Delhi High Court Gives 3 Weeks To Centre To Reply On E-Surveillance Petition

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted three weeks to the Centre to file its response to a petition concerning the disclosure of information on state-sponsored electronic surveillance under the Right To Information Act.

Senior advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for petitioner Apar Gupta, told the court that despite the Centre being asked to convey its stand on earlier occasions, it is yet to file its reply and emphasised that he does not want the "actual intercepts" but only the "statistical data" on the matter.

Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, representing the Centre, sought more time from the court to respond to the petitioner's case.

"Counsel appearing for the respondent prays for and is granted three weeks' further time to file a response," Justice Yashwant Varma said.

In July, the court had given six weeks to the Centre to file its reply to the petition which challenges a Central Information Commission (CIC) order refusing to direct disclosure of certain data on state-sponsored electronic surveillance.

In April, the court had asked the respondent counsel to seek instructions in the case.

The petitioner, co-founder and executive director of Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and also a lawyer, had in December 2018 filed six applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking details of the number of orders passed under Section 69 of the Information Technology Act granting permission for electronic surveillance during a certain period.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner earlier submitted that he was only seeking the statistical data on "how many times" interception was resorted to and nothing else.

The petitioner said while deciding his second appeal under the RTI regime, the CIC proceeded upon an erroneous understanding of the law and failed to sufficiently examine the "belated" averment of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) that the data sought had been destroyed and no longer available.

In the petition filed through lawyer Vrinda Bhandari, the petitioner has informed that according to the Centre Public Information Officer's (CPIO's) stand before the CIC, the home ministry did not maintain any statistical information related to lawful interception and monitoring, but did not cite any statutory provision or even an internal policy that supports its stand.

"No personally identifiable information was sought in the RTI queries. The petitioner did not ask for details of specific interception orders or the identity or profile of the targeted individuals, but instead sought anonymous and aggregate figures to understand the extent of state surveillance. Further, the queries relate to data that the respondents ought to have in their possession, since only the MHA is empowered to issue such orders," the petition has said.

It said in 2019, the CPIO had disposed of the petitioner's requests for information, stating that the disclosure of information related to lawful interception/phone tapping/monitor or decrypt, is exempted under section 8(1)(a), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and the same was subsequently not interfered with by the First Appellate Authority.

The petition also seeks guidelines and directions to prevent destruction of information sought in RTI proceedings on account of the absence of rules or practices on weeding out of documents during the pendency of RTI proceedings.

The matter will be heard next in March.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)