Travel Information Is Personal Information; Cannot Be Divulged To Third Party Unless Done In Larger Public Interest: Delhi HC Upholds Rejection Of Mumbai Train Blast Convict’s RTI Plea
The Delhi High Court held that the travel information of any person was personal information which cannot be divulged to a third party unless done in larger public interest justifying the disclosure of the said information.
The petitioner was arrested in the Mumbai train blast case by the Mumbai Anti-Terror Squad and was sentenced to death by a Special Court. During the pendency of his appeal before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner had moved a Right to Information application seeking information regarding the entries of travel of one of the witnesses in the blast case.
A Single Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act provides that information which relates to personal information, disclose of which has no relation with any public interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual is exempted. The CIC has rejected the case of the Petitioner on the ground that the information that is being sought is personal information of Mohammad Alam Gulam Sabir Quraishi which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”
Advocate Vinay Rathi represented the petitioner, while SPC Rahul Sharma appeared for the respondent.
The said application has been rejected by the CPIO of the Bureau of Immigration on the ground that the Bureau of Immigration is exempted from providing any information under Section 24 (1) and Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
The petitioner challenged the Order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) which rejected the grant of such information on the ground that seeking third-party information was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The High Court pointed out that the petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act; National Investigation Agency Act, 2008; IPC; Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Railway Act, 1989; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; and was sentenced to death.
“It is always open for the Petitioner to approach the concerned Court under Section 391 CrPC seeking for this information if it does not form part of the record of the criminal court even though it is not a part of the chargesheet,” the Court remarked.
The Court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge holding that the CIC's decision did not warrant interference since disclosure of personal information which had no relation to any public interest was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. CPIO Assistant Director
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Vinay Rathi and Vikrant Dhama
Respondent: SPC Rahul Sharma; GP Rahul Kumar Sharma; Advocates Angad Gautam
