V.K. Jain, J.

1. The respondent before this Court vide application dated 8.8.2011 sought the following information from the PIO of the Passport Office, Ministry of External Affairs:

1. Provide the photocopy of the passport with complete details of Shri Ajeet Singh son of Shri Ram Bahadur Singh, 496 and 498, dandi gadi cantt. Dehradoon. It was issued in 1997-98.

2. Provide the certified Xerox copy of the date of birth certificate, education documents and residential proof certificates.

The aforesaid information was refused by the PIO on the ground that being a third-party information, it was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. Being aggrieved from the refusal of the PIO to furnish the desired information, the respondent approached the Central Information Commission. Vide impugned order dated 1.5.2012, the Commission, inter alia, held as under:

To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria:

1. It must be personal information.

Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In common language we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. From this it flows that 'personal' cannot be related to Institutions, organizations or corporates. Hence Section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.

The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' means that the information must have been given in the course of a Public activity.

Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal' information from Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorization or passport, all these are public activities. Also when a Citizen provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation this too is a public activity.

We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply;-usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from Citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy.

Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and therefore would apply uniformly to all human beings worldwide. However, the concept of 'privacy' is a cultural notion, related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently. Therefore referring to the UK Data protection act or the laws of other countries to define 'privacy' cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the Citizen's fundamental Right to Information in India. Parliament has not codified the right to privacy so far, hence in balancing the Right to Information of Citizens and the individual's Right to Privacy the Citizen's Right to Information would be given greater weightage. The Supreme of India has ruled that Citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service. It is obvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of misgovernance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny Citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the Citizen's Right to Information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy.

In view of this the Commission does not accept the PIO's contention that information provided by an a