Central Information Commission
Subba Reddy Vanga vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 19 July, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEAF/C/2022/663370
CIC/MOEAF/A/2022/663401
Shri Subba Reddy Vanga ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri P Roychaudhuri -Advocate
Date of Hearing : 10.07.2023
Date of Decision : 19.07.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2 nd Appeal
No. on dated
663370 28.06.2022 11.07.2022 - - 25.11.2022
663401 14.07.2022 22.07.2022 24.08.2022 05.09.2022 26.11.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/MOEAF/C/2022/663370 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2022 seeking the following information:-
1. Please provide a certified copy of office memorandum no:
VI/401/1/1/2018.
2. According to the written information given by Consulate General of India, Atlanta, para 5.7 of Chapter 9 of Passport Manual states that under no circumstances an Indian citizen, including a minor, can possess an Indian and a foreign passport at the same time. Passport Manual is a restricted document and a copy cannot be provided under RTI Act. However, Passport Manual is a compendium of administrative instructions and guidelines relating to the issue of passports in India and abroad. Currently selected unrestricted chapters of the Passport Manual are openly available and published on Passport Seva at Indian Embassies and Page 1 of 6 Consulates website. In addition, para 5.7 of Chapter 9 is also an open information as it was provided by the Consulate General of India, Atlanta.
Please provide the certified copies of administrative instructions, rules, orders, notifications, office memorandum, circulars, or any such information as defined under RTI Act based upon which the para 5.7 of Chapter 9 of Passport Manual was compiled.
The CPIO-Shri Vishwa Nath Goel vide online reply dated 11.07.2022 communicated the Complainantas under:-
(1) The copy of the Office Memorandum No. VI/401/1/1/2018 cannot be provided since it contains the information which is available to this Public Authority in its fiduciary relationship with other Public Authority which is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
A copy of the desired OM had been provided by the Respondent to another Applicant, by the CPIO, MEA on 28.01.2020, in a separate RTI request no. MEAPD/R/E/20/00155, copy whereof has been placed on record by the Complainant.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and the Complainant reiterated his contention about the desired Office Memorandum No. VI/401/1/1/2018 being in public domain since it had been submitted i) before the Delhi High Court in the course of proceedings related to Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1752/2020 [Rachita Francis Xavier vs. Union of India]; ii) before the Gujarat High Court in the case no. C/SCA/26.02/2019 [Reet Sanjay Patel through grandmother Lilaben Ramchandra Patel vs. Regional Passport Officer. He further reiterated that a copy of the desired OM had even been provided by the CPIO, MEA on 28.01.2020 to another Applicant - Shri Bharadwaj S Iyengar, in a separate RTI request no. MEAPD/R/E/20/00155. The Respondent had no justification for denial of information, to rebut the arguments put forth by the Complainant.
Decision Perusal of the documents of the case reveals that information sought by the Complainant has been incorrectly denied by the then CPIO - Shri Vishwa Nath Goel - US, PSP-II. This appears to be a case of misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Thus, the Respondent-the then PIO, currently posted as DS, PSP-I - Shri Vishwa Nath Goel is hereby directed to submit a suitable explanation justifying the denial of information to the Complainant and why no penal action should be initiated for violation of the provisions of RTI Act. The explanation must reach the Page 2 of 6 Commission by 31.08.2023, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated suo motu, in terms of law.
(2) CIC/MOEAF/A/2022/663401 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.07.2022 seeking the following information:-
1. Please provide a certified copy of Chapter 9 of current Passport Manual.
In case of Sameep Vijayvergiya vs. Ministry of External Affairs on 31 July, 2017, Appeal No. CIC/KY/A/2016/001091 and CIC/KY/A/2016/000497, respondent, Ministry of External Affairs not only suggested but also disclosed several chapters of Passport Manual including Chapter 9 to the applicant. I am requesting the copy of Chapter 9 from the latest Passport Manual.
The following was taken verbatim from the above appeal.
6. The Commission observed that the respondent had suggested disclosure of Chapter nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 27 and 30 of their latest version of the Passport Manual. After going through the manual, the Commission is satisfied that the remaining chapters have material which may not be disclosed in the interest of relations with foreign states and for protecting the sovereignty of the Country, as covered under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
7. The respondent is directed to disclose the information as stated in para no. 6 above to the appellant, within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
The PIO vide letter dated 22.07.2022 replied as under:-
Chapter 9 of the latest Passport Manual contains certain information which is available to this Public Authority in its fiduciary relationship with other Public Authority which is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, its copy cannot be provided.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.08.2022 contending that "...the Passport Manual is compiled and authorized by the Ministry of External Affairs and given to Passport Issuing Authorities such as Regional Passport Offices, and Indian Missions abroad. The fiduciary relationship cannot be claimed by the party who owned and issued the Passport Manual.." The Appellant reproduced the relevant observations and direction of the CIC in a previous decision CIC/KY/A/2016/000497 dated 31.07.2017 as under:
5. The respondent stated that the matter has been examined in the Ministry and the Ministry is of the view that some of the chapters of the Page 3 of 6 Passport Manual may be disclosed to the appellant after applying the doctrine of severability as enshrined in Section 10(1) of the RTI Act. The Respondent stated that the Ministry is of the view that except the sensitive information which is barred from disclosure under various sub-
sections of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the remaining chapters may be revealed in the public domain.
Discussion/Observation:
6. The Commission observed that the respondent had suggested disclosure of Chapter nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 27 and 30 of their latest version of the "Passport Manual". After going through the manual, the Commission is satisfied that the remaining chapters have material which may not be disclosed in the interest of relations with foreign states and for protecting the sovereignty of the Country, as covered under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
7. The respondent is directed to disclose the information as stated in para no. 6 above to the appellant, within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
8. The CPIO is advised to consider uploading of said chapters (as mentioned above) on their website for convenience of general public...
The FAA/Jt. Secretary(PSP), MEA vide order dated 05.09.2022 held as under:-
In compliance of the FAA's order, the PIO vide communication dated 26.09.2022 stated as follows:Page 4 of 6
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference wherein it was submitted by the Appellant that apart from the aforementioned CIC decision dated 31.07.2017, even the Delhi High Court had deliberated upon various aspects of the recent Passport Manual placed before the Court, in the decision dated 19.04.2023 while deciding a case bearing the title: Smita Maan & Anr. vs. Regional Passport Officer.
The Respondent reiterated their contentions as stated in the PIO's reply dated 26.09.2022 sent in compliance of the FAA's order.
Decision:
Upon examination of the opposing contentions of the parties, the two noteworthy points which emerged are as under:
i) In the CIC decision dated 31.07.2017 in case number CIC/KY/A/2016/000497 while dealing with the Passport Manual 2016, it was held as under:Page 5 of 6
"6. The Commission observed that the respondent had suggested disclosure of Chapter nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 27 and 30 of their latest version of the "Passport Manual"..."
ii) In the recent decision dated 19.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Smita Maan & Anr. vs. Regional Passport Officer WP(C) No. 1408/2023, upon discussing the Office Memorandum No. VI/401/01/17/2015(pt) dated 28.02.2023 regarding "Clarification regarding issuance of passport with exclusion of father/mother name from passport of minor in single parent custody", the Court took cognizance of the relevant extracts of the Passport Manual 2020 placed on record. In fact, the entire OM dated 28.02.2023 and relevant extracts of the Manual have been included in the High Court order dated 19.04.2023.
In the light of the aforementioned discussions, the argument of the Respondent regarding denial of information without proper justification cannot be accepted. The same documents as sought by the Appellant have already been placed in public domain without any mention of confidentiality. Thus, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Respondent should disclose the portions (chapters) of the recent Passport Manual which do not contain information expressly exempt under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act to the Appellant, within four weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard by 31.08.2023.
In fact the CPIO is advised to consider uploading said chapters of the Passport Manual, as permissible under the RTI Act, on their website for convenience of the general public and obviate the need for RTI application regarding the same.
The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . ि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 6 of 6