Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Savio Sequeira vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 21 May, 2024

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                    के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                                बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/118902

Shri Savio Sequeira                                                ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                     VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,    Unique      Identification     Authority      of       ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
India(UIDAI)

Date of Hearing                            :   17.05.2024
Date of Decision                           :    17.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner             :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :             27.12.2022
PIO replied on                    :             04.01.2023
First Appeal filed on             :             19.01.2023
First Appellate Order on          :             08.02.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :             06.03.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:-

1) "CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANY MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE (possibly dated 11-05- 1993) AND ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS GIVEN TO YOUR OFFICE by LUCIA ANGELINE FOR USING HER NAME AS LUCIA ANGELINE COSMOS BERNARD FERREIRA in AADHAR CARD NO.: 52059703 4654 - ATTACHED HEREWITH.

2) CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANY DOCUMENTS OF OUR COUSIN COSMOS BERNARD FERREIRA IN HER APPLICATION FILE THAT SUPPORTS HER MARRIAGE STATUS TO COSMOS ""WITH HIS CONSENT WHILE ALIVE"", The Director & CPIO, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), RO, Mumbai vide letter dated 04.01.2023 replied as under:-

"...........After scrutiny of application, prima facie, it is observed that the application bears the cost of RTI application fee as Court fee stamp.

In this connection, it is intimated that as per the provision of the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005, a request for obtaining information under sub- section (1) of section 6 of RTI Act, 2005 in the organisation which falls under the Central Government shall be accompanied by an application Fee of Rs.10/- (Rupees ten only) by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheques or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer, UIDAI, Regional Office, Mumbai i.e. the public authority.

As per Para 9 of the guidelines for the Public Authorities under RTI Act circulated vide DOPT OM No. 1/4/2008 IR dated 25th April, 2008 only such information is required to be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is not required under the Act to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.

Further, it is intimated that the requested information vide above mentioned application cannot be provided as:-

(i) The information sought by the applicant is restricted by the provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, being the personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity of interest, on which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

(ii) The case laws have already been laid down in similar matters vide:- CIC's, New Delhi decision in the matter of

(a) Smt. Ujwala Jaywant Ubale V/s CPIO, UIDAI vide its order No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001409 dated 03.09.2015,

(b) Shri Hemant Kumar Ghanshyam Mishra V/s CPIO, UIDAI vide it's order No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001440 dated 27.09.2016,

(c) Shri Anil Kumar Jain V/s CPIO, UIDAI vide its order No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2019/150238 dated 01.07.2021 and,

(d) Shri Rahul Rajan Shinde V/s CPIO, UIDAI vide its order No. CIC/UIDAI/C/2020/600406 dated 10.08.2021 held that personal information of Aadhaar cannot be shared with third party; and

(iii) Further, The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (Aadhaar Act) and amendment made vide the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019, restricts the sharing of information, collected or created under the said Act except as per the provisions of the Aadhaar Act or the Regulations framed there under.

The only exception on the restriction on sharing of information is provided under Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act and amendment thereto. As per Section 33 (1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 as amended by the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 14 of 2019) any disclosure of information (other than core biometric information), including identity, information or authentication records can be made pursuant to an order of a court not inferior to that of a Judge of High Court and opportunity of hearing be provided to both UIDAI and the concerned Aadhaar Number holder.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 26.09.2018 IN THE MATTER OF JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) AND ANOTHER VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS in WP (C) 494 of 2012 had clarified that an individual, whose information is sought to be released, shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing. On receipt of such an order, in that eventuality, the individual shall have right to challenge such an order passed by approaching the higher court. During the hearing before the concerned court, the said individual can always object to the disclosure of information on accepted grounds in law, including Article 20 (3) of the Constitution or the privacy rights etc."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 08.02.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 09.05.2024 has been received from the CPIO reiterating the aforesaid facts.

Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Lt. Col. Amit Sethi - CPIO was present through video conference during hearing.

The Appellant present during hearing admitted having received response but was not satisfied because he claimed that information pertained to a family member, hence it could not be withheld from disclosure invoking the privacy clause. The Respondent present during hearing reiterated that information sought by the Appellant related to a third party and hence had been denied invoking provisions of the Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the Respondent present for hearing, it is noted that the Respondent had furnished appropriate reply, to the Appellant, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Respondent is directed to send a copy of the written submission dated 09.05.2024, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. Since no legal infirmity is found in the response sent by the Respondent, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya(हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)