Delhi HC issues notice on writ petition seeking extent of e-surveillance carried out by MHA under S. 69 of IT Act

Since 2018, we sought data on e-surveillance from MHA,which was denied for national security reasons. On appeal, it was held that data is periodically destroyed and subsequently the CIC held that information wasn't maintained at all. Delhi HC issued notice on our petition challenging the CIC order.

22 March, 2023
3 min read

tl;dr

Since December 2018, we have been seeking information on e-surveillance by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Initially, it was denied for national security reasons. On appeal, it was denied again on grounds that minimal data was maintained, and that records are periodically destroyed. When we further appealed, the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) held that the information wasn't maintained at all. We challenged the decision of the CIC in the Delhi High Court. The matter came up for hearing on 21.03.2023 and the court was pleased to issue notice.

Why should you care?

Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act, 2000’) allows the government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received, or stored in any computer resource. This grants the Central Government the power to conduct an all-around e-surveillance on citizens, even decrypting encrypted data on their devices.

To facilitate an informed discussion on the legality and practices of e-surveillance in India, it is important to know the total number of surveillance orders issued by the government. Six RTI applications were filed by us to obtain statistical data on the total number of e-surveillance orders issued in 2018 under Section 69 of the IT Act, but we are yet to receive the information.

Background


We have gone from pillar to post in order to get information on e-surveillance from the MHA. Here is a quick summary of the back-and-forth we have faced:

Date

Particular

28.12.2018

Six RTIs were filed seeking statistical information about e-surveillance orders issued under Section 69 of the IT Act.

29.01.2019

The Central Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’) rejected the Six RTIs on national security grounds.

15.02.2019

We filed first appeals challenging the rejection of the 6 RTIs.

29.03.2019

The First Appellate Authority (‘FAA’) rejected the first appeals stating that there was no reason to intervene. 

06.05.2019

We filed second appeals before the CIC against rejection of the first appeals.

18.05.2021

CIC found that the national security exception was not applicable, and directed the FAA to re-examine the issues. Note, the CIC only listed the appeals after two years! 

30.07.2021

FAA issued a revised order now stating that information sought by the Petitioner was not available with the CPIO, and so cannot be provided.

23.08.2021

We filed another second appeal challenging FAA’s revised order.

28.01.2022

CIC admonished the CPIO for belatedly changing its stance but still held that the MHA is not the custodian of the information sought by us. CIC also sought an affidavit from the MHA confirming that it did not maintain the data in question. (‘CIC Order’)

17.02.2022

The CPIO, MHA filed an affidavit parroting the CIC’s order stating “MHA does not maintain any statistical data; desired information is not available” 


Proceedings before the Delhi High Court


On 28.03.2022, we filed a writ petition challenging the CIC Order on four grounds. First, we argued that the MHA is the custodian of the information we sought. Second, MHA and its officers have taken inconsistent positions during different stages of the proceedings. Third, we argued that the MHA cannot destroy the information sought by us while the RTI proceedings are ongoing. And, fourth, similar information has been provided by the MHA previously in similar RTI requests.

On 05.04.2022, the case was listed for the first time before Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court. Senior Advocate Trideep Pias appeared on our behalf and pointed out a Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’) issued by the MHA which prescribes the procedure for storage and destruction of records relating to issuing of e-surveillance orders. The Court directed the counsel for the respondents to seek instructions on specific paragraphs of the SOP that pertain to the maintenance of e-surveillance records.

On 09.11.2022, the Respondents sought 3 weeks to file a response. On 20.03.2023, the respondents filed a counter affidavit reiterating their earlier stand.
The case was heard on 21.03.2023 by Justice Pratibha Singh, who was pleased to issue notice. The case will now be listed for final arguments in September 2023.

We are immensely grateful to Sr. Adv. Mr. Trideep Pais for his consistent guidance and leadership in this matter, and to IFF Of Counsel Ms. Vrinda Bhandari for leading the arguments. Ms. Bhandari was assisted by the IFF legal team, comprising Advocates Gautam Bhatia, Abhinav Sekhri, Tanmay Singh and Gayatri Malhotra.


Important Documents

  1. Counter Affidavit dated 20.03.2023 (link)
  2. Writ Petition in Apar Gupta v CPIO, MHA & Ors. (link)
  3. Order of the Delhi High Court dated 21.04.2022 (link)
  4. Previous blogpost titled “Delhi HC directs MHA to clarify its position on maintenance of e-surveillance data” (link)

Subscribe to our newsletter, and don't miss out on our latest updates.

Similar Posts

1
#FreeAndFair: Launching IFF’s Election Website

As the country gears up for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, we watch every technological development that may affect electoral integrity. Visit the IFF election website freeandfair.in to read about IFF’s actions and efforts. 

5 min read

2
Your personal data, their political campaign? Beneficiary politics and the lack of law

As the 2024 elections inch closer, we look into how political parties can access personal data of welfare scheme beneficiaries and other potential voters through indirect and often illicit means, to create voter profiles for targeted campaigning, and what the law has to say about it.

6 min read

3
Press Release: Civil society organisations express urgent concerns over the integrity of the 2024 general elections to the Lok Sabha

11 civil society organisations wrote to the ECI, highlighting the role of technology in affecting electoral outcomes. The letter includes an urgent appeal to the ECI to uphold the integrity of the upcoming elections and hold political actors and digital platforms accountable to the voters. 

2 min read

Donate to IFF

Help IFF scale up by making a donation for digital rights. Really, when it comes to free speech online, digital privacy, net neutrality and innovation — we got your back!