Delhi High Court
Union Of Indiathrough Ministry Of ... vs Durgesh Vijayvargiya on 17 September, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 05.09.2013
Judgment pronounced on : 17.09.2013
+ W.P.(C) 2232/2012
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. P. Roychaudhuri & Mr. Amit
Panigrahi, Advs.
versus
RAJESH BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 8932/2011 & CM No.20166/2011
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. P. Roychaudhuri & Mr. Amit
Panigrahi, Advs.
versus
PRAVEEN VAID ..... Respondent
Through: In person.
+ W.P.(C) 3421/2012 & CM No.7235/2012
UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. P. Roychaudhuri & Mr. Amit
Panigrahi, Advs.
versus
W.P(C) No. 2232/2012&other connected matters Page 1 of 20
KANWAR DEEP SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. K. Mahajan, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 1263/2012 & CM No.2745/2012
UNION OF INDIATHROUGH
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. P. Roychaudhuri & Mr. Amit
Panigrahi, Advs.
versus
JERALD REBELLO ..... Respondent
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 1677/2012 & CM No.6186/2012
UNION OF INDIATHROUGH
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. P. Roychaudhuri & Mr. Amit
Panigrahi, Advs.
versus
DURGESH VIJAYVARGIYA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 1794/2012 & CM No.3929/2012
UNION OF INDIATHROUGH
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
W.P(C) No. 2232/2012&other connected matters Page 2 of 20
Mr. P. Roychaudhuri & Mr. Amit
Panigrahi, Advs.
versus
G. SRINIVAS ..... Respondent
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 2231/2012 & CM No.6185/2012
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. P. Roychaudhuri & Mr. Amit
Panigrahi, Advs.
versus
RAJESH KAPIL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Harsh Jaidka, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
V.K. JAIN, J.
In W.P(C) No. 2232/2012, the respondent - Mr. Rajesh Bhatia
applied to the PIO in the Ministry of External Affairs, Passport Office,
Jaipur seeking the following information:
1. Has any passport ever issued from your Jaipur
office by the name of NEERU DUGGAL, R/O
304/6, Raja Park, Jaipur or any other address?
2. If yes then provide me the details of the
passport - number, wife of, or daughter of
whichever is applicable.
3. Provide me the date of First Issue and
subsequent renewal/s, if applicable.
4. What were the documents submitted when the
application of the passport as made.
5. Name of the police station, date when the
police verification was carried out.
6. Was any foreign visit undertaken by her (Neeru
Duggal) as per your record, if yes then provide
me all the details of all the country visited by
her.
7. What is the marital status of her as per your
records? If married then provide me the name/
address of the husband.
8. Does her name figure as a mother/ guardian in
any passport of a minor? If yes then provide me
the detail of the same as well.
2. The PIO refused the information on the ground that the said
information could be provided only to those to whom the information
relates. The first appeal filed by the respondent having been dismissed, he
approached the Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to
as the Commission) by way of a second appeal. The Commission vide the
impugned order dated 31.1.2012 allowed the appeal and directed PIO to
provide the desired information. Being aggrieved from the said order, the
Union of India is before this Court by way of the present writ petition.
In W.P(C) No.3421/2012, the respondent - Shiv Kumar applied to
the PIO in the Ministry of External Affairs, Regional Passport Office,
Kolkata and sought the following information in respect of the passport
issued in favour of one Manvika Kaur Oberoi during the year 2008-2009,
2009-2010 or 2010-2011:
S.No. Information Sought
1. Date of issue of passport
2. Passport number
3. Date of expiry
4. A photocopy of application form duly filled in, signed & submitted by the
applicant for obtaining the passport.
The PIO declined to provide the said information on the ground
that the information relates to a third party and was exempt under Section
8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as RTI
Act). The first appeal having been dismissed, the respondent preferred a
second appeal. Vide order dated 11.4.2012, the Commission directed the
PIO to provide the complete information as per available record. Being
aggrieved from the said order, the Union of India is before this Court by
way of the present writ petition.
3. In W.P(C) No.1263/2012, the respondent - Mr. Jerald Rebello
applied to the PIO in the Ministry of External Affairs, Office of the
Deputy Passport Office, New Delhi and sought the following information
in respect of one Rocky D‟silva who was issued a passport at Bangalore
in January, 1999:
S.No. Information sought
1. Details regarding his arrivals rid departures during the years 1999-2009.
2. Is there any thing to evidence/ proof that he has arrived in Mumbai/India on
28.10.2005 or on 29.10.2005 or any time in 2005.
3. The above passport was renewed in the year January 2009, please provide
details provided/ furnished by him while renewing the above passport
pertaining to the following:-
a) His residential address
b) Details regarding his spouse/child.
c) Details of his case/ cases pending/ filed against him.
d) If any report from the jurisdictional police was called for/ furnished
in this connection.
e) The above was renewed by him through the embassy or through any
agent.
f) The above was renewed in India or in Kuwait or any other country.
The PIO declined to provide the said information. The first appeal
having not yielded any result the respondent approached the Commission
by way of second appeal. Vide impugned order dated 2.12.2011 the
Commission directed providing the complete information as per available
record.
4. In W.P(C) No.8932/2011, the respondent - Praveen Vaid sought
the following information from PIO, Passport Office, Ministry of
External Affairs, Bhopal:
1. Name and designation, with date of the employees of the
concerned office.
2. Copy of application since 1.11.2010 for passport till
26.11.2010.
3. List of authorized agents and rules governing them.
The information was not granted and the first appeal did not yield
any satisfactory results. Being aggrieved, the respondent approached the
Commission by way of a second appeal. Allowing the appeal vide the
impugned order dated 16.9.2011, the Commission directed the IPO to
provide the complete information to the respondent.
5. In W.P(C) No.1677/2012, the respondent - Mr. Durgesh
Vijayvargiya sought the following information from PIO - Regional
Passport Office, Ministry of External Affairs, Bhopal:
S.No. Passport holder‟s name Passport no. Place of issue Date of birth
1. Jaswinder Singh Z118977 Bhopal 20 Feb 1972
Ahluwalia (MP) - India
2. Vikramjit Singh A9375381 Bhopal 06 Dec 1968
Ahluwalia (MP) - India
3. Rupali Ahluwalia A9314729 Bhopal 26 May 1971
(MP) - India
Description of information:-
(a) Addresses of the above mentioned individuals.
(b) Validity of the passports of above mentioned individuals. If
validity have expired then new passport have been issued or
not. If issued, what are the numbers of new passports and
present addresses mentioned in the new passports/ passport
application form.
(c) If above mentioned passport holders are not residing in India
then which country visas have given to them. They are
residing at which country, on which address and who had
sponsored visas to them.
The information having been refused by the PIO on the ground that
it was exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the first appeal
having been dismissed, the respondent approached the Commission by
way of a second appeal and vide the impugned order dated 23.1.2012, the
Commission directed the PIO to provide complete information about the
passport details of the individuals mentioned in the application as per
available record to the respondent.
6. In W.P(C) No.1794/2012, the respondent - Mr. G. Srinivas sought
the following information from PIO in the Passport Office,
Visakhapatnam:
1. Name of the passport holder.
2. Proof of copy of the old passport, passport number and date of
issue.
3. Proof of documents & educational qualifications produced at
the time of applying for the old passport.
4. Proof of educational qualifications and the supporting
documents submitted in getting the status or emigration check
not required for the old passport.
5. Countries visited on the old passport.
6. Date of issuing the renewal of new passport.
7. Proof of the supporting documents and educational
qualifications produced at the time of renewal of new passport.
8. Proof of educational qualifications and the supporting
documents submitted in getting the status of Emigration check
not required for the new passport.
9. Countries visited on the new passport.
The information was denied by the PIO on the ground that it was
exempt under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act and the first appeal having
been dismissed, the respondent approached the Commission by way of a
second appeal and vide the impugned order dated 13.1.2012, the
Commission directed the PIO to provide the complete information as per
available record to the respondent.
7. In W.P(C) No.2231/2012, the respondent - Mr. Rajesh Kapil
sought the following information from the PIO - Regional Passport
Office, Jaipur:
1. Provide with the testified copies of the documents and the
written application submitted by Mr. Dharmendra Attri for
having the passport.
2. If for renew or for the entering of the documents application is
been made more than one time then provide with photocopies
these applications.
3. If the documents are revised in respect with issuing of the
passport to Mr. Darmendra Attri or for the entering for new one
if any application or oath letter is submitted then provide with
the photocopy of the same.
4. Provide with the investigation report of police and CID for
issuing of the passport of Mr. Dharmendra Attri.
5. If the passport has been issued according to the Talkal facility
on the basis of verification certificate of nay office then provide
with the photocopy of the VC.
6. If the documents entered in issuing the passport of Mr.
Dharmendra Attri are based on the requirement of the necessary
documents then their confirmation must be done by the
department.
The PIO having taken the plea that the information was exempt
under Section 8 (1) (r) of the Act, the respondent approached the
Commission, which directed its disclosure as per available record.
8. The only legal issue involved in these petitions is as to whether the
information relating to passport holder is exempt from disclosure under
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information
Act. Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act reads as under:
"(j) 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."
9. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in
W.P(C) No.3444/2012 Union of India versus Hardev Singh, decided on
23.8.2013. In the aforesaid case, the respondent before this Court had
sought the following information from PIO in Regional Passport Office,
Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi:
SI. Queries Reply
1. Name and details of the person to whom Beant Singh s/o Sukhwinder Singh file
passport no. B 5131321 was issued from no. BO4899/01
Delhi Passport Office on 28.6.2001
2. Photocopies of all the documents Photocopies of all documents cannot be
submitted as proof of address and identity provided to you as it is third party
on the basis on which the passport was information and disclosure of the
issued. individual. Please refer to section 8(1)
(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Whether due process and procedure was No, police verification report was
followed in issue of the passport, conducted and received clear on
including police verification report. 21.10.2001.
4. Names and addresses of the witnesses As stated in (2) above.
who had recommended and signed for
issue of the passport.
5 Copy of the noting of the officer who had Copy of the noting portion cannot be
recommended issue of the passport. provided to you as it would be direct
the resources of the public authority.
Please refer to section 7(9) of the RTI
Act, 2005.
6. Whether application from the person for No record is found for renewal of the
renewal of the passport has since been passport no B51313
received. If so, the status thereof is
including date of receipt of the application
and whether marriage certificate attached.
7. All details as mentioned in (1) to (5) As stated in (6) above.
above in respect of the renewal of the
passport.
The following view was taken in the aforesaid case:
"It would thus be seen that if the information
sought by the applicant is a personal information
relating to a third party, it cannot be disclosed,
unless the information relates to any public activity
of a third party who has provided the said
information or it is in public interest to disclose the
information desired by the applicant. It further
shows that a personal information cannot at all be
disclosed if its disclosure would cause unwarranted
invasion of the privacy of the third party which has
provided the said information, unless the larger
public interest justifies such disclosure.
4. The above referred provision came up for
consideration before this Court in UPSC versus
R.K. Jain [W.P(C) No.1243/2011] decided on
13.7.2012 and the following view was taken:
"19. Therefore, "personal information" under the Act,
would be information, as set forth above, that pertains to a
person. As such it takes into its fold possibly every kind of
information relating to the person. Now, such personal
information of the person may, or may not, have relation to
any public activity, or to public interest. At the same time,
such personal information may, or may not, be private to
the person.
20. The term "personal information" under section 8(1)(j)
does not mean information relating to the information
seeker, or the public authority, but about a third party. The
section exempts from disclosure personal information,
including that which would cause "unwarranted invasion of
the privacy of the individual". If one were to seek
information about himself, the question of invasion of his
own privacy would not arise. It would only arise where the
information sought relates to a third party. Consequently,
the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is as regards third party
personal information only.
21. ... The expression "personal information" used in
Section 8(1)(j) means information personal to any
"person", that the public authority may hold. For instance, a
public authority may in connection with its functioning
require any other person to provide information which may
be personal to that person. It is that information, pertaining
to that other person, which the public authority may refuse
to disclose, if the information sought satisfies the
conditions set out in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act,
i.e., if such information has no relationship to any public
activity (of the person who has provided the information, or
who is the source of the information, or to whom that
information pertains), or to public interest, or which would
cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual
(unless larger public interest justifies disclosure).
22. Merely because information that may be personal to a
third party is held by a public authority, a querist does not
become entitled to access it, unless the said personal
information has a relationship to a public activity of the
third person (to whom it relates), or to public interest. If it
is private informtaion (i.e. it is personal information which
impinges on the privacy of the third party), its disclosure
would not be made unless larger public interest dictates it.
Therefore, for example, a querist cannot seek the personal
or private particulars provided by a third party in his
application made to the passport authorities in his
application to obtain a passport, merely because such
information is available with the passport authorities, which
is a public authority under the Act.
24. "Public activity‟ qua a person are those activities
which are performed by the person in discharge of a public
duty, i.e. in the public domain. There is an inherent public
interest involved in the discharge of such activities, as all
public duties are expected to be discharged in public
interest. Consequently, information of a person which is
related to, or has a bearing on his public activities, is not
exempt from disclosure under the scheme and provisions of
the Act, whose primary object is to ensure an informed
citizenry and transparency of information and also to
contain corruption. For example, take the case of a surgeon
employed in a Government Hospital who performs
surgeries on his patients who are coming to the government
hospital. His personal information, relating to discharge of
his public duty, i.e. his public activity, is not exempt from
disclosure under the Act.
27.... whenever the querist applicant wishes to seek
information, the disclosure of which can be made only
upon existence of certain special circumstances, for
example- the existence of public interest, the querist should
in the application (moved under Section 6 of the Act)
disclose/ plead the special circumstance, so that the PIO
concerned can apply his mind to it, and, in case he decides
to issue notice to the concerned third party under Section
11 of the Act, the third party is able to effectively deal with
the same. Only then the PIO/appellate authority/CIC would
be able to come to an informed decision whether, or not,
the special circumstances exist in a given case.
28. I may also observe that public interest does not mean
that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or love of
information or amusement; but that in which a class of the
community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by
which their rights or liabilities are affected...
xxx
34. It follows that the „privacy‟ of a person, or in other
words his "private information‟, encompasses the personal
intimacies of the home, the family, marriage, motherhood,
procreation, child rearing and of the like nature. "Personal
information", on the other hand, as aforesaid, would be
information, in any form, that pertains to an individual.
Therefore, „private information‟ is a part of "personal
information‟. All that is private is personal, but all that is
personal may not be private.
37. In light of the above discussion, the following
principles emerge for the exemption under Section 8(1)(j)
to apply (i) The information sought must relate to "Personal
information‟ as understood above of a third party.
Therefore, if the information sought does not qualify as
personal information, the exemption would not apply; (ii)
Such personal information should relate to a third person,
i.e., a person other than the information seeker or the public
authority; AND
(iii) (a) The information sought should not have a relation
to any public activity qua such third person, or to public
interest. If the information sought relates to public activity
of the third party, i.e. to his activities falling within the
public domain, the exemption would not apply. Similarly,
if the disclosure of the personal information is found
justified in public interest, the exemption would be lifted,
otherwise not;
OR
(iii) (b) The disclosure of the information would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and
that there is no larger public interest involved in such
disclosure."
5. In the case before this Court, it can hardly be
disputed that the information provided by Shri
Beant Singh to the Regional Passport Office, as
proof of his address and identity, would be a
„personal information‟, though its disclosure may
not necessarily impinge on his privacy. Such
information has no relationship to any public
activity of Shri Beant Singh and in fact this is not
the case of the respondent that Shri Beant Singh
actually was engaged in public activity at any point
of time. I find it difficult to accept the view of the
Commission that a person providing information
relating to his address and identity, while seeking
issue of passport to him is engaged in a public
activity. No element of public duty is involved in
providing information in proof of the address and
identity of the applicant, while seeking a passport.
Therefore, such information would certainly be
personal information of Shri Beant Singh, having
no relationship to any public activity. This is not
the case of the respondent that it was in public
interest to disclose the documents submitted by
Shri Beant Singh as proof of his address and
identity. In any case, no public interest is shown to
be involved in disclosure of such information
pertaining to Shri Beant Singh. As observed by
this Court in R.K. Jain (supra), the applicant
should disclose, in the application itself, the
special circumstances such as existence of public
interest which would warrant disclosure of the
information sought by him. No such circumstance,
however, was disclosed by the respondent in his
application to the PIO. Therefore, the information
sought by the respondent, to the extent it pertains
to the documents submitted by Shri Beant Singh,
as proof of his address and identity, is clearly
exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of
the Right to Information Act and to this extent the
order passed by the Central Information
Commission cannot be sustained.
6. As regards, noting on the file recommending
issue of passport to Shri Beant Singh, the only
ground given by the PIO for denying the said
information to the respondent was that the
information was exempt under section 8(1)(j) of
the Act. It is not known whether such noting
contains any information which would disclose the
address, or any other personal information relating
to Shri Beant Singh. In case the file noting sought
by the respondent does not contain any
information which can be said to be personal
information within the meaning of Section 8(1) (j)
of the Act, there can be no objection to its
disclosure."
10. In W.P(C) No.2232/2012, the respondent can have no valid
objection to provide the information as to whether the visa was issued in
the name of Ms. Neeru Duggal or not. It can have no valid objection to
give the details of the passport including the dates of its first issue and
subsequent renewals, if any. There can be no objection to disclose the
nature of the documents submitted with the application, without
disclosing the contents of those documents, since no personal information
is disclosed in disclosing the nature of the documents alone. Similarly,
there can be no objection to give the name of the police station from
which the police verification was got done. The information as regards
the foreign visits undertaken by the passport holder is not supposed to be
available with the Regional Passport Office and, therefore, cannot be
provided by it. The information at serial number 7 and 8, however, being
personal in nature cannot be disclosed.
11. In W.P(C) No.3421/2012, the information as to date of issue of
passport number and date of its expiry can certainly be disclosed since no
personal information is contained in such details. However, copy of the
application form cannot be provided since it would contain personal
information of the passport holder.
12. In W.P(C) No.1263/2012, the information at serial number 1 and 2
is not expected to be available with the Regional Passport Office and,
therefore, cannot be provided to the respondent. The information at serial
number 3 (a) to (c) being personal information of the passport holder,
cannot be provided to the respondent. The information at serial number 3
(d) (e) and (f), however, should be provided to him since it would contain
no personal information within the meaning of section 8(1) (j) of RTI
Act.
13. In W.P(C) No.8932/2011, the information sought by the
respondent is not in respect of any passport holder, but in respect of the
employees working in passport office, Bhopal. The second information,
however, cannot be disclosed to him since the copies of the application
for grant of passport would contain personal details of the passport
holder. However, the information at serial number 3 i.e. list of authorized
agents and rules governing them should certainly be supplied to the
respondent if there is any such list and rules governing authorized agents.
14. In W.P (C) No.1677/2012, the information at serial number 1
cannot be provided to the respondent, the said information being personal
information within the meaning of section 8(1) (j) of the Act. The
information at serial number 2 i.e. validity of the passports of and as to
whether new passports have been issued to them or not and if so what are
the numbers of new passports cannot be refused to the respondent since
these details would contain no personal information in respect of passport
holder. However, the addresses of the passport holders cannot be
disclosed to him. The information at serial number 3 i.e. the countries for
which visas have given to the passport holders in which country they are
residing and at what address and who had sponsored their visas is not
expected to be available with the Regional Passport Office and, therefore,
cannot be granted to the respondent.
15. In W.P(C) No.1794/2012, the information at serial number 1 i.e.
name of the passport holder can be disclosed to the respondent without
disclosing his address. However, copy of the old passport cannot be
provided to him since it would contain address of the passport holder.
However, old passport number and date of issue needs to be provided to
the respondent. The information at serial number 3 and 4 being personal
information of the passport holder cannot be provided to the respondent.
The information at serial number 5 i.e. countries visited by the passport
holder is not expected to be available with the Regional Passport Office
and, therefore, cannot be provided. The information at serial number 6 i.e.
date of issuing the renewal of new passport, however, needs to be
provided to the respondent. As regards information at serial number 7 and
8, the respondent should be disclosed only the nature of documents
submitted by the applicant without disclosing the contents of the
documents. The information at serial number 9 i.e. countries visited by
the passport holder is not expected to be available with the Regional
Passport Office and, therefore, cannot be provided to the respondent.
16. In W.P(C) No.2231/2012, the information at serial number 1 i.e.
copy of the documents and application submitted by the passport holder
cannot be provided since they would contain personal information
relating to the passport holder. The information at serial number 2 and 3
can be provided to the extent as to whether the passport holder had
applied for renewal of the passport and if so on which date. The
documents submitted by him cannot be disclosed. As regards information
at serial number 4 and 5 i.e. reports of the police, the same cannot be
provided to the respondent since it would contain personal information in
respect of the passport holder. The respondent, however, shall be
informed as to whether the Talkal facility was availed by the passport
holder or not. The item at serial number 6 in this case, however, is not in
the nature of information and, therefore, can be ignored.
17. The aforesaid writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of this
order. There shall be no orders as to costs. The order shall be complied
within four (4) weeks.
V.K.JAIN, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013/rd
