Central Information Commission
Manish Agarwal vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 10 December, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2019/131142
Shri Manish Agarwal अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
1. Ministry of Home Affairs
2. Regional Passport Office, Pune
Date of Hearing : 09.12.2021
Date of Decision : 10.12.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 02.01.2019
PIO replied on : 18.01.2019/ 24.01.2019
First Appeal filed on : 29.01.2019
First Appellate Order dated : 23.02.2019
nd
2 Appeal received on : 01.07.2019
Information sought and background of the case:
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/131142
The Appellant filed an online RTI application before M/o Home Affairs dated 02.01.2019 seeking current citizenship status of Madhu Laxmandas Sajnani holding passport no. R1333841.
The CPIO/Director (C), M/o Home Affairs vide letter dated 18.01.2019 intimated the Appellant that it is third party information. As per Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, submission of third party regarding disclosure of the information was sought. Third party i.e Mrs. Madhu Laxmandas Sajnani requested not to provide her personal information to any other person. Therefore,the CPIO denied the information.
The CPIO/Asstt. Passport Officer vide letter dated 24.01.2019 stated that Ms. Madhu Laxmandas Sajnani has got her passport in reissue category. As per her passport application, her Nationality has been shown as Indian by birth.
Page 1 of 3Dissatisfied with the reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.01.2019. The FAA/Joint Secretary,M/o Home Affairs vide order dated 23.02.2019 stated that as Section 11 mandates the CPIO to take a call whether disclosure is to be allowed if public interest in such disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of the third party. The FAA thus observed that the CPIO has not taken the matter to its logical conclusion under Section 11 of the RTI Act.
In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO and Director (C), M/o Home Affairs vide letter dated 28.05.2019 stated that disclosure of information does not have any relationship with any public activity or interest and will cause invasion of the privacy of a third party hence the same was exempted as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO and Director (C), M/o Home Affairs vide letter dated 08.12.2021 wherein it was stated that citizenship is governed by the Citizenship Act, 1955 and rules made thereunder. The Act and Rules mandate maintaining records of citizenship of those who acquire Indian citizenship by registration u/s 5 or naturalisation u/s 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. In this regard Rule 17 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 mandates keeping registers in respect of persons who are registered/ naturalised. The applications for citizenship by registration/ naturalisation are made online since 2011. The data of such persons since 2011 is also available online. The name of Madhu Laxmandas Sajnani has been searched in the online system but no such name was found.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the information sought pertained to his wife who allegedly left the country without any intimation to her family members. He referred to his written submission dated 08.12.2021 and stated that he desires to know if Ms Sajnani is an NRI.
The Respondent represented by Shri B.C. Joshi, Director, MDCNS, M/o Home Affairs and Shri Anant Shankar Takwale, RPO, Pune participated in the hearing through audio conference. Shri Joshi reiterated the replies provided to the Appellant and stated that consent of the third party was sought u/s 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, however she denied the same vide her email.
Decision:
On perusal of available records and submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since the information Page 2 of 3 sought by the Appellant pertained to a third party and no larger public interest warranting its disclosure was justified by the Appellant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा)
Y. K. Sinha (वाई िस हा
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित)
S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535
Page 3 of 3