Phone Tapping Interception Information Exempt RTI Act Delhi High Court News: Whether a citizen’s phone is being tapped (phone tapping or interception) or not, it was not disclosed even in response to his own application under the Right to Information (RTI). May go. The Delhi High Court recently held that information in respect of interception, tapping or tracking of a phone is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(A) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). It is known that earlier the Central Information Commission (CIC) had given instructions to provide information to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The single judge of the High Court had also upheld it. TRAI had appealed against this, which was accepted by the division bench headed by Justice Vibhu Bakhru and overturned the order of the single judge.
The Delhi High Court has set aside a single bench order upholding the direction given by the Central Information Commission (CIC) to telecom regulator TRAI to provide information under RTI about the alleged tapping of a mobile user’s phone. A bench headed by Justice Vibhu Bakhru allowed the appeal filed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) against the order of the single judge bench. The court said that the surveillance work is done under the instructions of the government and in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of the country and the security of the nation, in such a situation it is exempted under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The court said, in the present case, disclosure of any such information may hinder the process of investigation or affect the above facts and hence the same would be exempted from disclosure under the terms of Section 8 of the RTI Act. Section 8(A) of the RTI Act exempts from the scope of the RTI Act any information, the disclosure of which would have an adverse effect on the security, integrity and strategic interests of the country.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan said that any order by the concerned government regarding interception or tapping or tracking of any phone is passed only when the authorized officer is satisfied that it is necessary to do so ‘in the interest of sovereignty’ Is. To protect the integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or to prevent incitement to commit any offence. The Court said, therefore, such an order, by its very nature, might have been passed in the process of investigation.