TelecomLive January-2019

RTI on phone tapping www.telecomlive.com 47 Telecom LIVE January 2019 He contended that as per Section 12 of the TRAI Act, Trai can call upon any service provider at any time to furnish in writing such information or explanation relating to its affairs as the Authority may require. Trai also have the power to issue such directions to service providers as it may consider necessary for proper functioning of service providers. CIC in the orders said that Trai should collect information from the concerned service provider (as sought by the appellant in his RTI application) and the same should be furnished to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this ruling, Trai approached Delhi high court. The question before the court was that if the service provider declined to furnish the informa- tion sought on the ground that the service provider is not a public authority and does not come under RTI Act, then, whether Trai, who is regulating services, is the appropriate authority? In its response, Trai cited the case of Central Board of Second- ary Education and Another vs Aditya Bandopadhyay and ors. (2011) 8 SCC 497 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “63. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material avail- able in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” “67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountabil- ity in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnish- ing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. used to distinguish and in contradistinction to the term “public authority” as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Thus, information which a public authority is entitled to access, under any law, from private body, is information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and has to be furnished.” Thus, the court said it is settled that an interpretation 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 assessed by public authority under any law for the time being inforce. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access informa- tion from a private body, under any other law, it is information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Thus, it is obligation on the public authority to get the infor- mation from the private body and furnish the same to the applicant. Background Mr Bose had sought informa- tion from its operator Vodafone whether his number was placed under surveillance or tracking or tapping by any agency, under whose direction, and by which agency. Vodafone India, however, said that since it's not a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005, it is not liable to provide any such information. Telecom Consumer Complaint Redressal Regulations, 2012 says if the consumers have any com- plaint towards the service pro- vider, they can make the com- plaint. If the complaint is not redressed by the said Authority, then he may file an appeal. Since Mr Bose, was not having any mechanism to get the information, he approached the Chief Informa- tion Commission (CIC) regarding the information he wanted to seek.