RTI exemptions under S.8(1)(g),(h) upheld for Review Committee minutes on interceptions due to national security and investigation impediments.

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:

“1.The applicant has submitted an online application on 15.05.2023 before the Central Public Information Officer, Office of Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi for providing the information. Copy of application is appended as Annexure A-1.

2 . That vide response dated 01.06.2023, the CPIO of office of Ministry of Home Affairs, informed the information seeker that his application has been transferred under Section 6(3) to the office of your good self. The copy of response dated 01.06.2023 as given by the respondent is appended as Annexure A-2.

3 .That in this situation, you are requested to provide us the information as has been sought vide Annexure A-1.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.09.2024 stating as under:

“With regard to information sought under points (3), it is to inform that information pertaining to Review Committee is highly confidential and cannot be disclosed under Section 8(g) & 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.10.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 24.10.2024, held as under:

“I have gone through the Appeal dated 13.10.24 along with the RTI reply dated 23.09.2024. The CPIO has informed that 'With regard to information sought under points (3), it is to inform that the information pertaining to Review Committee is highly confidential and cannot be disclosed under Section 8(g) & 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005.

I am in agreement with the CPIO and the reply is in order. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Advocate Anurag Jain, representative of the Appellant attended the hearing through VC.

Respondent: Shri M. Raj Anup, CPIO-cum-Director, attended the hearing in person.

5. The representative of the Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. He added that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matters of Bhagat Singh vs. CIC decided on 03.12.2007 in W.P. (C) No. 3114 of 2007 and in the matter of B.S. Mathur vs. PIO of Delhi High Court decided on 03.06.2011, the exemptions claimed by the Respondent under Section 8 (1) (g) and (h) of the RTI Act does not hold good. He further placed on record the copy of the above judgments on record.

6. The Respondent submitted that the information pertaining to Review Committee is highly confidential and cannot be disclosed under Section 8 1 (g) & (h) of RTI Act, 2005.

7. While explaining the brief background of the case, he submitted that the Appellant is seeking Minutes of Meeting of the Review Committee dated 25.04.2022 wherein interception done by various Law Enforcement agencies including the CBI for the interception orders issued by the Ministry of the Home Affairs. He added that such information pertaining to lawful interceptions undertaken in the interest of sovereignty, Integrity, security of the State, and public order. Disclosure of such records would expose sensitive information furnished in confidence to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) and may compromise the intelligence gathering methods thereby, defeating the basic purpose of interception. Accordingly, exemption under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005 has been rightly invoked. Further, the records sought also pertain to interception orders issued for several numbers to various LEAs that might be connected with investigations, prosecutions, and proceed