Central Information Commission
G M Chauhan vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 3 March, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Appeal No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2016/301949
Appellant: Mr. G. M. Chauhan,
Chairman RTI Cell,
Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
Sanskar Kendra Road,
Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
O/o Regional Passport Office, Opp. L.D. Engg.
College, Gulbai Tekra, Ahmedabad- 380006.
Date of Hearing: 28.02.2017
Dated of Decision: 28.02.2017
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 10.05.2016 seeking information regarding copies of applications submitted by Prime Minister Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi for obtaining first passport and subsequent renewal or fresh applications for obtaining diplomatic passport.
2. The CPIO responded on 16.05.2016. The appellant filed first appeal dated 20.06.2016. The FAA responded on 11.07.2016. Both denied information in pursuance of provision of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The appellant filed second appeal on 02.09.2016 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
The respondent participated in the hearing through counsel in person.
14. The appellant stated that:
"From the body of order passed by CPIO or appellate order passed by FAA, nowhere it transpires that:
(i) Shri Narendra Modi, has treated the information requested for as 'Confidential'.
(ii) CPIO has within 5 days from the receipt of request has given a notice to Shri Narendra Modi, of the request and of the fact that CPIO intends to disclose the information or record or part thereof, and has invited Shri Narendra Modi, to make submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed or not?
(iii) Notice has not been issued within stipulated period of 5 days from the receipt of request. Since no notice has been issued, there is no question of keeping in view of the submission of third party while taking a decision about disclosure of information as there will not be any submission from Shri Narendra Modi.
(iv) The information requested for is a case of trade or commercial secret protected by law. Since the information requested does not fall in this category the proviso will not come in picture.
(v) That the information requested for is not in public interest and its disclosure does not outweigh in importance and it may harm or cause injury to the interest of Shri Narendra Modi. Since information requested for relates to the public life of the erstwhile Chief Minister of Gujarat and present Prime Minister of India, the disclosure is in public interest and it outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party.
The information is very much in public domain in the form of 'Forms for candidature for Legislative Assembly and parliament elections."
5. The appellant to support his averments came up with following judgments:-
"(i) Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264:- The Apex Court while deciding a question concerning the freedom of press vis-a-vis the right to privacy of the citizens of this country held that , " A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can 2 publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy."
(ii) Shri Rajendra Kumar Arya v. Dy. Commissioner of Police (DCP) decided by CIC on 04.03.2009, whereby it was quoted that right to privacy virtually fades when larger public interest comes into play.
(iii) Madhilika Rastogi v. Regional Passport, New Delhi decided by CIC on 04.02.2009, it was noted that "As for the disclosure of the new passport number of the Appellant's spouse to the appellant, the Commission holds that disclosure of passport number cannot be considered as unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual and that denial under Section 8(1)(j) is not maintainable".
(iv Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain W.P.(c) No. 1243/2011, it was held by Delhi High Court on 6th November, 2012 that 'personal information' which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act cannot be disclosed unless involves a larger public interest.
(v) Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, LPA No. 501/2009, it was held that the citizens have right to know the true facts about the administration of the country.
(vi) S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that citizens have right to access the information pertaining to functioning of the government."
6. The appellant stated that procedure of Section 11 of the RTI Act has not been followed by the CPIO. The appellant further stated that the sought information pertains to public person, therefore it cannot be refused.
7. The appellant also stated that even if the sought for information is covered u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and is a third party information, provisions of the Section 11 have to be invoked.
8. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant is a third party information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, therefore they 3 have denied the same in view of Delhi High Court judgment in Union of India v. R Jaychandran, W.P. (C) 3406 of 2012 dated 19.02.2014.
9. The respondent further stated that Section 11 of the RTI Act can only be invoked if the CPIO intends to disclose personal information. The respondent also stated that once CPIO is satisfied that sought information is to be denied under Section 8(1) (j), Section 11 is not required to be invoked. Discussion/ observation:
10. The appellant in the instant appeal has admitted that third party information covered under section 8(1)(j) is being sought. He has, therefore, insisted that provisions of section 11 should have been followed.
11. It is observed that the opening words of Section 11 are "CPIO...intends to disclose...", which indicate that the procedure of Section 11 has to be followed only if CPIO intends to disclose the third party information.
12. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 19/02/2014 in Union of India v. R Jayachandran, W.P. (C) 3406/2012, has held that:
"Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions, this Court is of the view that the proper approach to be adopted in cases where personal information with regard to third parties is asked is first to determine whether information sought falls under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and if the Court/Tribunal reaches the conclusion that aforesaid exemption is not attracted, then the third party procedure referred to in Section 11(1) of the RTI Act must be followed before releasing the information."
13. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 31.10.2013 in WP (C) No. 677 of 2013 in the matter of Union of India v. Anita Singh held that:
"The passport of Mr. Ajeet Singh would have his personal information such as the address, date of birth and the name of his parents. The information such as date of birth and residential address of the passport holder would constitute personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, which cannot be disclosed to the respondents."4
14. From the above, the Commission observed that the sought for information is a third party information and covered under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. As brought out by respondent in para 9 the CPIO/FAA did not intend to part with the information. Hence, section 11 was not invoked.
15. The appellant has stated that the information is in public interest. Section 8(1)(j) permits release of personal information if larger public interest justifies it. In this regard the appellant has stated that Shri Modi is a public figure and that this information is already in public domain and hence the information should be released. However, this argument in no way establishes a larger public interest.
16. The action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application are, therefore, found to be satisfactory. Decision:
17. In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar 5