Union of India v. R. Jayachandran

Union of India v. R. Jayachandran is a Delhi High Court judgment of 19 February 2014. It was decided with Ministry of External Affairs v. D.K. Pandey, W.P.(C) 8915/2011, and Ministry of External Affairs v. K.K. Dharman, W.P.(C) 410/2012. Indian Kanoon files the batch under the lead title Ministry Of External Affairs vs D.K.Pandey on 19 February, 2014. Inside the cause title, W.P.(C) 3406/2012 is Union of India versus R Jayachandran. The judge is Manmohan J. The decision is oral. This is not a Supreme Court case and not a ruling on First Appellate Authority speaking orders.

The proper approach, where personal information about a third party is asked, is first to decide whether the information falls under Section 8(1)(j). If that exemption is not attracted, the third-party procedure in Section 11(1) must be followed before the information is released. A passport number is personal information and an identification proof. The CIC had not applied those provisions. Its orders were set aside.

The Ministry of External Affairs challenged CIC orders that directed it to give copies of third-party passports, together with birth certificates, educational qualifications and identity proofs. The respondents did not appear. The Court proceeded ex parte.

Counsel for the Union submitted that a passport application contains personal information. Disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of a third party's privacy. Even if Section 8(1)(j) did not apply, the PIO would still have to follow Section 11. Counsel also submitted that a co-ordinate bench, in a connected batch including W.P.(C) 2232/2012, had directed release of passport numbers and related particulars on the footing that the Ministry generated the information. That reasoning, he said, would also force disclosure of a third party's PAN and password, which the Income Tax Department generates.

The Court set out Section 2(n), Section 8(1)(j), Section 11(1) and Section 19(4). Paragraph 7 then states the method:

the proper approach to be adopted in cases where personal information with regard to third parties is asked is first to determine whether information sought falls under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and if the Court/Tribunal reaches the conclusion that aforesaid exemption is not attracted, then the third party procedure referred to in Section 11(1) of the RTI Act must be followed before releasing the information.

The CIC had not applied those provisions. Paragraph 8 holds that the impugned order was based on surmises and conjectures. General remarks about misgovernance and corruption had no shown relevance. The CIC had not said that the third parties were public servants, politicians or persons in power. It had not examined larger public interest. It had not followed the third-party procedure under Sections 11 and 19(4).

On passport numbers, paragraph 10 disagrees with the co-ordinate bench observation that a passport number is not personal information. Who generates a third-party identifier is irrelevant. A passport number is personal information and an identification proof, specifically when a person travels abroad. Paragraph 11 adds a misuse example. If an applicant lodges a report that a named passport is lost, the Passport Authority may revoke it without the holder's knowledge.

The Court followed Suhas Chakma v. Central Information Commission, W.P.(C) 9118/2009, decided 2 January 2010, and the Division Bench in Harish Kumar v. Provost Marshal-Cum-Appellate Authority, LPA 253/2012, decided 30 March 2012. Third-party privacy information cannot be ordered to be disclosed without notice to that third party. A PIO who requires the applicant to follow Section 11 is not in error on that account.

The co-ordinate direction in the W.P.(C) 2232/2012 batch was held per incuriam, as given in ignorance of Section 11(1). The present writ petitions were allowed. The CIC orders dated 11 April 2012 in W.P.(C) 3406/2012, 21 October 2011 in W.P.(C) 8915/2011, and 19 December 2011 in W.P.(C) 410/2012 were set aside.

• Section 8(1)(j) - personal information, including a passport number
• Section 11(1) - third-party notice before disclosure
• Section 19(4) - third-party hearing on appeal
• Section 2(n) - definition of third party

Cite this case when a request asks for another person's passport file, passport number, or the identity proofs filed with a passport application. The PIO must first apply Section 8(1)(j). If disclosure is still contemplated, Section 11 notice is mandatory. Do not cite this case for a duty on the First Appellate Authority to write a speaking order. That is not what was decided.

• Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner - Section 8 strictly construed
• R.K. Jain v. Union of India - personal information and Section 11
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande - Section 8(1)(j)
• CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal - public-interest test and Section 11
• Section 8 exemptions
• Section 11 third-party information
• High Court RTI rulings
• The RTI Act, 2005
• Case-law database
• The RTI Playbook

• Indian Kanoon, Ministry Of External Affairs vs D.K.Pandey on 19 February, 2014, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149952883/
• Cause title inside the judgment: W.P.(C) 3406/2012, Union of India versus R Jayachandran, with W.P.(C) 8915/2011 and W.P.(C) 410/2012
• Date of decision printed in the judgment: 19th February, 2014. Signature: MANMOHAN, J / FEBRUARY 19, 2014

Last reviewed: 11 September 2026. Holding taken from the judgment text fetched on that date.