Central Information Commission
Asmita Sachin Waman vs Passport Office on 15 May, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मिु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/PASOF/A/2018/155140-BJ
Ms. Asmita Sachin Waman
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & DPIO
Ministry Of External Affairs
Regional Passport Office, Hudko Trikoot- III
Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram
New Delhi - 110066
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.05.2020
Date of Decision : 15.05.2020
Date of RTI application 26.05.2018
CPIO's response 08.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 05.07.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 13.07.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 07.09.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information in respect of certified copies of the Passport nos mentioned in the RTI application of the year 2005 with attached documents such as Marriage Certificate, Address proof, I D proof and other related and submitted documents.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 08.06.2018 stated that the Passport issued to the Appellant could not be provided as the same was not available in their office. The copies of other documents submitted with their application was provided to the Appellant. Further, the CPIO stated that the Passport issued to Mr. Sachin Mahadeo Waman, was a third party information that could not be provided as it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual exempted Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 13.07.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Asmita Sachin Waman through WhatsApp;
Respondent: Mr. P. Ray Choudhary, (Advocate) representing CPIO through WhatsApp;Page 1 of 4
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated although attested copies of the information pertaining to her own passport was provided by the Respondent, the same relating to the passport of her husband was not disclosed, till date. Explaining that the information sought especially the Marriage Certificate was required by her in order to contest a matrimonial dispute before a Nagpur Family Court, the Appellant submitted that being the legally wedded wife of Mr. Sachin Mahadeo Waman, she was entitled to seek the same and that the authenticated true copy as available in their record ought to be provided to her. In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that the information related to the passport details of a Third Party and documents enclosed with application were denied to the Appellant u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In support of their contention, the Respondent relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India v. R. Jayachandran WP (C) 3406/2012 dated 19.02.2014. On being queried regarding the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018 where the information seeker had sought the salary details of her husband, the Respondent stated that the aforementioned decision was not applicable to the instant matter. The Respondent also stated that since the original documents related to Marriage Certificate, Address proof, I D proof, etc of the Third Party were not available on their record, they could only disclose the information as available on record without any certification.
At the outset, the Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
However, making a distinction with the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018 had in a matter where the information seeker had sought the salary details of her husband held as under:
"While dealing with the Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the respondent No.1 is getting.
Present case is distinguishable from the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and therefore the law laid down by their Lordships in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) are not applicable in the present case.Page 2 of 4
In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.341/2008. Similarly, the W.A. No.170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is set aside."
Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the matter of Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018 held as under:
"8. Perusal of this application shows that the salary slips for the period mentioned in the application have been sought for by the Advocate. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the salary slips contain such details as deductions made from the salary, remittances made to the Bank by way of loan instalments, remittances made to the Income Tax Authority towards part payment of the Income Tax for the concerned month and other details relating to contributions made to Provident Fund, etc. It is here that the information contained in the salary slips as having the characteristic of personal nature. Any information which discloses, as for example, remittances made to the Income tax Department towards discharge of tax liability or to the Bank towards discharge of loan liability would constitute the personal information and would encroach upon the privacy of the person. Therefore as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande (supra) such an information could not be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. This is all the more so when the information seeker is a person who is totally stranger in blood or marital relationship to the person whose information he wants to lay his hands on. It would have been a different matter, had the information been sought by the wife of the petitioner in order to support her contention in a litigation, which she filed against her husband. In a litigation, where the issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to the salary details no longer remain confined to the category of personal information concerning both husband and wife, which is available with the husband hence accessible by the wife. But in the present case, as stated earlier, the application has not been filed by the wife.
9. Then, by the application filed under the provisions of the RTI Act, information regarding mere gross salary of the petitioner has not been sought and what have been sought are the details if the salary such as amounts relating to gross salary, take home salary and also all the deductions from the gross salary. It is such nature of the information sought which takes the present case towards the category of exempted information.
10. All these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the authority below and, therefore, I find that its order is patently illegal, not sustainable in the eyes of law."
The Commission observed that although the passport details of a spouse were not sought in the aforementioned decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts however, in the spirit of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench), the information should be disclosed to the Appellant.
With regard to providing the authenticated true copy of the documents sought by the Appellant, the Commission referred to the OM issued by the DoP&T in OM No. No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 06.10.2015 wherein it was stated as under:
"2. In addition, wherever the applicant has requested for 'certified copies' of the documents or records, the CPIO should endorse on the document "True copy of the document/record supplied under RTI Act", sign the document with .date, above a seal containing name of the officer, CPIO and name of public authority."Page 3 of 4
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in John Numpeli v. The PIO in W.P. (C) No. 31947 of 2012 (P) dated 31.01.2017 had held as under:
"I also find no merit or force in the contention of the respondents that grant of certified copies may give authenticity to the documents which may not be genuine or even fabricated. In the event of an applicant's request for information being granted all that the Public Information Officer would have to do is to certify that the copy is one issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He is not called upon to certify that it is a copy of a genuine document. I therefore, find no reason why the first relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
I accordingly allow the writ petition and direct the first respondent to issue a fresh set of documents sought for in Ext.P1 application other than the No Objection Certificate issued by the Fire and Rescue Services Department on the petitioner paying the requisite fees and to certify the copies as copies issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The needful in the matter shall be done and copies of documents issued within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited above, as also respecting the spirit enunciated by the superior Courts and maintaining consistency, the Commission while setting aside the decision of the CPIO / FAA instructs the Respondent (CPIO) to furnish the information as available on record to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email, as agreed.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] ं / Date: 15.05.2020 िदनाक Page 4 of 4