Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court clarified last week that information related to the interception, tapping, or tracking of a phone falls within the exemption under Section 8(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).

The bench, consisting of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan, held that disclosing such information would prejudicially affect the security, integrity, and strategic interests of the country, as stipulated in Section 8(a) of the RTI Act.

"Any orders passed by the government concerned in relation to interception, tapping, or tracking of a phone are passed when the authorised officer is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence," the bench said.

Court acknowledged that such orders are inherently tied to investigative processes and may impede investigations.

It observed that the disclosure could potentially compromise the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific, and economic interests of the state, relations with foreign states, or lead to the incitement of an offense, justifying their exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act.

Court allowed an appeal filed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) against a single-judge bench order and said an act of surveillance is carried out under the government's directions and in the interest of the country's sovereignty and integrity, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, and is exempted under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The CIC had instructed TRAI to collect information from a telecom service provider and inform the RTI applicant, Kabir Shankar Bose, about whether his phone was under surveillance, tracking, or tapping, and under whose directions.

Court highlighted Section 11(3) of the TRAI Act and emphasized that TRAI should not act against the interests of sovereignty and integrity, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality while discharging its functions.

The bench rejected the notion that seeking information on phone interception fell within TRAI's powers under Section 12 of the TRAI Act, as it would go beyond the intended scope of TRAI's functions.

Court stressed that such an interpretation would grant TRAI excessive authority to interfere with telecom service providers, contrary to the objectives of the TRAI Act.

Consequently, the bench allowed TRAI's appeal, setting aside the single judge's order and reinforcing the exemption of phone interception details from disclosure under the RTI Act.

Case Title: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v. Kabir Shankar Bose & Ors.