If Details Of Accused’s Passport Are Made Available, It Could Cause Danger To His Life Or Physical Safety: Karnataka High Court Upholds Rejection Of RTI Application Filed By Cheque Bounce Complainant

The Petitioner had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the order passed by the State Information Commission.

The Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj asserted, “The disclosure of the information like a passport, in my considered opinion, being personal in nature would cause immense harm and injury to a person. The details of a passport are private to a person and if those details of a passport are made available to any third party, including the petitioner who has filed Section 138 of NI Act proceedings, it could cause a danger to the life or physical safety of the concerned person.”

Advocate G. Ravishankar Shastry represented the Petitioner while AGA Saritha Kulkarni represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner had filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) which came to be registered. In the said matter, the accused having absconded, a lookout circular had been issued, in pursuance of which the accused had been detained at Mumbai International Airport and later released. The petitioner had made an application under the Right to Information Act for furnishing a copy of the passport of the accused, the date on which the LOC was issued against the accused, and a copy of the LOC issued against him.

The said application came to be rejected by the Public Information Officer on the ground that the information sought for could not be furnished in view of Rule 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and further on the ground that the document sought for pertained to the Special Branch and in terms of the notification issued, the RTI Act does not apply to Special Branches in District Police Offices. The Petitioner’s application was rejected by the First Appellate Authority and Superintendent of Police. The State Information Commission rejected the second appeal on the ground that in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in SLP No.27734/2012, the information sought for is a personal information and as such, under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, it could not be granted. Challenging these orders, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the petitioner sought for a copy of the passport, a copy of the LOC and all documents which were available with the SP, Mangaluru, in relation to the same. The Bench explained that the exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act is available to information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. It was further noticed that the Public Information Officer had rejected the same on account of the RTI Act not being applicable to special units in terms of the notification issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.

“A perusal of Subsection (4) of Section 24 of the RTI Act would indicate that nothing contained in the RTI Act would apply to such an intelligence and security organization being organized and established by the State Government, as the government may from time to time by notification in the official gazette specify. Since it is contended that there is a notification which has been issued exempting the special branches of the District Police Officers in terms of Subsection (4) of Section 24, the RTI Act would not be applicable”, it held.

The Bench further held that if details of a passport are made available to the petitioner who has filed Section 138 of NI Act proceedings, it could cause a danger to the life or physical safety of the concerned person.

Finding no infirmity in the impugned orders, the Bench dismissed the Petition. The Bench also clarified that in the event the petitioner seeks the said information for use in the prosecution of the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, the petitioner could always make an application in the said proceedings for the summoning of those documents, which the Court could consider.

Cause Title: Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:4136)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate G. Ravishankar Shastry

Respondent: AGA Saritha Kulkarni, Advocate G.B. Sharath Gowda

Click here to read/download Order