Is the information given to a public authority for getting a pass-port liable for disclosure?
The appellant sought information about certified copies of oath certificate, departure date and passport issue date of few persons who went Saudi Arab persons. The PIO refused disclosure information claiming that third party information cannot be disclosed without taking the views of the third party as per Sec. 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.
View of CIC
The respondents stated that the present whereabouts of the third parties are not maintained by the Ministry and relied upon the case of Suhash Chakma Vs. CIC in W.P.(C) No. 9118 of 2009. The Commission observed that if the third party’s address is not located, it does not mean that the citizen’s right to information would disappear. Section 11 is a procedural requirement that gives third party an opportunity to voice an objection in releasing the information. After examining the documents, the Commission held that the information sought is not exempt under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act and directed to provide the information. The PIO submitted that the information is available in English Language and therefore the appellant must give the names for the persons he wants information about in English Language. The Commission agreed and directed the appellant to provide the names of the persons in English by 15th March failing which the case will be treated as closed.
The Commission has held that where the State routinely obtains information from Citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and disclosure will not be an intrusion on privacy. This view has differed in cases of decisions of the other benches.
Citation: Mr. Muhammad Sajid v. Ministry of External Affairs in file no. CIC/SG/A/2011/003712
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/110
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission