Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

:

1. Regarding interception of phone numbers:
(a) When you first received the information regarding aforementioned phone number and the mode of information.
(b) What information you received regarding aforementioned phone number.
(c) From which source you received information regarding aforementioned phone number.
(d) Initially who has received information against the aforementioned phone number (name of officer).
(e) After receiving information regarding aforementioned phone number, what investigation you made. Copy of investigation report be supplied.
(f) What incriminating material was found against the aforementioned phone number?
(g) After receiving initial information in how many days you applied for permission for interception for aforementioned phone number.
(h) Kindly supply a copy of the request / proposal sent to the Home Ministry.
(i) At the time the request for interception was applied to the Home Ministry, in whose name aforementioned phone number was registered.
(j) What material you sent along with request letter to the ministry of Home for obtaining interception order.
At the hearing held before the Commission on 10/05/2011, it was established that the Appellant was seeking only the proposal sent to MHA for permission to intercept the phone numbers. The main contention of the Respondent is that disclosure of this information was exempted under Sections 8(1)(a),
(g) and (h) of the RTI Act.

In this regard, the Respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Commission in S. C. Sharma v. Ministry of Home Affairs CIC/AT/A/2006/00056 dated 05/05/2006. In the S. C. Sharma Case, the Commission held that it was an accepted fact that the orders of interception of telephones under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 were themselves sensitive for national security, sovereignty and integrity. Therefore, these were firmly within the ambit of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act and cannot, thus, be disclosed. The Commission accepted the appellate authority's argument that the process of review of a matter connected with any top secret interception order must stand on the same footing as the main order itself and by inference be exempt from disclosure requirement under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. It would be both imprudent and improper to apply the criterion of severability and to determine one part of the process as classified and other as open. The Commission had agreed with the appellate authority's view that the entire process was one and indivisible and thus not liable for disclosure.

On perusal of the decisions cited above, this Commission noted that in the said decisions, the applicant(s) had sought from MHA copies of interception order(s) and/ or reports on the basis of which interception order(s) were issued and note sheets where the reports were processed and decision to sanction interception of phones was taken. Disclosure under the RTI Act of proposals received by MHA from an investigating agency such as CBI seeking permission for interception of phones (consequent to which a review committee may be set up and on the basis of the review committee's report, an interception order may be passed by MHA) was not the subject- matter of discussion before the Commission in both S. C. Sharma Case as well as the S. P. Singh Case. Given the fact that the Appellant in the present matter is not seeking the review committee report/ minutes of the review committee, this Commission does not find the decisions cited above relevant.