Central Information Commission
Mary Margeret Anthony Pillai vs Embassy Of India, Rome, Italy on 26 August, 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/EOIRI/A/2024/635357
Smt. Mary Margeret Anthony Pillai ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Embassy of India, Rome, Italy ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025
Date of Decision : 21.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.12.2023
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 21.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 09.05.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 15.08.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"I am the mother of minor Prijin who was onboard St. Antony fishing boat which has been subjected to gunfire from Italian Marines from my Enrica Lexie ship on 15-02-2012 and who took his life on 02-07-2019. I am submitting this application under RTI Act 2005 for obtaining the following information to produce in WP(C) No 18798 of 2021 before High Court of Kerala (in which Ministry of External Affairs is Respondent No.2) and also for further remedies in Republic of Italy and also before international human rights forums/tribunals
1) Copy of all information including communications related to the compensation of victims in Enrica Lexie (Italian Marines) case pursuant to arbitral award dated 21-
05-2020 in PCA Case No. 2015-28 of Arbitral Tribunal of Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague (PCA)
2) Whether Ministry of External Affairs or Government of India through Ministry of External Affairs has issued any communication or statement to the effect that victims in the Enrica Lexie case was given full compensation from the amount deposited by Italy in compliance with arbitral award dt 21-05-2020 in PCA Case No. 2015-28 of Arbitral Tribunal of PCA.
a) If yes, copy of the same along with documents submitted along with it.
b) Details of all amounts received from Republic of Italy by Union of India in Enrica Lexie case.
Page 1 of 43) Whether Ministry of External Affairs have any documents concerning amount released by P and I Club and/or indemnified of my Enrica Lexie ship in the events of 15-02-2012
4) Whether Ministry of External Affairs has received any compensation claim or communication from legal heirs of minor Prijin pursuant to arbitral award dt 21- 05-2020 in PCA Case No. 2015-28 of the Arbitral Tribunal of PCA.
a) If yes, details of action taken on same.
5) Whether Ministry of External Affairs or Government of India through Ministry of External Affairs have informed Republic of Italy regarding presence of minor Prijin on St. Antony fishing boat on 15-02-2012 pursuant to order dt 25-11-2022 in Misc. Appln No 1291/2021 in SLP(C) No 20370 of 2012.
a) If yes, details and copy of said information.
6) Whether Republic of Italy have issued any communication after resuming criminal investigation pursuant to judgment dated 15-06-2021 of Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No 20370 of 2012 (paragraph 7(e)).
a) If yes, copy of the same.
7) Status of criminal investigation in the events of 15-02-2012 resumed by Republic of Italy pursuant to paragraph 7(e) of the judgment dated 15-06-2021 of Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No 20370 of 2012.
a) Copy of the Final Report if the investigation is closed.
8) Details of the co-operation done by Union of India and Government of Kerala in criminal investigation in the events of 15-02-2012 resumed by Republic of Italy pursuant to paragraph 7(e) of judgment dated 15-06-2021 of Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 20370 of 2012."
The CPIO, MEA had sent a response dated 08.01.2024 stating that "No records available with this Mission. Ministry may like to respond"(as noted from the Appellant's written submission). However, the said reply cannot be found on record.
Dissatisfied on not receiving any information received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.04.2024. The FAA, Embassy of India, Rome vide order dated 09.05.2024 held as under:-
"2) The information sought by the applicant vide the RTI Application No. EOIRO/R/T/23/00004, dated: 11.12.2023 has been provided by the Embassy.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated: 15 June, 2021 in IA No. 58644/2020 under SLP(C).No. 20370/2012 had directed that the compensation amount of INR 10 Crores lying with the Registrar of Supreme Court of India should be transferred to the High Court of Kerala. Vide Miscellaneous Application No. 1291/2021 in SLP(C).No. 20370/2012, dated: 25 November, 2022. The Supreme Court of India had directed the Registry of High Court of Kerala to disburse the amount to the victims' families on proper identification. Copy of the above said orders are enclosed.
3) Further, the case against the two Italian Marines was dropped by the Italian criminal jurisdiction system pursuant to Article 589 of the Penal Code (wide and irremediable lapse)."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 4Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 16.08.2025 has been received from the Appellant stating her grievance on being denied compensation since her deceased son was excluded from the compensation awarded through the Arbitral award passed by the International Court of Arbitration. The Appellant sought point wise response from the Respondent.
A detailed and articulate written submission dated 13.08.2025 has been received from the CPIO, OSD (Europe West), MEA pointing out the following:
1. The Appellant seeks remedies from the Republic of Italy and also before International Human rights Forums/Tribunals, hence RTI Act cannot be used to seek grievance redressal.
2. Moreover the remedy sought by the Appellant fall within the ambit of International law, and outside the scope of the RTI Act.
3. The substantial matter is before the High Court of Kerala hence no further information can be disclosed at this stage, without the direction of the Court.
4. Information about other victims sought by the Appellant is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
5. Voluminous information sought by the Appellant could not be furnished being covered under provisions of the Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
The Respondent has placed reliance on some landmark decisions to emphasise the contentions and also advised the petitioner to lodge her grievance on the 'madad' portal on MEA Website.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Shri Yash Thomas Mannully represented the Appellant Respondent: Shri Venkateshwar Thapliyal - PIO/ CPIO, OSD (Europe West), MEA and Shri Subhash Chandra Aggarwal - RTI Consultant were present during hearing.
Both parties reiterated their respective contentions, the Appellant's representative placing reliance on the written submission filed before the Commission and mentioned hereinabove. The Respondent also referred to the exhaustive written submission dated 13.08.2025 and contended that information available on record and permissible to be disclosed under law had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, in terms of the provisions of the Act. The written submission dated 13.08.2025 filed by the Respondent is self explanatory and provides complete insight into the facts of the case. A copy of the submission has been sent through email to the Appellant's representative and the Respondent is also directed to send a copy of the same with relevant annexures to the Appellant through speed post, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The PIO, MEA must ensure that a compliance report in this regard is submitted before the Commission within a week thereafter.Page 3 of 4
In view of the fact that the response sent by the Respondent is legally appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted 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)