What should a PIO do if a third party is not traceable?
3 Jul, 2012Background
The appellant sought information regarding a person such as the year in which he has obtained the passport from the passport office, whether he utilized the passport for his foreign employment and the years in which he went abroad and return from foreign country to India. He also wanted to know whether between 1994 and 2002, the passport holder stayed in India at the said address or he was abroad. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the application fee was deposited by the way of court fee stamp which was not acceptable and instructed the appellant for the payment of fee by the prescribed mode. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) referred to the Delhi High Court decision [in WP(C) no. 9118 of 2009] and rejected the appeal stating that it pertained to third party and the same was barred from disclosure under section (8)(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that information sought by the appellant regarding the year of obtaining the passport may be available with the public authority but other information would not be available with the passport office. The Commission also noted that the respondent has refused to give the information claiming 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 the RTI Act stating that the third party information cannot be disclosed without taking the views of the third party and further stated that the present whereabouts of the third parties were not maintained by the Ministry. The Commission ruled that if the third party’s address was not located it does not mean the citizen’s right to information would disappear as section 11 is a procedural requirement that gives third party an opportunity to voice an objection in releasing the information. The Commission held that the PIO should keep in mind that denial of information can only be on the basis of exemption under section 8 (1) of the RTI act. As per section 11(3), the PIO has to determine whether the information is exempt or not and inform the appellant and the third party of his decision. If no objection is received from third party, information has to be disclosed. If the third party sends an objection, the PIO has to determine whether the information is exempt under the provisions of the Act and the third party can file an appeal against the decision of the PIO under section 19 of the Act as per the provision of section 11(4). The Commission did not accept the PIO’s contention that information provided by an applicant when applying for passport is 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. 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 and directed the PIO to provide the information the year of issue of passport, if it was available in record.
Comments
The question of privacy has received different interpretations from different benches of CIC. In this regard, a PIO often faces the dilemma whether to consider every information submitted to a public authority as liable to disclosure.
Citation: Mr. G. Eric Marshan v. Ministry of External Affairs in Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000928/19149
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/437
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission