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/2023/605607
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 : 25.06.2022
PIO replied on : 23.07.2022
First Appeal filed on : 20.08.2022
First Appellate Order on : 19.09.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 31.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.06.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
1. Whether Kunnummal Yoosuf, ksa residence permit (iqama) number 2225746094 was an employee of embassy of India as on 21/2/1442 (2020 October 08)
2. Official job description of Mr. Yoosuf as on 21/2/1442 (2020 October 08)
3. Whether embassy of India had authorized Mr. Yoosuf to appear on case number 411498581 regarding Mr. Dominic Simon, in criminal court in Riyadh as representative of the Indian embassy in Riyadh?
4. Whether Mr. Yoosuf submitted any statement in court on 21/2/1442 (2020 October 08)
5. certified copy of the statements submitted in court
6. certified copy of the letter Number 456 dated 22/09/2020 which was submitted in court.
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia vide letter dated 23.07.2022 replied as under:-
1. "Yes.
2. Shri K. Yoosuf is a locally recruited Clerk in this Embassy and is deployed in Jail & Tarheel Section.Page 1 of 4
3. Shri Yoosuf attended the Court on behalf of the Embassy to know the proceedings in the Case.
4. No.
5. Not applicable.
6. This is a communication between Embassy of India, Riyadh and Saudi Foreign Office and cannot be shared under Article 8(1)(a) of the Act."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.08.2022. The FAA vide order dated 19.09.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 11.04.2025 has been received from CPIO, Embassy wherein apart from reiterating the aforementioned facts the Respondent has justified the denial of information on query number 6 stating as under:
".....in response to query (6) of RTI application seeking certified copy of the letter- number 456 dated 22.09.2020 which was submitted in the court, the CPIO declined information as exempted under section 8(1)(a) of RTI Act because it was a communication between Embassy of India at Riyadh and Saudi Foreign Office, and disclosure of any such communication could affect relations of India with that country.
It may be mentioned that non-disclosure of correspondence between all Indian missions abroad and respective local governments is an existing policy. It is mentioned herewith that 3790 letters were sent to the host country in the last three years (2021-2023).
However, the document sought under query (6) of RTI application has been shared with the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 21845 of 2023."
Furthermore, the Respondent has added as under:
"...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 on the query number 6, because the Respondent had not justified the applicability of the Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act in Page 2 of 4 this case. The Respondent reiterated the contents of his aforementioned written submission stating that since 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 document sought under query (6) of RTI application has been shared with the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 21845 of 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, upon examining the relevant clause of the Double Taxation Agreement and considering the overwhelming public interest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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, thereby 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 completely inapplicable to the facts of the instant case filed by him. It is also noteworthy that the document sought by the Appellant at point no. 6 of his RTI application has already been submitted before the Kerala High Court in a case which has been disposed of on 16.11.2023. Therefore, the Appellant can access the Page 3 of 4 relevant Court records following the applicable rules and procedures of the Kerala High Court. In fact in view of the Respondent's contentions in the aforementioned written submission as well as the records reflected in the Commission's website, the Appellant is advised to pursue appropriate legal remedy before the competent Court of law instead of filing repeated RTI applications seeking information which cannot be disseminated under the purview of the RTI Act.
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 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)