Central Information Commission
Adv. Abhishek Sharma vs Embassy Of India, Muscat, Sultanate Of ... on 1 September, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EIMSO/A/2024/618174
Shri Abhishek Sharma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Embassy of India, Muscat, Sultanate of ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Oman
Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025
Date of Decision : 28.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.11.2023
PIO replied on : 22.11.2023
First Appeal filed on : 05.01.2024
First Appellate Order on : 30.01.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 01.05.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Send the certified copy of list of the names, address and contacts of Indian prisoners in the area of Gulf and other countries such as Bahrain, Saudi Arab, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Bangla Desh, Kuwait, Egypt, Turkey etc. putted up in the record of Government of India from 1947 to 2023 who are citizen of India including arrested, convicted, under trail and set free by respective courts including their case files under RTI Act, 2005 also includes the details of Prisoners of War"
The CPIO, Embassy of India at Muscat vide letter dated 22.11.2023 replied as under:-
"2. The information sought is not available in desired format. However, as per available records, the number of Indian nationals currently lodged in Omani jails is 135, of which 73 are convicted and 62 are in detention undergoing trials. There is no Prisoner of War Case in Oman.
3. The names, address and contact details of the jailed inmates cannot be disclosed as the information has been shared in confidence by a foreign government and is available with Embassy in fiduciary capacity. Besides, the sought information is personal in nature and the disclosure of which has no relationship with any public activity or interest. Hence, the information sought by Page 1 of 3 you is exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(f) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, the same cannot be provided under RTI."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.01.2024. The FAA, First Secretary (L&CW) vide order dated 30.01.2024 replied as under:-
"3. On careful examination of the available records, it is confirmed that the number of Indian nationals lodged in Omani jails is 135, of which 73 are convicted and 62 are in detention undergoing trials. There is no Prisoner of War case in Oman. The information available is provided by the local government of the current number of prisoners in various Jails in the country containing only names, passport number, crime and period of sentence. There are no records available in Mission containing information on prisoners starting from 1947.
4. The information sought by the applicant in respect of individual Indian prisoners is third party information which is personal in nature and disclosing such information may cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the concerned individuals. Hence, the undersigned comes to the conclusion that the reply given by the CPIO is in order and as such information cannot be shared in terms of Section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. The appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 31.07.2025 has been received from the CPIO/Third Secretary, Embassy of India at Muscat reiterating the PIO's reply and the FAA's order. He also cited the decision of the Apex Court in the celebrated case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay in support of denial of voluminous information which would attract provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The Respondent relied upon the Supreme Court's another decision passed in the case of CPIO, Supreme Court vs. S C Agrawal and contended that disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant would not serve any 'public interest' as such and added that the Appellant could also avail information about Indians in foreign jails from the weblink: www.mea.gov.in/lok- sabha-htm?dtl/37377.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal- RTI Consultant was present during hearing.
The Appellant stated that he was not satisfied with the information sent by the Respondent and claimed that information about Indian citizens held prisoners from 1947 to 2023 in the Gulf countries, specifically the 15 nations he has specified in his RTI application, should be put out in public domain.
The Respondent reiterated contents from the PIO's reply and the FAA's order stating that details like names, addresses and contacts sought by the Appellant are personal Page 2 of 3 information related to third party individuals and hence disclosure of the same was declined in terms of provisions of the RTI Act to prevent violation of privacy of the individuals. However, the number of Indian prisoners in Omani jails has been duly provided. In addition, the representative for the Respondent reiterated the contents of the written submission dated 31.07.2025 in support of the stance taken by the Respondent.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case and averments of both parties reveals that the information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant by the Respondent from existing public records. Hence, the Respondent - CPIO/Third Secretary, Embassy of India at Muscat is directed to send a copy of the written submission dated 31.07.2025 to the Appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard within one week thereafter.
Since the response of the PIO is found legally appropriate, 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)