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 to Information (RTI) proceedings about the alleged tapping of a phone of a mobile user, happened to be a lawyer.
Both the CIC and the single-judge had in their order ruled in favour of the mobile user, Kabir Shankar Bose, as they directed the TRAI to collect and furnish information under the RTI Act, about his alleged phone tapping.
Both the orders have been challenged by the TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) before the two-judge bench of the Delhi HC, which had, however, allowed 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 of the Delhi HC, Bose taking to TNIE, said that he shall move the Supreme Court challenging against it. "Let the Supreme Court hear the matter, as I shall move the Apex Court challenging the double bench order very soon," Bose told TNIE.
The Supreme Court, in its order, noted that TRAI was established to regulate telecom services to protect the interest of the service providers and consumers in the telecom sector and to promote and ensure an orderly growth of the sector.
Lawyer 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 of Bose and asked the TRAI to give the information to him and then this CIC order was challenged by TRAI in a single-judge bench of the 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 directions to intercept a phone number are issued only by government officials of certain 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".