Central Information Commission
Mr.G Srinivas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 13 January, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003059/16841
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003059
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. G. Srinivas
D.No: 12-71, Plot No. 217
Ganesh Seva Sangam
Saligramapuram Post
Visakhapatnam - 530 024
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Passport Office 43-11-20/ABC, Subbalakshmi Nagar Visakhapatnam - 530 016 Andhra Pradesh RTI application filed on : 14/05/2011 PIO replied : 19/05/2011 First appeal filed on : 03/06/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 06/08/2011 Second Appeal received on : 03/11/2011 Information Sought:
Details about passport no. F2786499:
1. Name of the Passport holder.
2. Proof of copy of the old Passport, Passport Number & date of Issue.
3. Proof of documents & educational qualifications produced at the time of applying for the old Passport.
4. Proof of educational qualifications & the supporting documents submitted in getting the status of emigration check not required for the old passport.
5. Countries visited on the old Passport.
6. Date of issuing the renewal of new Passport.
7. Proof of the supporting documents and educational qualifications produced at the time of renewal of new Passport.
8. Proof of educational qualifications & the supporting documents submitted in getting the status of Emigration check not required for the new passport.
9. Countries visited on the new Passport.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
The sought information comes under the Section 8 (j) of RTI Act, therefore Personal information cannot be provided to third party.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
By providing the reference of CIC order no. CIC/OK/A/2008/AD dated 22.12.2008, where it is mentioned that "the disclosure of details of Passport can't be considered as causing unwarranted Invasion of the privacy of an individual and therefore is not exempted from disclosure of information U/s 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act..
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
FAA is satisfied with the reply of PIO.Page 1 of 3
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Not satisfied the reply of PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. G. Srinivas on video conference from NIC-Visakhapatnam Studio; Respondent: Absent;
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.
The 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 Page 2 of 3 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 February 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 13 January 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DE) Page 3 of 3