CIC: Disclose data regarding year of death, total number of deaths of Indians, sex of the deceased & cause of death - MEA should apprise Indian Missions to take steps for suo motu disclosure of the above information; Embassies to adopt a uniform approach

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.08.2018 seeking information on the following 02 points:-

1. year-wise list of the names, age, sex, and occupation of Indian workers who died in the countries of Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates between 01 January, 2012 till date.
2. The cause of death as mentioned in the death certificates of every deceased Indian worker referred to at para 1 above for the same period.

Response from Embassy of India, Bahrain

The PIO /Second Secretary, Embassy of India, Bahrain vide order dated

11.08.2018 replied as under:-

2. The number of people who died in Bahrain, during last three years is as follows-

Year                 No. of deaths

2012                193

2013                163

2014                175

2015                223

2016                186

2017            237

2018          140 (up to 31/7/18

3. As regards the list of names, age, sex, occupation and cause of death of the persons who died in Bahrain, please note that the information sought by you falls in the category of Personal Information, which is exempted from disclosure under para 8(j) of RTI Act 2005

Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, Embassy of India, Bahrain, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.09.2018. The FAA/Ambassador vide order dated 17.09.2019 stated as under:-

With reference to the aforementioned appeal, it is stated that the CPIO had correctly informed that the information sought for being in the category of ‘personal information’ cannot be divulged. It may be noted that this information is exempted from disclosure under para 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. 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, 2005.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Response from Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi

The PIO /SS(PIEC), Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi vide order dated 19.08.2018 replied as under:-

The information sought for is exempt from disclosure 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. 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, 2005 as it is a third party information and relates to privacy of an individual.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 11.10.2018 upheld the reply of the PIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Response from Embassy of India, Doha Qatar

The PIO /SS(HOC), Embassy of India, Doha Qatar vide order dated 06.09.2018 replied as under:-

Information in the format sought by you cannot be provided as this will disproportionately divert the resources of the Embassy. Further, personal details of the deceased Indians cannot be shared 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. 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, 2005. Seeking the consent of the families for sharing the personal details of the deceased numbering over a thousand will disproportionately divert the limited resources of the Embassy.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, Embassy of India, Doha, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 10.10.2018 stated as under:-

4. The Appellant had sought a year-wise list of names, age, sex, occupation, and cause of death as mentioned in the death certificate of every Indian worker who had died in the countries of Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE between 01.01.2012 and the date of his application. Such a list is not maintained by the Embassy and compiling such a list of more than 1500 names would have disproportionately diverted the resources of the Embassy. Furthermore, even if such a list could be compiled, the lost would not have been made public as no larger public interest would be served by publishing such a list. The total number of deaths of Indian nationals registered in the Embassy and the cause of their deaths categorised by accidents, natural deaths and suicides for the period sought by the Appellant had already been provided to him, and there is no overriding public interest in sharing other details like name, sex and occupation of the deceased. Many families do not wish to publicise details of the deaths of their dear ones, especially so, in cases of suicides. Such information is therefore denied unless there is some overriding public interest involved. In the present case, there is no overriding public interest and the FAA is therefore, of the opinion that details other than those provided need not be given to the Appellant. Also, it is seen from the documents provided by the Appellant that the Embassy of India, Muscat has also not provided him these details and the Embassy of India, Kuwait has stopped publishing such details from 2018.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Response from Embassy of India, Kuwait

The PIO /SS(HOC), Embassy of India, Kuwait vide order dated 14.08.2018 replied as under:-

The list of the Indian nationals who died in Kuwait has been uploaded in the Embassy’s website every month (www.indembkwt.gov.in) Therefore, you are requested to check the Embassy’s website to get the information as required.

Response from Embassy of India, Muscat

The PIO /SS(HOC), Embassy of India, Muscat vide order dated 04.09.2018 replied as under:-

2. Nevertheless, in the spirit of the RTI Act, and in public interest, the total number of deaths of Indians (not only workers) in Oman, as per information available with the embassy, year-wise are as follows:

Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, Embassy of India, Muscat, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 04.10.2018 upheld the reply of the PIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Response from Embassy of India, Riyadh

The PIO /SS(CW), Embassy of India, Riyadh vide order dated 19.08.2018 replied as under:-

1&2. The information sought is exempted from being disclosed 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. 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.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 16.10.2018 upheld the reply of the PIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the CPIO, Embassy of India, Bahrain vide letter dated 28.07.2021 and the same has been taken on record.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that only certain generic information was sought in his RTI application disclosure of which will not lead to violation of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further stated that the information sought is in the larger public interest as substantial foreign remittances made by Indian workers working outside India are a major source of foreign exchange for India. He further stated that the Indian Embassies in Kuwait and Bahrain have provided some information to him.
However, none of the public authorities have disclosed information about occupation details of deceased Indian workers.

Shri Saqib, Advocate representing Embassy of India, Bahrain participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that right to information is not an absolute right and is subject to the provisions of the Act. He further stated that the information available on the website of the embassy is only for the purpose of transportation of mortal remains and contains only the name, date and cause of death and disposal mode, etc which is required for logistical purposes. However, information about occupation details of a deceased citizen is not disclosed being personal information exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further stated that the details already uploaded on the website for the year 2014-18 may fall within the definition of personal information hence it is presently explored if these details can be removed from the website.

Decision

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission notes that there is a variation in the replies provided by the various Embassies. It is recommended that a uniform approach should be adopted by the Embassies and Consulates General, in responding to such queries.

Considering that disclosure of details as sought by the Appellant, can lead to its misuse, hence the Commission is not inclined to allow disclosure of information which is likely to be used in abusing the process of law.

Under the circumstances, balancing larger public interest with the right to privacy of the deceased and their families, the Commission hereby directs the various Respondents who are parties in this case to disclose data in future regarding year of death, total number of deaths of Indians, sex of the deceased and cause of death, if available. The Nodal PIO, MEA and PIO CPV Division, MEA should apprise Indian Missions and Posts to take steps for suo motu disclosure of the above information in future in accordance with Section 4 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Venkatesh Nayak v. Embassy of India - Abu Dhabi, Doha Qatar, Kuwait, Muscat, Riyadh, Manama, Bahrain in Second Appeal No. CIC/EIMBH/A/2019/102410, Date of Decision: 09.08.2021