Copy of passport application form and passport of a lady were denied u/s 8(1)(j) – appellant argued that lady had wrongly claimed before courts that he was her husband – CIC: no larger public interest involved as it is a personal dispute
11 Aug, 2013Order
1. In his RTI application, the Appellant had wanted the attested copy of both the passport application form of Ms Asha Thopegowda and her passport. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information on the ground that it was third party personal information and was covered under the exemption provision contained in section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied with this reply, he had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority had endorsed the stand taken by the CPIO and disposed of the appeal.
2. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that this lady had claimed before courts that he was her husband, whereas, the fact of the matter was that she was not his legally wedded wife. He argued that if the lady claimed him to be her husband, then he had a right to get the details of her passport. On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that this was no ground to disclose the personal information of a third party passport holder as contained in the passport application form and in the passport.
3. We have carefully considered the facts of the case. In fact, the Appellant himself has furnished the copy of the passport of the lady which clearly shows the column marked for the spouse blank. This is contrary to the understanding of the Appellant that she might have declared him as her husband / spouse in her passport. Be that as it may, it is clear that there is a dispute pending between the Appellant and this lady. The information has been sought purely for personal reasons. There is no larger public interest to be served in disclosing this information. We have no doubt that the information contained in the passport application as well as in the passport of any individual is of personal nature. It is squarely covered under the exemption provision contained in section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the decision of the Appellate Authority in this case.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Sh. Vasudeva C M v. Regional Passport Office, Ministry of External Affairs in File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000173