Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

T S Kumarasamy vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 27 May, 2022

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

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2020/115613


Shri T S Kumarasamy                                          ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                    ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs

Date of Hearing                      :    26.05.2022
Date of Decision                     :    27.05.2022
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   15.11.2019
PIO replied on                        :   20.12.2019
First Appeal filed on                 :   27.01.2020
First Appellate Order on              :   11.03.2020
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   02.06.2020

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2019 seeking information on the following points:-

The CPIO/Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, CIS Division, vide letter dated 20.12.2019 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the responsereceived from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.01.2020. The FAA/Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, CIS Division, vide order dated 11.03.2020 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:

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.

The Respondent represented by Shri Rakesh Kumar, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, CIS Division participated in the hearing through video conference. He submitted that the CPIO vide letter dated 20.12.2019 had replied to the RTI application filed by Appellant. Further, lawful interception is done by Law Enforcement Agencies duly authorised by Central and State Governments as per the provisions contained in section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 read with Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules 1951. Furthermore, the nature of information as sought by Appellant is of such a nature that its disclosure would defeat the very purpose of lawful interception. Mr. Kumar contended that disclosure of information related to lawful interception/phone tapping is exempted under section 8 (1) (a), 8 (1) (g) and 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005. Moreover, the records pertaining to lawful interception are destroyed regularly as per the provisions contained in Sub-Rule 18 of Rule 419 A of the Indian Telegraph Rules 1951.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided as only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided. The provisions of the Sub-Rule 18 of Rule 419 A of Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 relied upon by the Respondent clearly states that records pertaining to such directions for interception shall be destroyed by Page 2 of 3 relevant competent authority and authorized security and law Enforcement eAgencies every six months. Hence no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.

With the above mentioned observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off, accordingly Y. K. Sinha (वाई.

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