Passport details of husband denied on the ground that it was third party information exempt u/s 8(1)(j) – CIC: order upheld – if appellant has doubts about the husband leaving the country, she can bring up this matter before the competent court
1. In her RTI application, the Appellant had sought the passport details of the person she claims to be her husband. The CPIO had refused to disclose the information on the ground that it was exempt under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the Right to Information (RTI) Act as the disclosure of such information could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the passport holder. Not satisfied with this, the Appellant had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority had disposed of the appeal by endorsing the stand taken by the CPIO.
2. We have carefully considered the facts of the case. We tend to agree with the stand taken by the Appellate Authority in the case. Although the Appellant claims that the passport details being sought are that of her husband, even then, there is no doubt that this is about a third party and, therefore, it cannot ordinarily be disclosed. Instead, we would like to advise the Appellant that if she has doubts, as aired by her during the hearing, about the intentions of her husband to leave the country during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, using the passport issued to him she can bring up this matter before the competent court and seek its protection.
3. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Smt. Darshna, W/o Sh. Sanjay Mehla v. Ministry of External Affairs in File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000396.