Central Information Commission
Venkatesh Nayak vs Embassy Of India,Manama, Bahrain on 9 August, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EIMBH/A/2019/102410
Shri Venkatesh Nayak ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Embassy of India, Manama, Bahrain
PIO
Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi
PIO
Embassy of India, Doha Qatar
PIO
Embassy of India, Kuwait
PIO
Embassy of India, Muscat
PIO
Embassy of India, Riyadh
Date of Hearing : 05.08.2021
Date of Decision : 09.08.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.08.2018
PIO replied on : 08.08.2018,19.08.2018, 06.09.2019,
14.08.2019, 04.09.2018, 19.08.2018
First Appeal filed on : 05.09.2018, 14.09.2018, 05.09.2018,
17.09.2018
First Appellate Order on : 17.09.2019, 11.10.2018, 10.10.2018,
04.10.2018, 16.10.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 16.01.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.08.2018 seeking information on the following 02 points:-Page 1 of 6
1) The year-wise list of the names, age, sex, and occupation of Indian workers who died in the countries of Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates between 01 January, 2012 till date.
2) The cause of death as mentioned in the death certificates of every deceased Indian worker referred to at para 1 above for the same period.
Response from Embassy of India, Bahrain The PIO /Second Secretary, Embassy of India, Bahrain vide order dated 11.08.2018 replied as under:-
2. The number of people who died in Bahrain, during last three years is as follows-
Year No. of deaths
2012 193
2013 163
2014 175
2015 223
2016 186
2017 237
2018 140 (up to 31/7/18)
3. As regards the list of names, age, sex, occupation and cause of death of the persons who died in Bahrain, please note that the information sought by you falls in the category of Personal Information, which is exempted from disclosure under para 8(j) of RTI Act 2005.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, Embassy of India, Bahrain, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.09.2018. The FAA/Ambassador vide order dated 17.09.2019 stated as under:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Response from Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi The PIO /SS(PIEC), Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi vide order dated 19.08.2018 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 11.10.2018 upheld the reply of the PIO.Page 2 of 6
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Response from Embassy of India, Doha Qatar The PIO /SS(HOC), Embassy of India, Doha Qatar vide order dated 06.09.2018 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, Embassy of India, Doha, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 10.10.2018 stated as under:-Page 3 of 6
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Response from Embassy of India, Kuwait The PIO /SS(HOC), Embassy of India, Kuwait vide order dated 14.08.2018 replied as under:-
Response from Embassy of India, Muscat The PIO /SS(HOC), Embassy of India, Muscat vide order dated 04.09.2018 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, Embassy of India, Muscat, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 04.10.2018 upheld the reply of the PIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 4 of 6Response from Embassy of India, Riyadh The PIO /SS(CW), Embassy of India, Riyadh vide order dated 19.08.2018 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 16.10.2018 upheld the reply of the PIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO, Embassy of India, Bahrain vide letter dated 28.07.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that only certain generic information was sought in his RTI application disclosure of which will not lead to violation of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further stated that the information sought is in the larger public interest as substantial foreign remittances made by Indian workers working outside India are a major source of foreign exchange for India. He further stated that the Indian Embassies in Kuwait and Bahrain have provided some information to him. However, none of the public authorities have disclosed information about occupation details of deceased Indian workers.
Shri Saqib, Advocate representing Embassy of India, Bahrain participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that right to information is not an absolute right and is subject to the provisions of the Act. He further stated that the information available on the website of the embassy is only for the purpose of transportation of mortal remains and contains only the name, date and cause of death and disposal mode, etc which is required for logistical purposes. However, information about occupation details of a deceased citizen is not disclosed being personal information exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further stated that the details already uploaded on the website for the year 2014-18 may fall within the definition of personal information hence it is presently explored if these details can be removed from the website.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission notes that there is a variation in the replies provided by the various Embassies. It is recommended that a uniform approach should be Page 5 of 6 adopted by the Embassies and Consulates General, in responding to such queries.
Considering that disclosure of details as sought by the Appellant, can lead to its misuse, hence the Commission is not inclined to allow disclosure of information which is likely to be used in abusing the process of law.
Under the circumstances, balancing larger public interest with the right to privacy of the deceased and their families, the Commission hereby directs the various Respondents who are parties in this case to disclose data in future regarding year of death, total number of deaths of Indians, sex of the deceased and cause of death, if available. The Nodal PIO, MEA and PIO CPV Division, MEA should apprise Indian Missions and Posts to take steps for suo motu disclosure of the above information in future in accordance with Section 4 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 of 6