TelecomLive January-2019

RTI on phone tapping Telecom LIVE January 2019 46 www.telecomlive.com decided on 25.09.2018, whereby the court has held as under: “8 . Information as defined in Section 2(f) means details or material available with the public authority. The later portion of Section 2(f) expands the definition to include details or material which can be accessed under any other law from others. The two defini- tions have to be read harmoni- ously. The term “held by or under the control of any public authority” in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be read in a manner that it effectuates and is in harmony with the defini- tion of the term “information” as defined in Section 2(f). The said expression used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act should not be read in a manner that it negates or nullifies definition of the term “information” in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is well settled that an interpreta- tion which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or superfluous should be avoided. Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body which can be accessed by public authority under any law for the time being in force. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access information from a private body, under any other law, it is “information” as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The term “held by the or under the control of the public authority” used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act will include information which the public authority is entitled to access under any other law from a private body. A private body need not be a public authority and the said term “private body” has been rai has challenged a T single bench ruling before a division bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice VK Rao that phone tapping was carried out by law enforcement agencies and this information cannot be accessed by it from the service providers. It also contended that accessing such information and then disclosing it to the public would imperil national security After hearing the plea, the bench has issued notice to Kabir Shankar Bose, the RTI applicant and Supreme Court lawyer, and asked him to indicate his stand on the plea by the telecom regulator by Jan 16, 2019, the next date of hearing. Earlier, a single bench of the Delhi High Court had ordered Trai to provide information regarding phone tapping, under the provi- sion of the Right To Information (RTI) Act if the service providers refuses to do so. In its order dated Nov 20, 2018, Justice Suresh Kait said that “Under Section 12 of the TRAI Act, 1997, Trai has power to call for any information, conduct investigations, etc., where, the authority considers it expedient so to do, it may by order in writing. It cannot be said that Trai has no power to call information from the private body ie Vodafone India. Admittedly, Trai is regulating the services in India.” The court cited the case of Poorna Prajna Public School vs Central Information Commission & Ors. in WP(C). No. 7265/2018 Trai files appeal against phone tapping direction Single judge of Delhi High had said that Trai should collect information from Vodafone and provide it to the RTI applicant