Central Information Commission
Mr. R S Jain vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 21 June, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000028
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 21/06/2013
Date of decision : 21/06/2013
Name of the Appellant : Capt. R S Jain,
Flat No. 6, Capriana Appts, Raj Nagar
Society, Akola, Vadodara390007
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Regional Passport Office,
Ministry of External Affairs, Hudco
TrikootIII, Bhikaji Cama Place, R K
Puram, New Delhi 110066
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri P. Roy Chaudhuri, Advocate,
(ii) Shri Suresh Yadav, Assistant
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard both the parties.
3. With reference to one Ms Shanu Niranjan Dass Gupta, the Appellant had sought several details about her passport and passport application. The CPIO had refused to disclose any such information on the ground that it was personal in nature and exempt under the provisions of subsection 1(j) of section 8 of the CIC/SM/A/2013/000028 Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied with this, he had appealed against it. The Appellate Authority had endorsed the stand taken by the CPIO and disposed of the appeal.
4. In his RTI application, the Appellant had very clearly referred to the pending criminal cases against this particular individual and the fact that she had been declared a proclaimed offender under the relevant provisions of law. During the hearing, he argued that since this person had evaded arrest and had been declared as a proclaimed offender by the competent court, it would be in public interest to disclose the information. In any case, he argued that such details should not be treated as personal information and should be invariably disclosed. He had referred to some rulings given by the CIC itself in the past in this regard. On the other hand, the respondents argued that pendency of criminal cases against a person or issue of any warrant of arrest or even declaration of a person as a proclaimed offender could not be sufficient ground to disclose her personal details. They also submitted that even if the desired information would be disclosed, it would be of no help in tracing the person. They informed us that similar orders passed by the CIC for disclosure of the passport details had been challenged by the Ministry and these matters were pending a decision before the Delhi High Court which had stayed those orders. They further submitted that, for these reasons, the desired information should never be disclosed.
5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties. Ordinarily, we are in full agreement with the contention of both the Appellate Authority and the respondents. The CIC has, in numerous cases, held that the details given by a citizen in her passport CIC/SM/A/2013/000028 application or the details contained in the passport should not be disclosed being entirely in the nature of personal information and covered by this particular exemption provision. However, we should not be oblivious to the fact that the very same exemption provision also contains a caveat that if such information would serve larger public interest, it should be disclosed. In the present case, the information has been sought about a person against whom not only some case is pending in the courts but also, as claimed by the Appellant, the person has been declared as a proclaimed offender. In fact, the Appellant claims that he had enclosed a copy of that order along with his RTI application. If the person concerned has been evading arrest and subjecting herself to the lawful trial before a competent court, it is a matter of great public concern. The fact that such a person has a passport which she can use even for going out of the country and thereby evade arrest further more makes it eminently desirable that all her passport details should be made available in the public domain. We are of the view that this is one rare case which is covered by the circumstances envisaged in subsection 1(j) of section 8 of the RTI Act which mandates the CPIO to disclose any personal information when it would serve a larger public interest.
6. In the light of the above, we are firmly of the view that the desired information should be disclosed as it would serve a larger public interest. We direct the CPIO to disclose the desired information to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order.
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. CIC/SM/A/2013/000028 (Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2013/000028