Details like call, sms, tower location, EMI no. of a mobile number were denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Appellant: information relates to official mobile number - CIC: where public and private calls are intertwined, call details cannot be provided; appeal rejected
5 Dec, 2013ORDER
Information sought:
1- Provide details i.e. call, sms, tower location, EMI no. etc. of mobile number 9454401294 of Mr. Amarjit Shahi suspended Dy. Superintendent of Police, for the period from May 2011 to May 2012.
2- Provide details i.e. call, sms, tower location, EMI no. etc. of mobile number 9454147138 of Geeta Vidyarthi, for the period from May 2011 to May 2012. 3- Provide details i.e. call, sms, tower location, EMI no. etc. of mobile number 9532380323 of Capt. Mahesh Chandra Vidyarthi, for the period from May 2011 to May 2012.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has refused to give the information on point no. 01 under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. and Section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The appellant stated that he wants the CDR of mobile no. 9454401294 of Mr. Amarjit Shahi suspended Dy. Superintendent of Police, for the period from May 2011 to May 2012. The CPIO’s representative that the mobile number for which the appellant is seeking the CDR is registered in the name of the Additional Director General Police, Lucknow. He argued that the information relates to a third party, is personal in nature and no larger public purpose has been demonstrated Page 1 of 2 by the appellant to justify the disclosure and hence, exempt under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The appellant contested stating that this is an official mobile number and the information cannot be withheld.
Decision notice:
The appellant has argued that he is entitled to the information sought as it relates to an official mobile number. It is, however, seen that the Commission in an earlier order in appeal F.No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000836 dated 09/03/2010 has held as under:- “5. From all accounts, the facility of telephone provided by a public authority to its employees was to facilitate their work. It is also obvious that the installation, maintenance and the usage of these phones were financed by the public authority’s budget. Norms and guidelines have been provided covering the usage of the phone, especially about when the private use of the ‘phone was to be paid for by the employee. Such call details, where public as well as private calls are intertwined, cannot be provided to avoid invasion of privacy under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the Right to Information Act.” The ratio of the above decision applies squarely to the issue at hand and hence the appellant’s contention cannot be sustained. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Capt. M. C. Vidyarthi v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001772/3902