Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Adv. Abhishek Sharma vs Embassy Of India,Manama, Bahrain 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/EIMBH/A/2024/616351

Shri Abhishek Sharma                                            ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Embassy of India, Bahrain                              ...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                    :          14.11.2023
First Appeal filed on             :          12.12.2023
First Appellate Order on          :          24.12.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :          23.04.2024

 Information sought

and 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."

The CPIO, Second Secretary (HOC), Embassy of India, Bahrain vide letter dated 14.11.2023 replied as under:-

"2. The information sought is not available with Embassy of India, Bahrain."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2023. The FAA, Embassy of India, Bahrain vide order dated 24.12.2023 replied as under:-

"3. In response to the RTI application, the CPIO provided the following information to the applicant:

"The information sought is not available with Embassy of India, Bahrain."

4. The undersigned has gone through the RTI application, response of the CPIO and the First Appeal filed thereon. The undersigned found that the information sought by the appellant has been well responded by CPIO within prescribed time of 30 days. I am satisfied and of the view that appropriate response as per the RTI Act, 2005 have been provided by the CPIO. Accordingly, the response provided by CPIO is held and no further intervention is required in the instant matter by the undersigned."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 29.07.2025 has been received from the CPIO/Counsellor (PoI & CW) HOC, Embassy of India at Bahrain reiterating the PIO's reply and FAA's order.

Subsequently, the CPIO authorised Shri Saqib, Advocate to represent the Respondent. Another written submission dated 26.08.2025 has been filed on behalf the Respondent through his representative, highlighting the following grounds inter alia for rejection of the Appeal:

1. The Republic of India and Bahrain formalized diplomatic relations on October 12, 1971. The Indian Embassy officially opened in Manama, Bahrain, in January 1973, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations-1961. The information sought for by the Appellant relates to period from 1947 to 2023. As submitted hereinabove, the Embassy of India, Bahrain was established much later.

2. Information sought for by the Appellant relates to "personal information" which is not liable to be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

3. The appellant seeking such data has no legitimate interest in it, nor is there any demonstrable public interest in its disclosure --Reliance is placed on para 88 of the judgment in SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL Vs. REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND OTHERS, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 634.

4. ..the recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court W.P,(C) No. 600/2017 and other connected matters (2025 : DHC : 7273) decided on 25.08.2025, quoting that:

"116. "..something which is of interest to the public" is quite different from "something which is in the public interest". As noted by the Supreme Court, the public may be interested in private matters which may have no bearing on the public interest.....

118. The said judgment goes on to clarify that it is important to distinguish between the separate concept of "interest of the public" and "something in public interest".

5. The disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant may also prejudicially affect the strategic interests & bilateral relations of India with Bahrain since it may contain information received in confidence from foreign government.

6. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that while Section 6(2) does not require disclosure of motive at the stage of making a request, motive and purpose become relevant while applying the "public interest test" in the context of qualified exemptions under Section 8. In this regard, reliance is placed on paragraph 95 of CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUPREME COURT V. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL reported in (2020) 5 SCC 481.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Saqib - Advocate represented the Respondent 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 in his RTI application, should be put out in public domain.

The Respondent's counsel reiterated contents from the PIO's reply and the FAA's order stating that information sought is not available with Embassy of India, Bahrain and hence disclosure of the same was declined in terms of provisions of the RTI Act. The counsel also referred to the written submission dated 26.08.2025 filed by him, mentioned hereinabove and emphasised that the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the case and averments of both parties reveals that the information sought by the Appellant was not available with the Respondent CPIO and hence the same could not be provided to the Appellant. The Respondent's counsel's submission dated 26.08.2025 contains detailed analysis of facts of the case and a copy of the same has already been sent by the counsel vide email dated 26.08.2025 as noted from the proof of service attached with the submission.

Since the response of the PIO is found legally appropriate, the Commission finds no reason to interfere with the 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)