Information
related to travel is personal in nature and such details cannot be divulged to
a third party under the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless it is in the
larger public interest, the Delhi High Court has said.
The
court has refused to interfere with an order of the Central Information
Commission (CIC) that dismissed a plea moved by Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, a
death row convict in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case.
Siddiqui had sought information under the RTI Act
regarding the travel entries (departure and arrival) of Mohammad Alam Gulam
Sabir Quraishi from the Mumbai airport to Hong Kong or China between January 1,
2006 and June 30, 2006 made with the Foreigners' Regional Registration Office
(FRRO) or Immigration Office.
He
had challenged the CIC's January 2022 order that denied the information to him.
"The
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. This court is
of the opinion that the view taken by the CIC is not so perverse which warrants
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India," Justice
Subramonium Prasad said.
The
petitioner had filed an RTI application with the central public information
officer (CPIO) of the Bureau of Immigration, which dismissed the plea on the
ground that the department was exempted from providing any information under
section 24(1) and the Second Schedule of the RTI Act.
Thereafter,
he appealed before the CIC, which also rejected it on the ground that Siddiqui
was seeking third-party information that was exempted under section 8(1)(j) of
the Act.
The
petitioner's lawyer had submitted that the information was relevant for
Siddiqui in pursuing his pending appeal before the Bombay High Court.
He
had said the person whose travel details were sought was a witness and claimed
that the petitioner was arrested after he was falsely implicated in the case
and denying the information to him was a violation of human rights.
The
high court dismissed the petition and said it was always open for the
petitioner to approach the court concerned under section 391 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to seek this information if it does not form a part
of the record of the criminal court.
The
petitioner, presently lodged in a prison, had claimed in his plea that he was
falsely implicated in the Mumbai train blasts case by the Anti-Terrorism Squad
(ATS), Mumbai.
Earlier,
the court had dismissed another petition filed by the petitioner challenging a
CIC order denying the disclosure of certain information pertaining to the
sanction granted for his prosecution for offences under the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act (UAPA) by the Maharashtra government.
It
had also rejected his plea seeking the reports submitted by the Maharashtra and
Andhra Pradesh governments regarding the investigation into the train bombings.
Two
petitions of the petitioner seeking certain information in relation to the
officers involved in the investigation and the granting of sanction for his
prosecution were dismissed by the high court.
It
had dismissed his petition seeking the disclosure of certain information
pertaining to the ban imposed on the Indian Mujahideen.