Central Information Commission
Anurag Mittal vs Embassy Of India, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 1 April, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EIRSA/A/2023/608322
Shri Anurag Mittal ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Embassy of India, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Date of Hearing : 15.03.2024
Date of Decision : 27.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.09.2022
PIO replied on : 15.09.2022
First Appeal filed on : 14.10.2022
First Appellate Order on : 14.11.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.09.2022 seeking information on following points:-
1)Refer enclosed RTI reply dated 1st July 2022 from MEA Ms.Pushpa Kumar - US OIA II MEA Gol page no 5 and 6 of enclosed file.
2)At Sno3 it is advised to the applicant that Copy of Immigrant/ NRI/ Expat wife working in Saudi Arabia may be obtained from the Indian Consulate at Riyadh KSA
3) Kindly provide SPECIFIC INFORMATION requested
a) Copy of Registration form of Mrs.Shaily Mishra Passport Number H5955223 issued at Jeddah KSA dated 02/08.2009https://www.eoiriyadh.gov.in/register/
b) Copy of Renewal Passport Application-refer particulars given at a) above
c) Information about New Passport Number, Issue Date, Issue Place Page 1 of 4
d) Copy of Registration form of Mrs.Shaily Mishra wife of applicant Anurag Mittal-marriage certificate maintained at Indian Consulate at KSA of Indians working in Saudi Arabia
e) Certified Copy of KSA medical work Visa issued and each page of the current valid passport travel document of Mrs.Shaily Mishra wife of applicant anurag mittal Kindly let me know if any additional details, Information, Copy of Honble SC Judgement dated 24082018 in CA No 18312 of 2017 u holding the legal and valid status is required and or any other document or information to provide the above information including copy of citations where in CPIO has been directed to provide Information under similar facts and circumstances."
The Second Secretary (Cons)/CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia vide letter dated 15.09.2022 replied as under:-
"Mrs. Shaily Mishra has not applied for any Passport/Consular Services in the Embassy of India. Riyadh."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 14.11.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, RTI Consultant The Appellant stated that incorrect and misleading information was provided to him stating that Mrs Shaily Mishra did not apply for Passport/ Consular Services at the Embassy as he already provided a copy of the passport issued in Jeddah with his application. He also argued that the Respondent misled the Commission by stating that the information sought was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as he was seeking details regarding his legally wedded wife who cannot be considered as a third party as their marriage is presently valid. He also argued that reliance placed by the respondent on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vijay Prakash vs UOI WP (C) 803/2009 is out of context as it has been superceded by the decisions Smt Sunita Jain vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax decided on 16.08.2022 and the Hon'ble high Court of Bombay (Magpur Bench) in Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs Maharashtra SIC and Ors in WP No 1766/2016 decided on 22.10.2018.Page 2 of 4
In support of his contentions he also relied on the earlier decisions of the Commission inter alia in Soma Pandey vs M/o External Affairs CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/158969 dated 10.06.2020 and Asmita Sachin Waman vs Passport Office CIC/PASOF/A/2018/155140 dated 15.05.2020. He also referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/o External Affairs vs Asmita Sachin Waman W P (C) 3735/2020 decided on 21.11.2022 but stated that the decision therein will not be applicable to his case as the factual matrix of the instant matter cannot be equated with the matter under consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He argued that in the present matter he was not seeking the passport number of his wife as he is already having access to the same. He further stated that at this stage he wants to know the marital status indicated by his wife in her passport renewal application as it is his apprehension that false information regarding her marital status has been indicated. He also desires to know the employer address details in Saudi Arabia for summoning of employment records as per Section 91 of CrPC. During the hearing, he also stated that he was not in receipt of the advance copy of the written submission from the Respondent. The Commission therefore allowed an opportunity to the Appellant to submit additional written submission, if any, by 18.03.2024 which was availed off by the Appellant who submitted a fresh written submission by hand on 18.03.2024.
Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal reiterated the replies provided to the Appellant. He also referred to the written submission of the CPIO and Second Secretary (Consular), Embassy of India at Riyadh dated 14.02.2204, the relevant extracts if which are as under:
"It may be mentioned that information sought in RTI application is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act being personal in nature in regard to Mrs Shailey Mishra. Reference in this context is invited to decision dated 0-07-2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.C 3803/2009 titled as "Vijay Prakash vs. UOI & others" wherein it has been clarified that in a private dispute between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed.". As such there remains no logic in transferring RTI application under section 6(3) to any concerned public authority as desired by the petitioner."
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided as the Appellant is seeking personal information of a third party contained in her passport, disclosure of which is exempted u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India v. R. Jayachandran WP (C) 3406/2012 dated 19.02.2014 is applicable to facts of the case. In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that passport details, copies of birth certificate and copies of records of educational qualification are personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted Page 3 of 4 invasion to the privacy of individuals unless there was an overbearing public interest in favour of disclosure. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/o External Affairs vs Asmita Sachin Waman, WP (C) 3735/ 2020 decided on 21.111.2022. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in this matter.
The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसामररया) 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 4 of 4