Seeking information relating to travel details of ex-wife and son - appellant wanted the residential address of his divorced wife in connection with a court case - CIC: such information is one’s personal information and barred from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j)
29 Sep, 2013ORDER
Facts:
1. Appellant submitted RTI application dated 28 August 2012 before the CPIO, Immigration Office, Santacruz (West), Mumbai seeking information relating to his wife and son who travelled to Gulf country in between 24 April 2012 to 15 May 2012 through multiple points.
2. Vide CPIO Order dated 12 September 2012, CPIO denied the information on the ground of exemption 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. 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 RTI Act, 2005.
3. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the Appellant preferred First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority dated 05 October 2012.
4. Vide FAA Order dated 31 October 2012, the FAA requested the appellant to approach the Immigration Authorities, Bureau of Immigration, East BlockVIII, LevelII, Sector1, R. K. Puram, New Delhi66.
5. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the Public Authority, the Appellant preferred Second Appeal before the Commission.
6. Matter was heard today. Appellant was present at Sholapur and was heard via videoconferencing. CPIO was present at Mumbai and made submissions via audio conferencing. Representative of the first appellate authority appeared in person. Appellant clarified that he wanted to have the residential address of his divorced wife Ms Nazia who had since remarried and moved to Bahrain along with her husband and minor son (offspring of Ms Nazia and the appellant) in connection with a court case. CPIO stated that the information sought by the appellant was held by the Bureau of Immigration and also that information was protected under the provisions of section 8 (1)(j) of the Act.
Decision notice
After hearing all the parties, Commission upholds the order of the CPIO and the first appellate authority and denies the disclosure of the requested information 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 Act. Appellant is free to obtain the requested information through the appropriate court.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Citation: Sh. Tauseef Saleem Nadaf v. Min. of Overseas Indian Affairs in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002634