Central Information Commission
Mr. Hardev Singh vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 14 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000372/17692
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000372
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Hardev Singh
95, North Avenue,
New Delhi- 110001.
Respondent : Mr. Anurag Bhushan
Public Information Officer & RPO Ministry of External Affairs Regional Passport Office Hudco Trikoot -III Bhikaji Came Place R.k. puram, New Delhi-110066 RTI application filed on : 27/09/2011 PIO replied : 09/11/2011 First Appeal : 05/11/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 16/12/2011 Second Appeal received on : 27/01/2012 Sl. Queries Reply 1 Name and details of the person to whom Passport Beant Singh S/o Sukhwinder Singh file no No. B 5131321 was issued from Delhi Passport BO4899/01 Office on 28.6.1001.
2 Photocopies of all the documents submitted as Photocopies of all documents cannot be provided to proof of address and identity on the basis on whichyou as it is third party information and disclosure of the passport was issued. the individual. Please refer to section 8 (1)(j) of RTI act 2005.
3 Whether due process and procedure was followed No. police verification report was conducted and in issue of the passport, including police received clear on 21/10/2001 verification report.
4 Names and addresses of the witnesses who had As stated in (2) above recommended and signed for issue of the passport.
5 Copy of the noting of the officer who had Copy of the noting portion cannot be provided to recommended issue of the passport. you as it would be direct the resources of the public authority. Please refer to section 7 (9) of the RTI act , 2005 6 Whether application from the person for renewal of No record is found for renewal of the passport no the passport has since been received. If so, the B51313 status thereof is including date of receipt of the application and whether marriage certificate attached.
7 All details as mentioned in (1) to (5) above in As stated in (6) above Page 1 of 3 respect of the renewal of the passport.
Grounds for the First appeal:
Information has not been provided within mandatory period of 30 days.
Order of the FAA:
The PIO has provided information which could have been supplied to the Appellant without violating the provisions of the RTI Act. FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory; particularly reply of the point no 3. No reason has been given for the delay.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Hardev Singh;
Respondent: Mr. P. Roychaudhuri, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anurag Bhushan, PIO & RPO;
The Appellant points out that he had sent the RTI application by speed post on 27/09/2011 and this was delivered to the office of the PIO on 29/09/2011. The Respondent states that from the Central Registry it was received by him only on 10/10/2011 and the information was sent to the Appellant on 09/11/2011.
The Commission directs the Passport Officer to ensure that all RTI related letters that are received are delivered to the PIO within 24 hours of the receipt failing which the Commission would be constrained to penalize individual officers.
The PIO has not provided information on query 2, 4, 5 & 7 claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This Commission has numerous times ruled that information which Government routinely collects cannot be considered an invasion on the privacy of an individual.
The PIO has refused to give the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent states that third party information cannot be disclosed without taking the views of the third party and relied upon the case of Suhash Chakma Vs. CIC in W.P.(C) No. 9118 of 2009. The respondents also states that the present whereabouts of the third parties are not maintained by the Ministry. The Commission rules that if the third party's address is not located it does not mean the citizen's right to information would disappear. Section-11 is a procedural requirement that gives third party an opportunity to voice and objection in releasing the information. The Commission however examines whether the information is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as: "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:"
To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria:
1. It must be personal information.
Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In common language we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. From this it flows that 'personal' cannot be related to Institutions, organisations or corporates. Hence Section 8 (1) (j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.
Page 2 of 3The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' means that the information must have been given in the course of a Public activity. Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal' information from Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorization or passport, all these are public activities. Also when a Citizen provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation this too is a public activity.
We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply;- usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from Citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy.
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and therefore would apply uniformly to all human beings worldwide. However, the concept of 'privacy' is a cultural notion, related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently. Therefore referring to the UK Data protection act or the laws of other countries to define 'privacy' cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the Citizen's fundamental Right to Information in India. Parliament has not codified the right to privacy so far, hence in balancing the Right to Information of Citizens and the individual's Right to Privacy the Citizen's Right to Information would be given greater weightage. The Supreme of India has ruled that Citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service. It is obvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of misgovernance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny Citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the Citizen's Right to Information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy.
In view of this the Commission does not accept the PIO's contention that information provided by an applicant when applying for passport is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as per available records to the Appellant before 10 April 2012.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 14 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 3 of 3