Central Information Commission
Dominic Simon vs Embassy Of India, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 24 April, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EIRSA/A/2023/605121
Shri Dominic Simon ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.04.2025
Date of Decision : 21.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.07.2022
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 22.10.2022
First Appellate Order on : 21.11.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 28.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.07.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"Please provide all information regarding letters or communications sent to the host country in the past 3 years
1. List of Letters/communications sent to host country with details such as date of letter, number of letter and subject of letter
2. Certified copy of register or database or similar instrument kept for registering or recording the letters sent to the host country.
3. How many letters were sent to the host country"
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated stated 21.11.2022 as under:-
2. "The information/clarification sought may please be forwarded directly to the CPIO."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 1 of 4Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 11.04.2025 has been received from CPIO, Embassy of Riyadh which is detailed and self explanatory. A copy of letter dated 16.02.2023 sent by the PIO denying disclosure of information citing section 7(9) and 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act is also enclosed with the written submission. A copy of the said submission has been duly marked to the Appellant and relevant excerpt of the submission is as under:
An email dated 15.09.2022 was sent by [email protected] to the petitioner confirming that the document attached at the time of filing RTI request was not accessible requiring the petitioner to upload the same to process the request. CPIO's response was challenged before First Appellate authority vide online First Appeal MEARI/A/E/22/00063 dated 22.10.2022 which was disposed of by First Appellate Authority vide order dated 21.11.2022 asking the petitioner to forward clarification sought directly to the CPIO. Subsequently the petitioner forwarded the required documents sometime in January 2023 when the CPIO finally disposed of RTI application vide a reply dated 16.02.2023 (copy enclosed). Information was declined under section 8(1)(a) and 7(9) of RTI Act. Communications between Embassy of India at Riyadh and Saudi Foreign Office, and disclosure of any such communication could affect relations of India with that country and as such exempted under section 8(1)(a) of RTI Act. It may be mentioned that non-disclosure of correspondence between all Indian missions abroad and respective local governments is an existing policy. In Riyadh, 3790 letters were sent to the host country in the three years 2021-2023.
Otherwise also providing information in the manner sought would have diversified resources of the Embassy disproportionately and as such could not be provided as per provisions of section 7(9) of RTI Act. Furthermore, many such communications contain personal information of some individuals and as such are also exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Regarding point (3) of RTI application seeking number of letters sent by the Embassy to the host country in last three years. It is mentioned herewith that 3790 letters were sent to the host country in three years (2021-2023). The petitioner is in habit of filing frequent RTI applications with total 26 filed so far. He has approached to Honourable Central Information Commission till now for 19 times out of which four cases are against Embassy of India at Riyadh, eleven against Ministry of External Affairs, one against Central Information Commission and three against Central Board of Secondary Education. A copy of the said submission has been duly marked to the Appellant. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal - RTI Consultant was present during hearing.
Parties present for the hearing reiterated their respective contentions as already stated in the aforementioned records. The Appellant contended inter alia that he was dissatisfied with denial of information, because the Respondent had not justified the applicability of the Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act in this case. The Respondent reiterated the contents of his aforementioned written submission stating that since Page 2 of 4 the Appellant had sought information which is a communication between Embassy of India at Riyadh and Saudi Foreign Office, disclosure thereof could affect relations of India with the country concerned. It was also mentioned that the non-disclosure of correspondence between all Indian missions abroad and respective local governments is an existing policy. In Riyadh, 3790 letters were sent to the host country in the three years 2021-2023.
During the course of arguments, the Appellant cited a decision of the Commission in the case number CIC/OK/C/2008/000897, wherein the Commission had placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Jethmalani & Ors. versus Union of India which dealt with a case about information regarding the black monies of Indians stashed away abroad. In the said case, considering the overwhelming public interest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:
"..It is disingenuous for the Union of India, under these circumstances, to repeatedly claim that it is unable to reveal the documents and names as sought by the Petitioners on the ground that the same is proscribed by the said agreement. It does not matter that Germany itself may have asked India to treat the information shared as being subject to the confidentiality and secrecy clause of the double taxation agreement. It is for the Union of India, and the courts, in appropriate proceedings, to determine whether such information concerns matters that are covered by the double taxation agreement or not. .....Withholding of information from the petitioners by the State, thereb y constraining their freedom of speech and expression before this Court, may be premised only on the exceptions carved out, in Clause (2) of Article 19, "in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence" or by law that demarcate exceptions, provided that such a law comports with the enumerated grounds in Clause (2) of Article 19, or that may be provided for elsewhere in the Constitution ..."
Decision:
Upon perusal of the aforementioned records of the case and after hearing averments of the parties it is noted that appropriate response based on information available on record as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, had been duly furnished by the Respondent to the Appellant. In so far as the Appellant's contentions about the incorrect applicability of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act in this case and the Apex Court decision as well as the earlier CIC decision dated 11.07.2011 in the case number CIC/OK/C/2008/000897 is concerned, it is pertinent to note that all of the decisions related to issues of larger public interest and disclosure of information in those cases were actually in favour of national interest. On the other hand despite repeated opportunities, the Appellant was not able to substantiate the national interest or any larger public interest which will be served by disclosure of information sought by him. Therefore, the aforementioned legal premises of the decisions cited by the Appellant are distinguishable and inapplicable to the facts of the instant case filed by him.
In the light of the aforementioned detailed discussion, the Commission is of the considered opinion that response sent by the Respondent public authority to the Page 3 of 4 Appellant is legally appropriate, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, no further direction is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)