Central Information Commission
Navdeep Gupta vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 21 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
File no. CIC/MHOME/C/2017/605298
File no. CIC/MHOME/C/2017/605297
File no. CIC/MHOME/C/2017/605264
Date of Hearing : 02.02.2018
Date of Decision : 12.03.2018
Complainant/Complainant : Mr. Navdeep Gupta
Respondent : PIO
Nodal Officer RTI Cell
Ministry of Home Affairs
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case No. RTI Filed on PIO reply First appeal FAO
605298 24.06.2017 06.07.2017 31.07.2017 -
605297 23.06.2017 06.07.2017 - -
605264 16.07.2017 27.07.2017 - -
Since the captioned appeals have been filed by the same complainant
and involve similar queries, they are clubbed for the purpose of
adjudication
CIC/MHOME/C/2017/605298
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 24.06.2017, the complainant sought information as under:-
1. Name of American Citizens who are staying here in India from or before 01.01.2007 and have not left India for even a single day since 01.01.2007.
The PIO, MHA vide letter dated 06.07.2017 furnished the information as under:-
"Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the complainant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling as not received any information, the complainant approached the Commission.
Page 1 of 3Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present and heard. The PIO states that the information sought was a rather unwarranted open ended query having no nexus with public activity. Upon a query, the PIO clarifies that the information sought was held by Bureau of Immigration and denied under Section 8(1)(j). Despite opportunity, the complainant remained unable to cite any cogent reasons for seeking information in the present instance, which is essentially private to respective American citizens visiting India.
Decision:
The Commission finds the query as vague in terms of the scope. Besides 8(1)(j) has correctly been invoked by the PIO for denying information i.e. names of American Citizens living in India. The RTI application has been replied to adequately. The decision of PIO is upheld. The complaint is misconceived and accordingly stands dismissed.
CIC/MHOME/C/2017/605297 Information sought and background of the case: Vide RTI application dated 23.06.2017, the complainant sought information as under:-
Certified copy of all rules and regulation applicable on any American Citizen who is staying in India, for Example like how many years continuous stay, any reporting to nearest Police Station etc. Supply all rules and regulation.
The PIO vide letter dated 06.07.2017 furnished the information as under:-
"Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the complainant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling as not received any information, the complainant approached the Commission. Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present and heard. The complainant states that information sought was wrongly denied by the PIO and prayed for imposition of penalty. Per contra, the PIO states that all rules and regulations applicable to foreigners visiting India are readily available in public domain and also on website of Bureau of Immigration (https://boi.gov.in/) and the web portal of MHA. For effective adjudication of Page 2 of 3 Decision:
The Commission finds that the PIO ought to have shared the web url with the complainant. The plea of availability of information in public domain is maintainable but the information seeker must be referred to the precise resources wherefrom desired information can be availed by him. The PIO is directed to intimate the nomenclature of set of rules applicable and the web url to the complainant under a revised reply within 2 weeks of receipt of present order. No malafide is found attributable to the PIO for denying information sought. The appeal is disposed of.
CIC/MHOME/C/2017/605264 Information sought and background of the case: Vide RTI application dated 16.07.2017, the complaint sought definition of word GENOCIDE and RIOT as per Govt of India or law of land, if any. The CPIO, Dy. Secretary vide letter dated 27.07.2017 informed that information sought was not available with them and the RTI application was transferred to the CPIO, Department of Legal Affairs (Ministry of Law & Justice) and CPIO, IS-I Division of MHA, under section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005. Having not received any information from PIO, the complainant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present and heard. The PIO states that reply was furnished by the PIO, Dept. of Legal Affairs. The complainant was intimated that the definition of 'Rioting' is enumerated under Section 146 of the Indian Penal Code. The reply is silent w.r.t the definition of Genocide. However, the complainant asserts that the reply was not furnished to him. Decision:
The Commission deems it appropriate to direct the PIO. Dept. Legal Affairs to furnish a copy of the reply to the Complainant afresh within 2 weeks. The complaint is thus, not maintainable since a reply was furnished. The Commission takes notice of the query as it relates to the definition of 'Genocide'. India has ratified the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, but no specific municipal law has been enacted which deals or defines the term 'Genocide'. The complainant is advised to refer to the aforesaid convention. Complaint is disposed of.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R. P. Grover) Designated Officer Page 3 of 3