Central Information Commission
Mr.Gurdev Singhhayr vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 27 April, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/000454
Date of Hearing : April 27, 2011
Parties:
Complainant
Mr. Gurdev Singh Hayr
H No. 2264A, Sec47C
Chandigarh
Punjab 160047
Represented by: Capt. C. Tyagi
Respondent
1. Public Information Officer M/o External Affairs, O/o JS (CPV) Division, Room No. 31, Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi
2. Appellate Authority M/o External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi Represented by: Mr. P Roychaudhary, Advocate for C.G.I, Birmingham, MEA Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit _________________________________________________________________________ Decision Notice The document notarized by the office of the Consulate General of India in Birmingham did not originate from the said office nor was the Consulate General the custodian of the said information. Hence, the information which was merely authenticated by the office cannot be divulged by them . The Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate and relevant Public Authority who is the custodian of the concerned information.
In the Central Information Commission at New Delhi File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/000454 Date of Hearing : April 27, 2011 Adjunct to decision dated 02.12.2010
1. The instant case was decided by the Commission by the aforementioned order dated 02.12.2010 holding as follows:
"......3. On careful consideration of the facts of the case and keeping in view the fact that the Appellant is also a legal heir, as per his submission and therefore has a right to know what part/area of land had been disposed of, the Commission holds that in the instant case, the information being sought cannot be termed as 'personal' and therefore directs the CPIO Consulate General of India, Birmingham to provide the required information directly to the Appellant by the 15th of January, 2011. The CPIO, CPV Division to send a copy of this Order to CPIO, Consulate General of India, Birmingham....."
2. Pursuant to this, the Commission received a communication dated 14.01.2011 from the office of the Dy. Passport Officer, CPV Division, MEA seeking a rehearing of the matter since the contention of the Respondents could not be heard nor incorporated during the previous hearing dated 02.12.2010. Consequently, due to the introduction of additional facts and information, the Commission fixed rehearing of the case on 17.03.2011 by issuance of notice dated 08.02.2011 intimating the parties. DECISION
3. During the hearing, the Respondent was represented by a counsel who reiterated the contention as already made so far by the Consulate General's office. A copy of some of the provisions of the British Data Protection Act 1998 was also placed on record.
4. At this point, it becomes pertinent to discuss the provision of the UK Data Protection Act 1998, wherein it discusses the term "personal data"
"....The definition of personal data is data which relates to a living individual who can be identified:--
• from that data, or • from that data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller, Sensitive personal data concerns the subject's race, ethnicity, politics, religion, trade union status, health, sex life or criminal record. .."
Reading further in the Act [the UK Data Protection Act 1998] lays down the exceptions thus:
Exceptions The Act is structured such that all processing of personal data is covered by the act, while providing a number of exceptions in Part IV.- Notable exceptions are:
• Section 28 - National security. Any processing for the purpose of safeguarding national security is exempt from all the data protection principles, as well as Part II (subject access rights), Part III (notification), Part V (enforcement), and Section 55 (Unlawful obtaining of personal data).
• Section 29 - Crime and taxation. Data processed for the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the assessment or collection of taxes are exempt from the first data protection principle. • Section 36 - Domestic purposes. Processing by an individual only for the purposes of that individual's personal, family or household affairs is exempt from all the data protection principles, as well as Part II (subject access rights) and Part III (notification).
5. As is known, in the instant case, the information seeker Complainant is a uterine sibling of Mrs. Daljeet Kaur Khullar, the British national who got the General Power of Attorney notarized in the office of the Consulate General, Birmingham. The information sought relates to ancestral property of Mrs. Khullar and the Complainant. Therefore, by virtue of being legal heirs to the same property, the information relating to such ancestral property cannot be considered "personal" qua the Complainant. Also, the UK Data Protection Act, 1998 in the aforementioned highlighted provision of Section 36 clearly enunciates that one of the notable exceptions to the withholding of the data apply in cases when information is sought for "Domestic purposes", as is the scenario in the instant case. Thus the information cannot be withheld by the Respondent owing to its categorization as personal information.
6. However, the office of the Consulate General in the instant case has made additional submissions stating that the concerned document i.e. the General Power of Attorney was merely notarized by the said office but neither it originated from the said office nor was the Consulate General the custodian of the said information. Hence, the information which was merely authenticated by the office but not owned by it, cannot be divulged by them. This contention cannot be overlooked and is found reasonable and justification enough for denying the information to the Complainant, though it is left to wonder as to why this vital reason was not cited in the previous correspondences by the Respondent while denying the information. The Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate and relevant Public Authority who is the custodian of the concerned information.
7. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Lt. Col Gurdev Singh Hayr (Retd) H. No. 2264A, Sector47C, Chandigarh Punjab 160047
2. The Central Public Information Officer US (CPVRTI), Ministry of External Affairs, Patiala house, Tilak Marg, New Delhi
3. The Public Information Officer Consulate General of India Birmingham, 20 Augusta Street, Jewellery Quarter, Hockley, Birmingham B 18 6JL
4. Officer Incharge, NIC