Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Parul Nahar vs Cpv Division on 6 May, 2026

                                   के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं      ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CPVEX/A/2024/645055

 Parul Nahar                                                     ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम


 CPIO
 Regional Passport Office
 Kota, Rajasthan
                                                               ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 23.08.2024             FA    : 12.09.2024            SA       : 10.10.2024

 CPIO : 12.09.2024            FAO : 07.10.2024              Hearing : 05.05.2026


Date of Decision: 05.05.2026

                                     CORAM
                Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
                                     ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.08.2024, before the CPIO, MEA - Consular, Passport & Visa Division (CPV), seeking information as under:

"I have applied for the passport reissue of my minor daughter via File No. KT2076324582924 on 4th March 2024.

Annex C was submitted along with the application since custody of my minor daughter is with me as the biological mother and the biological father (who has visitation rights) is refusing to give the consent. The divorce was with mutual consent.

However, still there is a sole objection letter issued with Reference No. OBJ/317710363/24 dated 19 Apr 2024 asking to submit the consent of biological father and the passport has not been issued till date. There is no other objection raised or additional document requested.

I request the Passport Office to please review the application and advise:

1. Why passport is not being issued as per provisions of Annex C Paragraph II (b) and Paragraph III which specifically applies when legal custody of the minor daughter is with the mother who is applying for the passport and father (with visitation rights) is wilfully not giving the consent.

2. As per Chapter 4/Section 4.4 of the passport guideline manual available on the department website, children also have a fundamental right to travel and the other parent cannot willfully prevent them from travelling abroad. Pls advise why this fundamental right is being ignored while reviewing the passport application of my minor daughter.

3. Further, as per Chapter 4/Section 4.5 of the manual, where one of the parent willfully refuses to give consent and thus denying the fundamental right of the children to travel, passport may be issued to the child after receipt of affidavit in the form of Annex C obtained from the parent having the custody of the child. Pls advise why this provision is not being applied for my daughter passport application.

I further state that custody of my daughter is with me and issuance of a passport to her is for her future education abroad and for her best welfare, visitation rights of the father are not affected in any way by grant of a passport to my daughter.

I, as the mother of the child, is running pillar to post to get the passport issued, while the father who himself stays out of India is willfully preventing the issuance of the passport.

I sincerely request the passport department again to please process the passport application of my daughter as soon as possible."

2. The CPIO replied to the RTI Application on 12.09.2024, as under:

"Passport application KT2076324582924 of your daughter Vanisha Nainawatee is under process. Response of objection letter OBJ/317710363/24 is awaited. You can take appointment for enquiry at RPO Kota for further query."

3. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 12.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 07.10.2024 held as under:

"Passport application KT2076324582924 of your daughter Vanisha Nainawatee is under process. Response of objection letter OBJ/317710363/24 is awaited. Divorce paper has been rechecked and hence father's consent on Annexure D is mandatory."

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 10.10.2024, inter alia stating as under:

"I request the respected Authorities to please consider the future welfare and education of my minor daughter and grant her a passport for travel and unite with the family. Divorce agreement was executed with mutual consent, and she is under my legal custody and welfare. Additionally, pls consider a natural justice for the biological mother who is running pillar to post and approaching Authorities since last 7 months to get a passport for her child, and instead the onus and the responsibility should be put on the biological father to approach the Authorities for a suitable redressal in case of any grievance, and this principle of natural justice is also referred to in the Chapter 4 / Section 4.5 of the attached guidelines. Sir, pls help."

Hearing Proceedings & Decision

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Advocate P. RoyChaudhuri attended the hearing in person.

6. The Appellant recapitulated the contents of the RTI Application and the Second Appeal under reference and sought redressal of her grievance. She further contended that Page 3 of 6 Second Appeal No. CIC/CPVEX/A/2024/645055 the Respondent office has informed her, after two years of filing the RTI Application, the reasons for which the passport application of her minor daughter had been kept pending.

7. The Advocate for the Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and stated that the same was intended to facilitate her. The Advocate for the Respondent further sought to explain in detail the factual position of the averred passport application and the process involved in the issuance/renewal of passport of minors as had been already submitted to the Commission vide letter dated 24.04.2026 by the CPIO.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that at the outset that the Appellant has not sought for any 'information' as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and instead she has sought reasons/justification as well as prayed for processing the Passport application. It needs to be appreciated that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions/inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subjected to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:

"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."

9. Given the facts of the instant case, the attention of the parties is drawn towards a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] which inter-alia observed as under:

"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." Emphasis Supplied

10. Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."

(Emphasis Supplied)

11. And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:

"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.

Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;

The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."

(Emphasis Supplied)

12. Having observed as above, the Commission finds the instant appeal as not maintainable. However, irrespective of the prima-facie empathetic consideration accorded to the matter vide the reply of the CPIO and the FAA's order, the disposal of the RTI Application and the First Appeal, respectively, ought to have been in alignment with the provisions of the RTI Act.

13. With the above observations, the Appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

                                                (Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल)
                                      Information Commissioner (मु     सूचना आयु )
                                                              िदनां क/Date: 05.05.2026

Authenticated true copy

Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार)
Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक)
011-26186535

Page 6 of 6                                         Second Appeal No. CIC/CPVEX/A/2024/645055

Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)