Central Information Commission
Soma Pandey vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 10 June, 2020
के ीय सचू ना 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/MOEAF/A/2018/158969-BJ
Ms. Soma Pandey
(E- Mail: [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Sr. Supdt.
Ministry Of External Affairs
Regional Passport Office, Hudco Trikoot - 3
Bhikaji Cama Place, R. K. Puram
New Delhi - 110066
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.06.2020
Date of Decision : 10.06.2020
Date of RTI application 04.01.2018
CPIO's response 02.02.2018
Date of the First Appeal 13.02.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 27.02.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.09.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the certified copies of all documents of passport file including marriage certificate and application form as submitted in passport office of Mr. Suresh Pandey, her Husband; certified copies of the visa issued for Mr. Suresh Pandey for his abroad tours for the period from January 2014 to January 2018, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 02.02.2018 denied disclosure of information on point no. 01 & 03 u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. On point no. 02, the CPIO stated that the Appellant could contact visa issuing authority as they were only looking after the cases of passports. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 27.02.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 5
Appellant: Ms. Soma Pandey through WhatsApp;
Respondent: Mr. P. Ray Choudhary, (Advocate) representing CPIO through WhatsApp;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought was incorrectly denied by the Respondent. While referring to her written submission, the Appellant submitted that being the legally wedded wife of Mr Suresh Pandey, the information was required in reference to matrimonial disputes pending before Courts such as petition under section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act for Divorce on the ground of cruelty filed in the year 2014, case under section 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, maintenance for children under section 125 CrPC, a chargesheet filed against Suresh Pandey under section 323, 504, 509 of Indian Penal Code and 67 & 72 of IT Act and others. In support of her contention, the Appellant also made a reference to the decision of the Commission in Asmita Sachin Waman vs Passport Office (CIC/PASOF/A/2018/155140- BJ) wherein disclosure of information was allowed. In its reply, the Respondent's representative re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that the information sought pertained to a Third Party and that no information on points 02 and 03 was available with them. On being queried, if the aforesaid decision of the Commission was challenged at an appropriate judicial forum, the Respondent's representative stated that due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, they had not approached the High Court against the aforementioned decision, till date.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 08.06.2020 wherein it was inter alia stated that she is the legally wedded wife of Mr. Suresh Pandey. Their marriage was solemnized on 22.01.2003 and they had two children out of this wed lock and that she alongwith her children were forced to leave her own house at New Delhi on 28.12.2013. There are various cases of matrimonial disputes such as petition under section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act for Divorce on the ground of cruelty filed in the year 2014, case under section 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, maintenance for children under section 125 CrPC, a chargesheet filed against Suresh Pandey under section 323, 504, 509 of Indian Penal Code and 67 & 72 of IT Act and others. Mr. Suresh Pandey did not disclose information related to criminal proceedings against him while applying for renewal of passport. At the same time he is opposing divorce petition filed by his wife and has pleaded to continue matrimonial relationship with wife (Appellant herein) and fulfill his matrimonial obligation. However, while applying for renewal of passport in the year 2014, he fraudulently and with an intention to cheat other women, declared his marital status to be "Single". The act of not mentioning wife's name and detail as per the prevalent law and rules at the time of applying for the renewal of passport when husband Suresh Pandey is opposing divorce petition filed by wife, the wife requires this proof that he has been misleading the Court of Learned Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow as he himself has not been declaring his marital status in his passport and his conduct outside the Court is completely against the statement he is making inside the Court. The reason for not disclosing his marital status is clearly to portray himself as 'Single' before other women with a clear intention to cheat them. While referring to the response of the CPIO, the Appellant stated that as a wife it is right of Appellant/Mrs. Soma Pandey to know if her husband Mr. Suresh Pandey is traveling with a document falsely declaring himself as 'Single' in his marital status as single wherein he is not single and even in the present scenario, he is a married man, married to Mrs. Soma Pandey. She further stated that the information is sought by the wife in order to support her contention in a litigation wherein husband has declared in year 2016 that he wants to fulfill his matrimonial obligations towards his wife before a competent court of Learned Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow whereas his intention of renewing his Page 2 of 5 passport without mentioning wife's name is clear proof of the fact that he does not intend to fulfill his matrimonial obligations as he himself has portrayed himself 'single' before the world. In support of her contention, the Appellant referred to the decisions of the Commission in 1 Mrs. Bindu Kripal vs Regional Passport Office, CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/09/00366 dated 04th May 2009 2 Mrs. Madhulika Rastogi vs Regional Passport Office New Delhi, CIC/AD/A/09/00074 and 3 Asmita Sachin Waman vs Passport Office (CIC/PASOF/A/2018/155140- BJ) Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission at the outset 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.
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:
Page 3 of 5"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."
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:
Page 4 of 5"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.
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] िदनांक / Date: 10.06.2020 Page 5 of 5