‘Personal Information’ of a Mobile Subscriber is outside the purview of RTI Act

In an important decision, Delhi High Court (“High Court”) has allowed a writ petition filed by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”) against the order of Central Information Commission (“CIC”). In the impugned order of CIC, TRAI was ordered to seek information of a mobile subscriber from the concerned service provider. [Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v. Yash Pal, judgment Dated 25^th October, 2013]

(Image Source: rationallibertariancorner.com)

Facts: The respondent, Yash Pal, had applied to the CPIO of TRAI seeking call and SMS details of certain mobile numbers. When his application was rejected by both the CPIO and the appellate authority, the respondent filed a second appeal before the CIC. By its order, CIC directed the TRAI to call for the requisite information subject to its availability with the  Service  Provider  and  pass  on  the  same  to  the  respondent. TRAI was required to do this by exercising its power under section 12(1) of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (“TRAI Act”). Against this order, TRAI filed the present petition before the High Court.

Relevant Legislations: Right to Information Act, 2005; Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997]

Bench: Single Judge [Justice V.K. Jain]

Findings of the High Court:

Apart from testing the power of TRAI to call such information from the concerned service provider, the High Court also framed the following issue: 

"whether the information sought by the respondent is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”)"

While allowing the petition, the High Court referred to section 2(f) of the RTI Act which defines the term ‘information’ as any material information in any form which can be accessed by a Public Authority. In the present case, the respondent had sought the information, such as call and SMS details, related to certain mobile numbers. In doing so, power of TRAI, under section 12(1) of the TRAI Act, was sought to be invoked. According to section 12(1) of the TRAI Act, the authority is empowered to call requisite information from the concerned service provider.

Allowing the petition, it was held by the High Court the said power to call information cannot be exercised by TRAI unless the same is required for discharging the functions assigned to it. Holding that the information, under section 12(1) of the TRAI, can be sought only in relation to the affairs of the Service Provider and not the affairs of a subscriber to telecom services, the court was of the opinion that:

                                       “...To provide information in respect of the subscribers of mobile telephones such as their names and addresses, their call  details  and  copies  of  the  SMSs  sent  by  them  certainly  are  not amongst the functions assigned to the Authority under Section 11 of   the Act....”

According to the High Court, if TRAI is allowed to call such personal information, it would be assuming unbridled power. Further, this will also lead to a situation where TRAI would be able to violate the privacy right of an individual. Hence, such personal nature of information cannot be sought by TRAI by exercising power under section 12(1) of the TRAI Act.

In addition to this, it was held by the court that, even if TRAI is allowed to procure such personal information, the same will be exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act. Of course, the such information can be disclosed if it is related to public activity or interest. Under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, personal information, which has no relation with any public activity or public interest, is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.  [Referred case: Union of India vs. Hardev Singh, W.P.(C)  No.  3444/2012, Delhi High Court, judgment dated 23.08.2013. In this case, the High Court interpreted section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act]

Explaining the meaning of the term ‘personal information’, the High Court referred to the case of UPSC versus R.K. Jain [W.P(C) No.1243/2011, Delhi High Court, decided on 13.7.2012]. In this case, it was held by the court that ‘personal information’ of an individual takes into its fold possibly every kind of information relating to the person.  Further, the court explained that the public activity of a person are those activities which are which are performed by the person in discharge of a public duty, i.e. in the public domain.

Having discussed the above legal position, the High Court, in the present case, was of the opinion that communications carried out by a mobile subscriber are his personal affairs. The same was therefore exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act.