Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/X/09/00160
Dated March 27, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Ms. K Sharada
Name of the Public Authority : M/o External Affairs
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application on 12.08.2008 with the CPIO, CPV
Division, MEA. She requested for the following information with regard to Mr.
Suhas Chakma holding Passport No.B0263230.
Copies of all the documents submitted by Mr. Suhas Chakma at the time of
applying for all his passports so far, starting from the first passport booklet
applied for, upto the most recent one including:
a) Proof of date of birth
b) Citizenship document, if any.
The CPIO, RPO, New Delhi replied on 15.9.08 denying the information u/s
8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 since the information related to “third-party
information”. The Appellate Authority, in response to Applicant’s appeal
which reached his office on 6.10.08 replied on 14.10.08 upholding the
decision of the CPIO.
2. The applicant filed a second appeal on 19.12.2008 before the CIC. In her
appeal she stated that Mr. Chakma is not known to have any birth certificate.
Nor is he known to have applied for a Citizenship certificate. No proof exists
of his having Indian nationality either by birth or by naturalization.
Meanwhile, he avails of all the benefits of Indian citizenship such as a
passport, ration card and voting rights and even receives additional benefits
through an ST certificate. In his submissions, the Appellant placed reliance on
the CIC Decision No.CIC/OK/A/2007/01079 dated 13.11.2007 submitted
alongwith her appeal which directs disclosure of ST certificate and the
application form submitted by Mr. Chakma to JNU at the time of his admission
and records stating his place of birth and nationality on the reasoning that
the information was (i) in the public domain, (ii) there were instances of
people applying for admission/employment/positions on the basis of forged
and false documents. It was therefore in the interests of transparency and
also to put a restraint on the irregularities that this information must be
disclosed. The Appellant further relied on a catena of judgments of CIC on
the issue of whether public interest outweighs privacy of an individual vis a
vis personal information. Among the decisions cited by the Appellant, in
CIC/AT/A/2006/00317 dated 10.10.2006 it was held that “….a matter cannot
be personal simply because it involves a single individual..” ; in
CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 dated 30.08.2006; CIC/AT/A/2007/00009 dated
02.03.2007 and in CIC/MA/A/2006/00258 dated 25.07.2006 also the
emphasis was clearly on disclosure of any information which was in the larger
public interest. The Appellant in her appeal has further pointed out that the
RTI application was filed pursuant to a complaint registered against the third
party, Mr. Suhas Chakma, with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office on
the grounds that despite being a Bangladeshi national he had registered
himself as an Indian citizen through fabricated documents and certificates.
Three judgments reflecting the concern of even the Delhi High Court on the
issue of detection deportation of illegal migrants from Bangladesh have also
been cited substantiating the Appellant’s submissions on larger public
interest.
3. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing on March 27, 2009.
4. Mr. V. Mahalingam, RPO, Delhi; Mr. P Roychaudhuri, Advocate representing
MEA, CPV Division and Jimmy Simon, UDC represented the Public Authority.
5. The Applicant K. Sharda in person alongwith Sarim Naved, Advocate and Mr.
R Nair were present during the hearing.
Decision
6. During the hearing and after much debating on the issue as to whether
the information pertaining to a third party can be divulged in the larger
public interest, it was agreed by the parties that public interest does
predominate over any individual interest and dispute. In view of the facts
and circumstances of this case, the gravity of the issue of illegal
immigrants is of rising concern, more so in view of the utmost priority of
the national safety and security of the citizenry. Hence the need for
transparency in the functioning and mechanism of the MEA is also
necessitated. Accordingly, it was agreed by the parties present, that the
Appellant herein shall file an appropriate complaint before the Respondent
Public Authority viz. MEA within a period of 10 working days without
waiting for the orders of the Commission. The CPIO is directed to forward
a copy of this order to the concerned DSP and to take expeditious action
in diligently following up the said complaint with the police authorities
seeking necessary information as sought by the Appellant. The CPIO is
directed to furnish the information availed by the police authorities to the
Appellant satisfying the Appellant on the aspect as to whether the
Passport obtained by the Third Party viz. Mr. Suhas Chakma, was on the
basis of forged and fabricated documents or not. The CPIO is furthermore
directed to furnish an Inquiry Report with the Commission within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of this Order.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:
1. Ms.K.Sharada
B-21, Jain Park
Kiran Garden
Uttam Nagar
New Delhi 110 059
2. Mr.V.Mahalingam
The CPIO &
Regional Passport Officer
Regional Passport Office
Ministry of External Affairs
Hudco Trikoot-3
Bhikaji Cama Place
R.K.Puram
New Delhi 110 066
3. Mr.R.Swaminathan
The Appellate Authority &
Joint Secretary (CPV)
Ministry of External Affairs
Patiala House, Annexe I
Tilak Marg
New Delhi
4. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Through CPIO & RPO
Mr.V.Mahalingam
Regional Passport Office
Ministry of External Affairs
Hudco Trikoot-3
Bhikaji Cama Place
R.K.Puram
New Delhi 110 066
5. Officer in charge, NIC
6. Press E Group, CIC