Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
                                 ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.05.2024 before the PIO, MHA, seeking the following information regarding two orders given by Secretary, MHA to CBI for interception of two specific mobile phones:

"1 (a) Whether as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, the two "TOP SECRET" order vide No. 14/3/97-CBI dated 4/2/2016 issued by Secretary, MHA, New Delhi to intercept of mobile No. 96509-38949 and 88266-74923 to CBI under sub-rule (1) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 had been forwarded to the concerned Review Committee within a period of seven working days or not?

(b) If forwarded, please provide the date that the Secretary, MHA, New Delhi had forwarded the two "TOP SECRET" order vide No. 14/3/97-CBI dated 4/2/2016 to the concerned Review Committee.

2 (a) Whether the concerned Review Committee had meet at least once in two months under the sub-rule (17) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 on intercept of mobile No. 96509-38949 and 88266-74923 or not?

(b) If followed, whether the concerned Review Committee had recorded its finding as sub-rule (17) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 or not?

(c) If the concerned Review Committee had recorded its finding, please provide information that what type of findings had been recorded (i.e. whether the directions issued under sub-rule (1) are in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act or not?

(d) If the concerned Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions issued under sub-rule (1) are not in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act, Please provide the information that when the Concerned Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions whether thereafter the Review Committee has passed an order to set aside the directions and orders for destruction of the copies of the intercepted message or class of messages or not? 3 (a) If the concerned Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions may set aside and orders for destruction of the copies of the intercepted message or class of messages under sub-rule (17) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, Whether the relevant competent authority (MHA) had destroyed the record pertaining to directions for interception of mobile No. 96509-38949 and 88266-74923 and of intercepted messages under sub-rule (18) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 or not

(b) As per Govt. of India Office Procedure, in each matter, a file is opened. For destruction of the above matter, a weeding file must be opened by MHA.

If destroyed, please provide the weeding file number, serial number mentioned in the weeding file along with copy of the said notesheet/correspondence and the date of destruction of record pertaining to directions for interception of mobile No. 96509- 38949 and 88266-74923 and of intercepted messages under sub-rule(18) of Rule 419- A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 and or not

(c) If destroyed, under sub-rule(18) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, whether the relevant competent authority (MHA) had issued the order to CBI to destroy the record pertaining to directions for interception of mobile No. 96509-38949 and 88266-74923 and of intercepted messages or not after the concerned Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions may set aside and orders for destruction of the copies of the intercepted message or class of messages under sub-rule (17) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.

(d) If destroyed in six months, under sub-rule(18) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, kindly intimate whether for purpose of the further functional requirement by MHA and CBI or not."

[reproduced verbatim]

2. The PIO, MHA, CIS Division responded vide reply dated 27.06.2024 as under:

" 2. In response to the information sought in sections 1 and 3 of your application, it is stated that, in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, all orders for lawful interception issued by the Secretary of the Ministry Second Appeal No. CIC/ MHOME/A/2024/129135 Page 2 of 5 of Home Affairs (MHA) are forwarded to the Review Committee within a period of seven working days for review, as per sub-rule (17) of Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. Additionally, as per sub-rule (18) of Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, (all records pertaining to lawful interception for the year 2016 have been destroyed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and no records are available.

3. As regards point no 2, your RTI application is being partially transferred to Department of Telecommunications under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for furnishing the requested information directly to you."

[reproduced verbatim]

3. Dissatisfied with the response of the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 19.07.2024 on the ground that no response had been sent by the PIO with respect to queries no. 1b), 3b), 3c) and 3d). The FAA decided the First Appeal vide order dated 19.08.2024 upholding the PIO's reply.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant filed the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in course of Hearing:

5. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Mr. Mahendra Kumar Singh - US, MHA and Mr. Raj Anup - CPIO/Director, Dept. of Telecommunication were present.

6. The Appellant contended that he was not satisfied with the response sent by the Respondent.

7. The Respondent - Mr. Raj Anup - CPIO/Director, Dept. of Telecommunication has submitted a copy of the response sent to the Appellant vide letter dated 09.07.2024 informing him that the information pertaining to Review Committee is highly confidential and exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) and (h) of the RTI Act.

8. The Respondent from MHA contended that the Appellant's queries in respect of points 1 and 3 have been duly answered by the CPIO stating the factual position that as per sub-rule (18) of Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, all records pertaining to lawful interception for the year 2016 have been destroyed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and no records is available. It has also been brought to the notice of this Commission that the same RTI application dated 24.05.2024 has resulted in Second Appeal No. CIC/ MHOME/A/2024/129135 Page 3 of 5 another Second Appeal bearing no. CIC/MHOME/A/A2024/129055/DOTEL and has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of IC Jaya Varma Sinha vide order dated 27.01.2026.

9. In the light of the query raised by the Appellant in this case, about interception of phone, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of TRAI vs. Kabir Shankar Bose & Ors. [LPA 721/2018] whereby it was held as under:

"44...any information in relation to interception or tapping or tracking of a phone as ordered by the concerned Government under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, may attract the exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(a) and Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act read as under:

"Section 8. Exemption from disclosure of information.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--

(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;

(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;"

45. Any order passed by the concerned Government in relation to interception or tapping or tracking of a phone is passed when the authorized officer is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with the foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. Such order, therefore, by its very nature may have been passed in the process of investigation. In a given case, the disclosure of any such information, therefore, may impede the process of investigation, and may be construed to prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, the strategic, scientific, and economic interest of the State, relations with the foreign states or lead to incitement of an offence, and would therefore be exempted from disclosure under terms of Section 8 of the RTI Act."

10. Applying the ratio of the above judgment to the facts of the case at hand, the information sought by the Appellant is clearly exempt from disclosure as held by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Court.

11. Moreover, as stated by the PIO, MHA, the information sought by the Appellant relating to year 2016 have been destroyed in terms of Rule 419A(18) of the Telegraph Rules, 1951, which stipulates that "Records pertaining to such directions for interception and of intercepted messages shall be destroyed by the relevant competent authority and the authorized Security and Law Enforcement Agencies every six months unless these are, or likely to be, required for functional requirements."

12. In the light of the above facts, it transpires that the information sought by the Appellant has been destroyed in terms of law, as informed by the CPIO. Even if the information existed in material form, the same would have been exempt from disclosure as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, as mentioned in the decision above. Therefore, in the given circumstances, the Commission finds no scope of intervention under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Raj Kumar Goyal (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Second Appeal No. CIC/ MHOME/A/2024/129135 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)