Central Information Commission
Anushka Jain vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 10 January, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IOCLD/A/2021/647174
Anushka Jain ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Marketing Division, Southern Region,
RTI Cell, Indian Oil Bhavan, 139,
Utthamar Gandi Road,
Nuggambakkam High Road,
Chennai-600034, Tamilnadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/01/2023
Date of Decision : 09/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/07/2021
CPIO replied on : 27/07/2021
First appeal filed on : 29/07/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 27/08/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.07.2021 seeking the following information:
1. Please state the legislation or rule which authorizes the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to use facial recognition technology.1
2. Please state whether any legal opinion was sought by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited prior to procurement of facial recognition technology. If yes, please provide copy of legal opinion.
3. Please state whether any cost-benefit analysis, feasibility study or privacy impact assessment was conducted prior to deployment of facial recognition technology. If yes, please provide a copy of the same.
4. Please state whether there are any guidelines, policies, rules or standard operating procedure governing the use of facial recognition technology by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. If yes, please provide a copy of the same.
5. Please state the specific purposes for which facial recognition technology is being used by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
6. Please state the total expenditure incurred (in rupees) on procurement and maintenance of facial recognition technology with an annual breakdown.
7. Please provide a copy of the following documents relating to tender issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for procurement of facial recognition technology:
a. All Tenders documents including Request for proposals, Request for Quotations and Scope of work b. list of bidders who applied for the tender c. Work Order Issued to the selected and the Conditions of the Contract.
8. Please provide an exhaustive list of persons and/ or organizations authorized to operate and use the facial recognition technology.
9. Please provide details of the software and hardware being used for facial recognition.
10.Please provide details of the database(s) in which images are stored for purpose of facial recognition including:
a. Where these images are sourced from b. Where is the database located c. Which person and/or organizations who have access to this database
11.Please provide a copy of the accuracy reports of such facial recognition technology which is being used or is proposed to be used.
12.Please provide information whether any third party assessments have been made of facial recognition technology being used. If yes, please provide a copy of the reports of such assessment.
13.Please provide an exhaustive list of databases, which the facial recognition technology will be linked in order to identify individuals.
14.Please provide information with regard to the accuracy rate of the facial recognition technology being used.2
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 27.07.2021 stating as under:-
Reply to your 14 Queries is as under-
There is no "Facial Recognition Biometric Attendance System" exists at our Tirunelveli Bottling Plant. Hence, the information sought is not available with us.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.07.2021. FAA's order dated 27.08.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Advocate Tanmay Singh present in person. Respondent: N Sridhar, GM (LPG- Operation) & Rep. of CPIO present through video/audio-conference.
The Rep. of Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the non-receipt of material information from the CPIO on the following arguments -
information sought by the Appellant relates to the tender called upon by the concerned authority regarding their plans to install facial recognition enabled biometric attendance system. True copy of the First Appeal and the Tender Document is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE A-3 and ANNEXURE A-4 respectively.
11. On August 27, 2021, the FAA disposed of the first appeal by merely upholding the decision of the CPIO and citing the clause 8 (d) of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 to exempt the grant of the information sought. True Copy of the reply of the first appellate authority, dated August 27, 2021 is attached herein as ANNEXURE A-5.
12. xxx ....A. The reply of the FAA is incomplete and suffers from non-application of mind. The FAA has erroneously relied on the provisions under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. FAA's reply is evidently incomplete indicating a disregard for the processes established under the RTI Act, 2005, whereby exemptions to the 3 information sought must be classified under the categories established under section 8(1) of the RTI Act. In the FAA's reply, no reliance was made on the aforementioned section of the RTI Act.
B. It is submitted that section 22 of the RTI Act establishes its non obstante overriding effect over all existing statutes, " The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act." Accordingly, the information sought under the RTI Act cannot be denied under any provisions of the Officials Secrets Act, 1923.
D. It is further submitted that the section 8(2) of RTI Act itself lays down the due procedure in the event of any clash between the RTI Act and the Official Secrets Act as " Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with subsection (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests."
E. It is submitted that the use of facial recognition technology for collecting biometric information poses a grave threat to the Right to Privacy of the individuals and it is in the public interest to have access to the vital information pertaining to the collection and sharing of such data. The information sought herein therefore cannot be categorised under the clause 8 (d) of section 2 of the Officials Secrets Act...."
In response to Rep. of Appellant's contentions, the CPIO submitted that there was no concept of Facial Recognition Biometric Attendance System introduced in their office; therefore, the factual position regarding non-availability of such records has been intimated to the Appellant. To a query from the Commission, he further apprised that as on date their office propose to introduce the system of Facial Recognition Biometric Attendance and the project on the same is underway and will be implemented soon.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties at length finds no infirmity in the factual reply supplemented with 4 further submission tendered by the CPIO during hearing, as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Having observed as above, the arguments of the Rep. of Appellant regarding the information sought pertaining to the tenders called by the Respondent authority regarding their plans to install facial recognition enabled biometric attendance system and also with regards to application of Section 8(2) & 22 of RTI Act are rendered inconsequential.
Thus, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5