Shri Talish Ray v. Ministry of Home Affairs
[2012] CIC 13406
In the Central Information Commission
CIC/SS/A/2012/000084
Before Ms Sushma Singh, Information Commissioner
Decided on August 31, 2012

Relevancy of the case: RTI application regarding rules made under Section 69(2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 69(2))
• The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Section 8(1)(a), 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h), 24) 
• The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 (Rule 3, 4)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The appellant filed an RTI application on 12.2.2011 with three questions seeking information regarding Section 69(2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules 2009, before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). 
• The first question pertained to whether or not any competent authority has given any order under the relevant rules, and if yes, then the number of such orders. The second question was whether an officer maintained a record for such data, and if so, their rank. The third question was about providing a photocopy of any circular passed in this regard if any.
• The CPIO denied the application through provisions of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). 
• The FAA also declined the request through Section 8(1)(a) read with Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
• Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Chief Information Commission. 

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates 

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that for the first question, only the number of orders issued was sought, which does not affect the safety and sovereignty of the State. Further, no information was provided for the 2nd and 3rd questions.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that the agencies related to the first question are security and intelligence organisations under the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and that revealing of such information would reveal the rigour exercised and functioning of the agencies, affecting the safety and security of the nation. Further, the information for the 2nd and the 3rd question is already in the public domain. So, it is not in the control of the public authority.

Opinion of the Bench

• For the 1st question, the court believed that there was merit in the respondent’s contention. Hence, the decision of the FAA in that regard was upheld.

Final Decision

• CPIO should provide reference to the rules for the 2nd question and a direct reply to the 3rd question.
• Matter disposed of.