Delhi High Court Seeks Centre's Reply On Disclosure Of Statistical Data On State Sponsored E-Surveillance

The Delhi High Court has sought a reply from the Central Government within six weeks in a plea seeking disclosure of statistical information pertaining to electronic surveillance. The single judge bench of Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with a plea filed by Apar Gupta, a lawyer and the Co-founder and Executive Director of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), assailing an order dated January 28, 2022 passed by the Central Information Commission under Section 19 of Right to Information Act. It was the case of the petitioner that there existed no transparency around the use of Electronic Surveillance. As per the petitioner, the public authorities refuse to publish even aggregate statistical information to indicate the adequacy or functioning of the legal supervisory mechanisms of Electronic Surveillance under the 2009 Interception Rules. Thus, on 28 December 2018 he filed six RTI applications seeking information from Ministry of Home Affairs. The petitioner stated that in 2019, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had without application of mind, disposed of the Petitioner's requests for information. First appeals against the same were preferred before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). As per the petitioner, the same were also disposed of without providing any reasons. Thus, Second Appeals were preferred before the Central Information Commission (CIC) on the grounds that FAA's order suffered from non-application of mind, as exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act were invoked without providing reasons. In this matter, an order was passed by the High Court on December 2, 2021 wherein the the Central Information Commission was directed to decide the appeals filed by the petitioner within 8 weeks. The counsel for the Central government sought time from the court to file a reply stating that as per the Telegraph Act, given the sensitive nature of the data, the request for interception is deleted within six months, unless it is required for any investigation. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the data sought by him was only statistical (limited to aggregate figures on number of times interception was resorted to) and no granular detail in the form of specific interception orders was required. The court stated that–"Mr Ahluwalia, appearing for the respondents, prays that bearing in mind the questions raised in the writ petition, the respondents may be permitted to file a response on merits. Accordingly, let that reply be filed within a period of six weeks."CASE TITLE: APAR GUPTA v. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS

Delhi High Court Seeks Centre's Reply On Disclosure Of Statistical Data On State Sponsored E-Surveillance

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

Delhi High Court Seeks Centre's Reply On Disclosure Of Statistical Data On State Sponsored E-Surveillance

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers