Information On Interception Or Phone Tapping Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the information in relation to interception or tapping or tracking of a phone is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that any order passed by the Government in relation to interception or phone tapping is passed when an authorized officer is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with the foreign states or public order, and information on the same would be exempted under RTI Act. Observing that such an order by its very nature may have been passed in the process of investigation, the bench said:“In a given case, the disclosure of any such information, therefore, may impede the process of investigation, and may be construed to prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, the strategic, scientific, and economic interest of the State, relations with the foreign states or lead to incitement of an offence, and would therefore be exempted from disclosure under terms of Section 8 of the RTI Act.”Section 8 of the Act enlists various exemptions from disclosure of information, including disclosure which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence. The bench was dealing with an appeal moved by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) challenging a single judge's order that upheld an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the regulatory body to collect information sought by an individual about surveillance and tracking of his phone, under the RTI Act. One Kabir Shankar Bose had filed an RTI application seeking information as to whether his phone was placed under surveillance or tracking or tapping by any agency and if so, under whose direction. He also sought details of all the dates on which his phone was placed under surveillance or tracking or tapping. The CIC directed TRAI to collect the information from the concerned telecom service provider and furnish the same to Bose. TRAI's challenge to the same was rejected by the single judge. In appeal, the court set aside the single judge's order and observed that the information sought by Bose did not relate to the functions of the TRAI as enumerated in Section 11 of the TRAI Act. “Thus, it is clear that any such act of surveillance or tracking or tapping does not fall under the affairs of telecom service providers, but rather, is carried out under the directions of the concerned Government, in case the authorized officer is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with the foreign states or public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence,” the court said. It added that to hold that asking for information in relation to interception or tracking or tapping of a phone would be within the power of TRAI under Section 12 of the TRAI Act, would not be in conformity with the functions of the regulatory body as specified in Section 11 of the enactment. “Any contrary view would give the authority unbridled power to call for information and interfere with the functions of telecom service providers, and also would not be in consonance with the objects sought to be achieved by the TRAI Act. As referred to above, the authority was established for the purpose of regulating telecom services to protect the interest of service providers and consumers in the telecom sector, and to promote and ensure orderly growth of the sector,” the court said. Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Sood, Mr. Aniket & Ms. Romila Mandal, AdvsCounsel for Respondents: Mr. Aditya Singh Deshwal & Mr. Abhijeet Upadhyay, AdvsTitle: TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. KABIR SHANKAR BOSE & ORS.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1334Click Here To Read Order

Information On Interception Or Phone Tapping Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags