Talish Ray v Ministry of Home Affairs, Is Division, New Delhi Represented by Rakesh Mittal, Director and Jagraj Singh, DGM

Central Information Commission

 31 August 2012

CIC/SS/A/2012/000084

The Order of the Court was as follows :

1. Shri Talish Ray, the appellant vide his RTI application dated 12.2.2011, filed under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, requested for the following information regarding S. 69(2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Rule 3 & 4 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules 2009:- 2. Has any order/direction been issued by a competent authority under the provisions of this statute and rules thereof, for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received, or stored in any computer resource? If yes, how many such orders have been issued by the competent authority and the period for which the monitoring has been conducted in each case? 3. Is a maintenance of record for such data being done by a designated Officer? If so kindly provide the rank of such an officer. 4. Have any guidelines/circulars been issued in this regard? If yes, please provide a photocopy of these guidelines/circulars. The CPIO, vide his reply dated 14.3.2011 has replied as follows with regard to information sought at point No. 1 to 3 of the RTI application:- "Since the information sought for comes under sub-ss. 1(a), 1(g) and 1(h) of s. 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, hence cannot be provided." Aggrieved with the reply, the appellant filed an appeal before First Appellate Authority. The FAA, vide his order dated 4.5.2011 held as follows:- "The Appellant has basically argued that since he has not asked for specific details in terms of targeted numbers and targeted individuals/ organizations whose phones were lawfully intercepted and his is a quest just for the "generic" data-the case of invoking S. 8 of the RTI Act is non tenable. In this regard S. 24 of the RTI Act has to be read with S. 8 1(a) of the RTI Act. S. 24 clearly lays down that: "Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organizations specified in the second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organizations to that Government." S. 8(1) (a) of RTI states, "information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interest of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence." Thus a combined reading of S. 8 (1) (a) and S. 24 clearly brings out the untenability of the appellant's arguments. In as much as even generic data touches upon and is reflective of the functioning of the security and intelligence organizations, which in the legislative wisdom have been kept outside the operation of the RTI Act, I find no cogent reason to accept the appeal. The appeal is accordingly rejected." During the hearing the appellant submits that only the number of orders issued by competent authority for interception has been requested at point No.1 of the RTI application disclose of this information does not prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or the Security of the State. Moreover, in respect of query No. 2 & 3 of RTI application, the appellant states, no information have been provided by the respondent. The respondent on the other hand reiterate the stand taken by them in their reply and submit that the number of orders of interception issued by the Competent Authority cannot be provided in view of s. 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005 since such information, if provided, would infringe upon the security of the nation. As per the CPIO since most of the agencies involved are security and intelligence organizations listed in schedule - II of the RTI Act, 2005, S. 8(1)(a) and section 24, both the provisions are affected. Moreover, the information, if provided would reveal the rigour exercised by such agencies and their manner of functioning, therefore the information, if revealed, would also infringe upon security of the State as well. In respect of point No. 2 & 3 of the RTI application, the CPIO states that relevant Act and Rules are on the website in the public domain and therefore the information cannot be said to be held by or under the control of public authority. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide reference to the relevant rules in reply to point No. 2 of RTI application and to provide a specific reply to point No.3 of the RTI application within 10 days of receipt of this order. In so far as point No. 1 of RTI application is concerned, the Commission finds merit in the contention of the respondent, therefore the decision of the FAA is upheld. The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.