Delhi HC nixes plea on phone tapping
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of its single-judge bench and also the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) direction to telecom regulator TRAI to collect and furnish information under Right toInformation (RTI) proceedings about the alleged phone tapping of a person, who is also a lawyer.
Both the CIC and the single-judge bench of the high court had in their order ruled in favour of the mobile user, Kabir Shankar Bose, as they directed the TRAI to collect and furnish information about his alleged phone tapping.
The order was challenged by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) before the two-judge bench of the Delhi HC, which allowed the TRAI’s plea. “The said an act of surveillance is carried out under the government’s directions and in the interest of the country’s sovereignty and integrity,” the division bench of the Delhi HC said while refusing to grant relief to Bose.
After the pronouncement of the two-judge bench order, Bosem while taking to this newspaper, said he would move the Supreme Court challenging the verdict in favour of the TRAI. “Let the Supreme Court hear the matter, as I shall move the court challenging the double bench order very soon,” Bose said.
The high court noted that TRAI was established to regulate telecomservices to protect the interest of the service providers and consumers in the telecom sector and to promote and ensure orderly growth of the sector.
Bose had primarily filed an RTI application in the CIC after his telecom service provider, Vodafone, declined his request for information on whether his phone was being tapped. The CIC passed the ruling in favour ofBose and asked the TRAI to give theinformation to him. The CIC order was challenged by TRAI in a single-judge bench ofthe Delhi HC, which had also upheld the order of the CIC and granted Bose the relief.
The telecom regulator had refused to give information to Bose citing that directionsto intercept a phone number are issued only by government officials ofcertain ranks and such information cannot be collated by it and furnished to a consumer or subscriber as it would “prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of the nation”.