Passport police-verification records under RTI
Quick Reply: The police-verification report on your own passport file is a record. Ask the RPO and the police CPIO for it. §8(1)(g) protects life, physical safety and confidential law-enforcement sources. It is not a standing answer against the applicant. Third-party remarks can be severed under §10.
Topic explainer · RTI Act ss.2(f), 8(1)(g), 8(1)(j), 10 · not a named CIC case report
The statute is enough to frame the request. A State police office is not a CIC second-appeal respondent.
Legal sources
| Nature | Topic explainer. Not a case report. |
|---|---|
| Primary law | RTI Act, 2005, ss.2(f), 8(1)(g), 8(1)(j), 10 |
| Forum | CIC for Delhi Police and MEA/RPO. State Information Commission for a State police office. |
| Also fetched | CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay on the wide definition of information |
Holding
A State Superintendent of Police is a State public authority. A second appeal from that office lies to the State Information Commission, not the CIC. Delhi Police and a Regional Passport Office are central. Their second appeal lies to the CIC.
What can be stated from the Act is this. The report, the file noting and the date of dispatch are information under §2(f). A PIO who withholds the whole file must identify a clause of §8 and, where only part is exempt, sever under §10.
Ratio
Section 8(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure would endanger the life or physical safety of any person, or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. That is a source-and-safety clause. It is not a label for every police note on the applicant's own passport file.
Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information that has no relation to public activity or that would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, subject to a public-interest override. Neighbour statements about a third party may fall here. The process facts of the applicant's own file, the date, the officer's designation, and the clear-or-adverse status recorded against the applicant, are not someone else's privacy.
Section 10 requires the PIO, where a record mixes exempt and non-exempt material, to supply the part that can reasonably be severed. A blanket refusal of the whole PVR is not what s.10 describes.
File the RTI with the public authority that holds the paper. The RPO holds the copy sent to Passport Seva. The district police CPIO holds the station and special-branch noting. For Delhi Police the second appeal is to the CIC. For a State police office it is to that State's Commission.
Section(s) applied
- Section 2(f) - information
- Section 8(1)(g) - life, safety, confidential law-enforcement source
- Section 8(1)(j) - personal information of a third party
- Section 10 - severability
Related
Sources
- RTI Act, 2005, s.8 and s.10 as published on this site
- The Right to Information Act, 2005, full text fetched from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/671631/
- Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011, (2011) 8 SCC 497, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1519371/ - wide definition of information under s.2(f)
Editorial summary, not a certified report. This page states statute and, where named, a real decision that was fetched. It is not a substitute for the full text. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Last reviewed: 11 September 2026.