Information pertaining to particulars of a passport of third party was denied u/s 8(1)(j) stating that as per Delhi High Court order, passport number of a third party can be misused - CIC: action taken by the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act
14 Aug, 2015ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 19.01.2013 seeking information pertaining to particulars of a certain passport.
2. The CPIO responded on 11.02.2013 and denied information to the appellant 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 the RTI Act. The appellant filed his first appeal on 26.02.2013 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 18.03.2013 and upheld the decision of CPIO. The appellant filed a second appeal on 28.11.2013 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The appellant participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent participated in the hearing personally.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 19.01.2013 and stated that he was seeking information pertaining to passport numbers of other persons, their residential addresses, date of issue and certified copies of the documents submitted for identification.
5. The respondent stated that the CPIO in his response to the appellant on 11.02.2013 denied information to the appellant 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 the RTI Act as the information sought is exempted from the disclosure as the same is not likely to serve any larger public interest and the information sought was related to a third party. The FAA upheld the decision of CPIO on 18.03.2013.
6. The appellant stated that in an identical case the Commission in his decision No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000718/VS/06125 dated 17.02.2014 had ordered that if the appellant would provide the essential background information to identify the passport holder, the respondent will provide the information sought in the RTI application dated 11.02.2013. The appellant stated that the information sought by the respondent was provided on 09.04.2014 and besides this no information has been provided by the respondent for which penalty should be imposed for not adhering the timelines prescribed in the RTI Act.
7.The respondent stated that there is an order of Delhi High Court, i.e., Union of India V/S R. Jayachandran and Ministry of External Affairs, WPC 3406/2012 date of decision is 19th February 2014 in which it is stated that "if passport number of a third party is furnished to an applicant, it can be misused. For instance, if the applicant were to lodge a report with the police that a passport bearing a particular number is lost, the Passport Authority would automatically revoke the same without knowledge and to the prejudice of the third party."
8. The action taken by the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act.
Decision:
9. The decision of the FAA is upheld. Commission's intervention is not required in the matter. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Bhupinder Singh Jassal v. Regional PSP Office in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2013/002336/09853