Central Information Commission
Adv. Abhishek Sharma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 September, 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/MOEAF/A/2024/614407
Shri Abhishek Sharma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of External Affairs ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025
Date of Decision : 28.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.11.2023
PIO replied on : NA
First Appeal filed on : 12.12.2023
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 08.04.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Send the certified copy of list of the names, address and contacts of Indian prisoners in the area of Gulf and other countries such as Bahrain, Saudi Arab, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Bangla Desh, Kuwait, Egypt, Turkey etc. putted up in the record of Government of India from 1947 to 2023 who are citizen of India including arrested, convicted, under trail and set free by respective courts including their case files under RTI Act, 2005 also includes the details of Prisoners of War."
Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within time limit, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 20.08.2025 has been received from CPIO, Technical Mission of India, Kabul stating that the Appellant's query had been rejected by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act vide reply dated 27.07.2025. The FAA Page 1 of 3 upheld the PIO's view vide order dated 28.07.2025. The CPIO has further stated as under:
"b) In mid-August 2021, all India-based personnel from our Embassy and other four Consulates in Afghanistan were evacuated and offices were closed due to deterioration of the security situation in Afghanistan. Since June 2022, a 'Technical team' from India is stationed in Afghanistan to coordinate the humanitarian assistance sent by the Government of India to the people of Afghanistan. Since the closure of the Embassy of India, Kabul in August 2021, it stopped functioning as a public authority, and accordingly, there were no functional CPIOs and FAA. Since the office was opened with positioning of only a skeletal 'Technical team' post June 2022, the team had no public mandate and no CPIO and FAA were appointed.
c) On direction of Ministry, CPIO and FAA were appointed at Technical Mission of India, Kabul on 26.12.2024 and RTI portal credentials were also reactivated after 26.12.2024 (order enclosed at Annex-III). However, due to the adverse security conditions prevailing in Afghanistan and the lack of stable internet connectivity, the CPIO was not able to upload the response on the RTI portal. This is to bring to CIC's attention that the RTI portal is not accessible in Afghanistan due the implementation of Geo-fencing by NIC and the issue of uninhibited access to the portal is yet to be resolved by NIC..."
Another submission dated 21.08.2025 has been received from the US/Nodal CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs(MEA) stating that the RTI application was received at the MEA from Prime Minister's Office on 31.10.2023 and transferred to the Technical Mission of India, at Kabul on 06.11.2023 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The CPIO, Technical Mission of India, Kabul rejected the RTI application under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act vide reply dated 27.07.2025 and the FAA had also affirmed the same position vide order dated 28.07.2025.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Guru Prakash - US, MEA and Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal- RTI Consultant were present during hearing.
The Appellant stated that he was not satisfied with the information sent by the Respondent and claimed that information about Indian citizens held prisoners from 1947 to 2023 in the Gulf countries, specifically the 15 nations he has specified, should be put out in public domain.
The Respondent reiterated contents from the PIO's reply and the FAA's order stating that details like names, addresses and contacts sought by the Appellant are personal information related to third party individuals and hence disclosure of the same would result in violation of privacy of the individuals. Moreover the Respondent stated that information spanning over seven decades i.e. for a period from 1947-2023 has been sought by the Appellant, which is clearly voluminous in nature and also pertains to very old records, thereby making it extremely difficult to compile/collate such data and provide the same to the Appellant. For these reasons and also because information sought by the Appellant is closely linked to our relations with the specific foreign States mentioned in the Appellant's RTI application, the query raised by the Appellant was rejected, under the premise of the RTI Act.
Page 2 of 3Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing averments of the parties, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the contentions submitted by the Respondent are legally accurate and justify denial of information for the reasons cited by the Respondents. The written submissions dated 20.08.2025 and 21.08.2025 filed by Respondent i.e. i) CPIO, Technical Mission of India, Kabul and ii) US/Nodal CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) are comprehensive and self explanatory and hence the Respondents are directed to send a copy of the written submissions dated 20.08.2025 and 21.08.2025 with the supporting annexures to the Appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard within one week thereafter.
Since the response of the PIO is found legally appropriate, 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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)