Travel Information Of An Individual Is Personal, Can't Be Disclosed To Third Party Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that travel information of an individual is “personal information” which cannot be disclosed to a third party under the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless it is in larger 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 larger publicinterest which justifies the disclosure of the said information,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

The court made the observation while dismissing a plea moved by Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, a death row convict in the Mumbai twin blast case (7/11 bomb blast).

Siddiqui challenged an order passed by Central Information Commission in January 2022 refusing him information regarding the entries of travel (departure or arrival) of a witness in the case from Mumbai International Airport to Hong Kong between January 01, 2006 to June 30, 2006.

The CPIO of Bureau of Immigration dismissed his RTI application on the ground that the Bureau of Immigration is exempted from provided any information under Section 24 (1) and Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act.

The CIC rejected his appeal on the ground that Siddiqui was seeking a third party information which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act.

Upholding the CIC order, Justice Prasad said that the view taken by the Commission was not so perverse which warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The court said that it is always open for Siddiqui to approach the concerned Court under Section 391 of CrPC seeking the said information, if it does not form part of the record of the criminal court even though it is not a part of the chargesheet.

“In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the Central Information Commission. The writ petition is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Rathi and Mr. Vikrant Dhama, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Rahul Sharma, SPC with Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, GP and Mr. Angad Gautam, Advocates

Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUI v. CPIO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 445

Click here to read order