|
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by Mumbai train blast convict Ehtesham Qutbuddin Siddiqui seeking travel information of a person, who was a prosecution witness in his trial. The high court said travel information is personal information and can't be provided under RTI unless there is a large public interest.
"Travel information of any person is personal information and such details cannot be divulged to a third party unless the same is in the larger public interest, which justifies the disclosure of the said information," Justice Subramonium Prasad said. "This Court thinks that the view taken by the CIC is not so perverse as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India," Justice Prasad said in his order of April 8. The petitioner had challenged an Order of January 21, 2022, passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) about an RTI application denying the information of prosecution witness Mohd. Alam Gulam Sabir Quraishi's information related to travel to Hong Kong. "Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act provides that information that relates to personal information disclosed of which has no relation with any public interest or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual is exempted," Justice Prasad said. He noted that the CIC has rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the information that is being sought is the personal information of Mohammad Alam Gulam Sabir Quraishi, which is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. "It is always open for the petitioner to approach the concerned court under Section 391 CrPC seeking 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 clarified. The petitioner was arrested in the Mumbai train blast case by the Anti-Terror Squad, Mumbai on April 27, 2006, and was sentenced to death by Order of September 30, 2015. The appeal against the said order is pending before the Bombay High Court. He moved an RTI application and sought information regarding the entries of travel (departure/arrival) of a person, namely, Mohammad Alam Gulam Sabir Quraishi, from Mumbai International Airport to Hong Kong/China between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2006, made in the FRRO/Immigration Office. The CPIO of the Bureau of Immigration had rejected the RTI application on the ground that the Bureau of Immigration is exempted from providing any information under Section 24 (1) and the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act. His appeal against the order was also rejected on the very same ground. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal before the CIC. The Commission rejected the appeal on the ground that the applicant is seeking a third party information which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act as it belongs to information about a third party. The said order was challenged before the High Court. Advocate Vinay Rathi, counsel for the petitioner, stated that the information sought is relevant for the petitioner in pursuing his appeal, which is pending before the High Court of Bombay. He also stated that the person whose travel details are being sought is a witness. It was further stated that the petitioner has been arrested by falsely implicating him in the said case and the denial of the said information is a violation of human rights. The High Court said that the petitioner, through RTI, sought entries regarding the travel details of a witness, Mohammad Alam Gulam Sabir Quraishi, between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2006. (ANI)
|
