Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rakesh Kumar Garg vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 2 November, 2021

                              केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                           बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2019/647486

Shri Rakesh Kumar Garg                                       ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs                          ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri Rakesh Kumar - US

Date of Hearing                      :    01.11.2021
Date of Decision                     :    02.11.2021
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   11.06.2019
PIO replied on                        :   28.06.2019
First Appeal filed on                 :   07.07.2019
First Appellate Order on              :   02.08.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   04.08.2019

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated11.06.2019 seeking information on the following 11 points regarding his phone number 940xxxxxxpresumably kept under surveillance:-

The PIO/Director(CIS-II) vide letter dated 28.06.2019 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.07.2019. The FAA/Jt. Secretary (CIS) vide order dated

02.08.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 24.10.2021, whereby he has placed reliance on the CIC order no.

CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/156884/SD dated 08.05.2019 and the Delhi High Court's decision dated 23.08.2017 in the case of CPIO, Intelligence Bureau vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, specifically on the following paragraph:

31. When read together, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that, if the information sought pertains to allegation of corruption and human right violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause, irrespective of the fact that the information pertains to the exempt intelligence and security organizations or not or pertains to an Officer of the Intelligence Bureau or not.

Submissions of the Appellant further reveal that a CBI case is pending against the Appellant before the Court of the Special Judge (PC Act), wherein chargesheet has been filed before the Court on 26.07.2021.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior Page 2 of 3 notice to both the parties.Both parties are present during the hearing and reiterate their respective stance.

Decision:

In the light of the aforementioned facts which transpired during the course of hearing, it is noted that the Respondent had sent reply dated 28.06.2019, in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. As per the averments of the Appellant, the Special Judge had passed an order dated 06.01.2020 directing the MHA to preserve the records, mentioned in the RTI application. The RTI application dated 11.06.2019 specifies that information sought related to the period 01.01.2018 till 11.06.2019, whereas reliance has been placed by the Respondent on the Sub-Rule 18 of the Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951,which lays down that records pertaining to such directions for interception and of intercepted messages are destroyed by the relevant competent authority and the authorized security and Law Enforcement Agencies every six months. Hence, the order dated 06.01.2020 may not be applicable to salvage the information pertaining to the period of 2018-19, nor can any direction be passed based on surmises.

The decisions cited by the Appellant do not deal with a similar subject matter viz. information relating to phone interception but deal with information which pertains to allegation of corruption and human right violation. The reliance placed on the decisions is thus clearly misplaced.

After examining the above facts in details, the Commission finds no reason to intervene in this matter. The subject matter is already pending adjudication before the appropriate court of law and relevant information can be accessed through the alternate efficacious mechanism established under law.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3