##PAGE1##

के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग१, मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067

ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/129135 Binod Kumar Giri ….अपीलकता१/Appellant

VERSUS/बनाम

1. PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs

2. PIO, Dept. of Telecommunication … ঋितवादीगण/Respondent

Date of Hearing : 02.04.2026 Date of Decision : 20.04.2026

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 24.05.2024 FA : 19.07.2024 SA : 05.09.2024 CPIO : 27.06.2024 FAO : 19.08.2024 Hearing : 02.04.2026

Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 CORAM

Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.05.2024 before the PIO, MHA, seeking the following information regarding two orders given by Secretary, MHA to

CBI for interception of two specific mobile phones:

“1 (a) Whether as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, the two "TOP SECRET" order vide No. 14/3/97-CBI dated 4/2/2016 issued by Secretary, MHA, New Delhi to intercept of mobile No. 96509-38949 and 88266-74923 to CBI under sub-rule (1) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 had been forwarded to the concerned Review Committee within a period of seven working days

or not?

(b) If forwarded, please provide the date that the Secretary, MHA, New Delhi had forwarded the two "TOP SECRET" order vide No. 14/3/97-CBI dated 4/2/2016 to the concerned Review Committee.

Second Appeal No. CIC/ MHOME/A/2024/129135 Page 1 of 5

1 / 6

2 (a) Whether the concerned Review Committee had meet at least once in two months under the sub-rule (17) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 on intercept of mobile No. 96509-38949 and 88266-74923 or not?

(b) If followed, whether the concerned Review Committee had recorded its finding as sub-rule (17) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 or not?

(c) If the concerned Review Committee had recorded its finding, please provide information that what type of findings had been recorded (i.e. whether the directions issued under sub-rule (1) are in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of

Section 5 of the said Act or not?

(d) If the concerned Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions issued under sub-rule (1) are not in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act,

Please provide the information that when the Concerned Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions whether thereafter the Review Committee has passed an order to set aside the directions and orders for

destruction of the copies of the intercepted message or class of messages or not?

3 (a) If the concerned Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions may set aside and orders for destruction of the copies of the intercepted message or class of messages under sub-rule (17) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, Whether the relevant competent authority (MHA) had destroyed the record pertaining to directions for interception of mobile No. 96509-38949 and 88266-74923 and of intercepted messages under sub-rule (18) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules,

1951 or not (b) As per Govt. of India Office Procedure, in each matter, a file is opened. For

destruction of the above matter, a weeding file must be opened by MHA.

If destroyed, please provide the weeding file number, serial number mentioned in the weeding file along with copy of the said notesheet/correspondence and the date of destruction of record pertaining to directions for interception of mobile No. 96509- 38949 and 88266-74923 and of intercepted messages under sub-rule(18) of Rule 419-

A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 and or not (c) If destroyed, under sub-rule(18) of Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, whether the relevant competent authority (MHA) had issued the order to CBI to destroy the record pertaining to directions for interception of mobile N