A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Information about change in options provided in the answer key for the post of AHO Gr B under the Medical Dept of East Coast Railway Bhubaneswar - CIC: Provide documentary proof that option A is the correct answer for Question No. 97

Appellant alleged false implication & victimization for wrongful and discriminatory dismissal from service - PIO: Manual of Departmental Security Instructions, 1994, is a Confidential document and is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a) - CIC: Denial upheld

Opportunity of inspection of records was granted which the appellant did not avail - Respondent: Appellant’s dismissal case is in progress; He files RTI applications to know about the progress of his case - CIC: Grant another opportunity of inspection

Information specifying the dates on which the Presiding Officer was in attendance for hearings at the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - CIC took an adverse view of the delay and cautioned the public authority to adhere to the timeline under RTI Act

CIC: Appellant is agitating a matter in which he has already been given a relief despite having indulged in bigamy - CIC referred the matter to DRM, North Western Railway to take note of the aberration of lenient view taken in a serious matter like Bigamy

Answer sheets of CBSE Board exam - CIC: PIO is neither aware nor mentioned the dispatched date of their reply; Did not upload it along with his written submission which shows lackadaisical approach; Explanation called for along with the comments of FAA

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Does non-maintenance of records defeat the rights accrued in favour of the RTI appellant?

Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 release by MeitY for public consultation

Delhi High Court directs Jamia Millia Islamia University to disclose PhD Thesis under the RTI Act

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Does non-maintenance of records defeat the rights accrued in favour of the RTI appellant?

22 Mar, 2025

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court faced the question whether non-maintenance of records defeats the rights accrued in favour of the RTI appellant. The Information about Passport issued to a third party was being sought as per the details given below.

RTI Application

An RTI application was filed on 05.02.2016 before the PIO, Regional Passport Office, Mumbai, seeking the following information:-

“1. Please provide the information whether any Passport was issued to Anubhuti Singh daughter of Arvind Kumar Singh and Anita Singh resident of Mumbai from Regional Passport Office Mumbai in the period between 1984-1990.

2. Please provide the information whether any Passport was issued to Rinki Singh daughter of Arvind Kumar Singh and Anit Singh resident of Mumbai from Regional Passport Office Mumbai in the period between 1984-1990.

3. Please provide the information whether any Travel Document to travel abroad was issued to Anubhav Singh, son of Arvind Kumar Singh and Anita Singh resident of Mumbai from Regional Passport Office Mumbai in the period between 1987-1990.”

Reply of the PIO

Vide an email dated 23.02.2016, the PIO denied the information as under :-

“2. The disclosure of passport details / documents of above persons have no relationship to any public activity or interest and may cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy. Such details qualify as “Personal Information” and falls under the 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. 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. 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 RTI Act, 2005.

3. Further, in view of Judgment given by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Union of India vs R Jayachandran, W.P.(C) No 3406/2012 dated 19^th February 2014, the competent authority has settled that no information pertaining to a passport application of third party could be disclosed in response to a RTI query.”

Order of the First Appellate Authority

The first appeal was dismissed stating as under :-

“2. The appellant had filed his appeal on the ground “refused access to information requested”. I however, find that the appellant has sought information about the passport details of a third party. Such information cannot be ordered to be disclosed as it is barred from disclosure u/s 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. 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. 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 RTI Act. It is however made clear that the travel details/visa details of any Indian passport holder is not maintained by this Ministry.”

Order of the CIC

The CIC passed an order dated 05.05.2017 in Second appeal No. CIC/KY/A/2016/000693 holding as under :-

“11. The Commissioner is of the view that the information as to whether the passport has been issued to Ms. Anubhuti Singh and Ms. Rinki Singh in the period between 1984-1990, should be furnished to the appellant, provided the appellant submits details as required by RPO to trace the information.

12. The RPO, Mumbai may advise the appellant immediately of the details required to trace the Passport. The appellant, if he so wishes, may submit the details in order to obtain the information”.

Subsequently, an “Adjunct Order” dated 16.02.2018 was passed by the CIC on an application filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the CIC’s order dated 05.05.2017. The said order records as under:-

“4. The respondent stated that on receipt of the order passed by this Commission in Appeal no. CIC/KY/A/2016/000693 dated 05.05.2017, necessary steps were taken and the appellant was informed via email dated31.05.2017 that the records pertaining to issue of passport to Ms. AnubhutiSingh and Rinky Singh during the period 1984 to 1990 are not available as the records being very old and have been destroyed.

However, in order to implement the Commission's order in letter and spirit, CPIO Mumbai sought more information about the passport holders from the appellant, so that endeavors can be made to check if any, information is available. Thereafter, there has been no communication from the appellant.

5. The respondent stated that it is a settled position in law that the CPIO shall supply information from available records and is not expected to create or generate information for appellant. The respondent stated that the CPIO had categorically informed the appellant about the factual position of the records and therefore question of non-compliance of the Commission's order does not arise in the present case.

Discussion/ observation:

6. The Commission observed that the respondent had complied with the Commission's order dated 05.05.2017 in Appeal no. CIC/KY/A/2016/000693.

Decision:

7. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.”

Petition before the High Court

The “Adjunct Order” dated 16.02.2018 of the CIC holding that the requisite information cannot be provided in view of non-maintenance/restriction of records for the relevant period was challenged. It is submitted that the same defeats the rights accrued in favour of the RTI appellant vide order dated 05.05.2017.

View of the High Court

The requisite information sought by the petitioner is not available since the relevant records [for the period 1984-1990, with regard to which the requisite information pertains], have been destroyed, as per the extant policy/ instructions of the Government of India.
The information sought by the petitioner is barred from disclosure under 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. 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. 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 RTI Act. The Court has been of a consistent view that disclosures which may be sought by a third party under the provisions of RTI act pertaining to passport or any other personal identification document, squarely falls under the ambit of 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. 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. 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 RTI Act. Reliance placed on :-
1. Union of India vs R. Jayachandran, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 767,
2. Ministry of External Affairs vs Asmita Sachin Waman, WP(C) 3735/2020 and
3. Ministry of External Affairs vs Soma Pandey, WP(C) 3928/2020.
It is quite apparent that the information sought by the petitioner vide his RTI squarely falls within the ambit of 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. 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. 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 RTI Act, and the dicta laid down in the aforesaid judgments, squarely applies in respect thereof. This is quite apart from the fact that in any event, the requisite information is not available on account of non-availability/destruction of records for the concerned period.
During the course of hearing, the petitioner has sought to refute the contention of the respondents as regards destruction of records and relied upon the stand taken by the Regional Passport Office, Patna, in response to another RTI application filed by the same petitioner. The Court held that the stand of the Regional Passport Office, Patna, in response to a different RTI application filed by the petitioner has no bearing on the entitlement of the petitioner to the information sought from the Regional Passport Office, Mumbai. Further, there is no material on the basis of which it can be plausibly asserted by the petitioner that the intimation given by the Regional Passport Office, Mumbai vide communication dated 17.05.2017 does not accurately depicts factual position as regards the destruction of the relevant records. However, in case the petitioner has any doubts/ further queries in this regard, it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate measures, as may be available under law.

Citation: High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Kumar v. CPIO and Anr, W.P.(C) 5836/2018, Date of Decision : 28.01.2025

Does non-maintenance of records defeat the rights accrued in favour of the RTI appellant?

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.