Passports details of Sri V Ganesh, his wife and children including their address denied u/s 8(1)(j) – Sri V Ganesh was proclaimed as an offender by court – claimed that disclosure of address would help in bringing him to justice – denial upheld
8 Aug, 2013Order
1. In two nearly identical RTI applications, the Appellants had wanted to know about various details entered in the passports of Sri V Ganesh, his wife and children including their address as mentioned in the passports. The CPIO had declined the information in both the cases by claiming that it was personal information and exempt from disclosure under the provisions of 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. 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. Not satisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the Appellants had preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority who disposed of their appeals by endorsing the stand taken by the CPIO.
2. During the hearing, it was argued on behalf of the Appellants that the desired information, especially the address mentioned in the passport, should be disclosed mainly because Sri V Ganesh had been proclaimed as an offender by the order dated 26 October 2009 passed by the ACMM (West) / Delhi. They argued that the disclosure of the address of this individual would help in locating him and bringing him to justice. The respondent submitted that the proclamation of the passport holder as an offender by a court could not be considered to be sufficient ground for disclosure of his personal information as recorded in his passport or in the passports of his wife and children. He suggested that if the passport holder had been declared as an offender, the court could have been approached to direct the authorities to arrest and detain him and produce before the court rather than someone seeking his personal details under the RTI. The respondent also argued that the competent court could be approached for getting the passport impounded with a view to preventing the person concerned from leaving the country. In addition, he also submitted that the information seekers in both these cases appear not to have anything to do with the matter in which the competent court had declared the passport holder to be a proclaimed offender. On behalf of the Appellants, however, it was submitted that the Appellants represented the company in their capacity as Directors of the company.
3. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. We have taken a consistent view in such cases in the past that the passport details are the personal information of the passport holder. Such information is ordinarily not to be disclosed as provided in 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. 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 RTI Act. The only condition in which personal information can be disclosed is when such disclosure would serve a larger public interest. In the present case, very obviously, the personal details of the Sri V Ganesh and his family members are being sought for purely personal ends. Therefore, we do not think that there is enough justification to allow this information to disclose.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Sh. Devender Kumar Sharma v. Regional Passport Office, Ministry of External Affairs in File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000155 & 197