<p>The Central Information Commission (CIC) has said that details of the orders issued by the authorities for phone tapping or any interception of information passing through computers cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act as it may jeopardise the security of the country.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The Commission gave the ruling while rejecting an appeal filed by Talish Ray, a Delhi resident who challenged the denial of information on such orders by the Ministry of Home Affairs.<br /><br />Information Commissioner Sushma Singh relied upon the provisions of the transparency law to conclude that since the whole exercise involved security and intelligence agencies that are in the list of organisations exempted under the RTI Act, the information could not revealed.<br /><br />Security infringement<br /><br />“As per the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO), since most of the agencies involved are security and intelligence organisations listed in schedule-II of the RTI Act, 2005, both Section 8(1)(a) and Section 24 are affected. <br /><br />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,” the Commission said. <br /><br />Ray had filed an RTI application with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), seeking to know if any order/direction has been issued by a competent authority under the provisions of Information Technology Act and rules thereof, for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.<br /><br />Denial<br /><br />The Home Ministry, on its part, denied to provide the details citing Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act.<br /><br />The act 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 a foreign state or leads to incitement of an offence” cannot be parted with. In his plea, Ray argued that he merely sought the “generic” data and not specific details of targeted people or organisations whose phones were lawfully intercepted. The Commission, however, found his contention “untenable”. <br /><br />“In as much as even generic data touches upon and is reflective of the functioning of the security and intelligence organisations, 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 Information Commissioner said.<br /></p>
<p>The Central Information Commission (CIC) has said that details of the orders issued by the authorities for phone tapping or any interception of information passing through computers cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act as it may jeopardise the security of the country.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The Commission gave the ruling while rejecting an appeal filed by Talish Ray, a Delhi resident who challenged the denial of information on such orders by the Ministry of Home Affairs.<br /><br />Information Commissioner Sushma Singh relied upon the provisions of the transparency law to conclude that since the whole exercise involved security and intelligence agencies that are in the list of organisations exempted under the RTI Act, the information could not revealed.<br /><br />Security infringement<br /><br />“As per the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO), since most of the agencies involved are security and intelligence organisations listed in schedule-II of the RTI Act, 2005, both Section 8(1)(a) and Section 24 are affected. <br /><br />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,” the Commission said. <br /><br />Ray had filed an RTI application with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), seeking to know if any order/direction has been issued by a competent authority under the provisions of Information Technology Act and rules thereof, for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.<br /><br />Denial<br /><br />The Home Ministry, on its part, denied to provide the details citing Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act.<br /><br />The act 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 a foreign state or leads to incitement of an offence” cannot be parted with. In his plea, Ray argued that he merely sought the “generic” data and not specific details of targeted people or organisations whose phones were lawfully intercepted. The Commission, however, found his contention “untenable”. <br /><br />“In as much as even generic data touches upon and is reflective of the functioning of the security and intelligence organisations, 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 Information Commissioner said.<br /></p>
