Karnataka High Court Rules Passport Details of Accused Exempt from RTI Disclosure, Citing Privacy and Safety Concerns

BENGALURU – In a significant judgment reinforcing the boundaries of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Karnataka High Court has ruled that a copy of an individual's passport and associated Lookout Circular (LOC) details are personal information and cannot be disclosed to a third party, even if that party is the complainant in a legal proceeding against the individual.

The single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, in the case of Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. State of Karnataka & Others , held that disclosing such sensitive information would not only constitute an invasion of privacy but could also pose a significant risk to the personal safety of the passport holder. The court underscored that the RTI Act is not the appropriate mechanism for litigants to gather evidence for ongoing court cases, directing the petitioner to use the procedural tools available within the specific legal proceedings.

Case Background: A Cheque Dishonour Case and an RTI Request

The matter originated from a private complaint filed by the petitioner, Praskash Chimanlal Sheth, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning a dishonoured cheque. During the proceedings, the accused absconded, leading to the issuance of a Lookout Circular (LOC). Subsequently, the accused was detained at Mumbai International Airport and later released.

Seeking to aid the prosecution of his case, Mr. Sheth filed an application under the RTI Act. He requested a copy of the accused's passport, the date the LOC was issued, and a copy of the LOC itself from the Superintendent of Police, Mangaluru.

The Public Information Officer rejected the request, a decision that was upheld by the appellate authority. The rejection was based on two primary grounds: first, that the information was exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, as its disclosure could impede the process of investigation and prosecution; and second, that the documents pertained to the Special Branch of the District Police, an entity exempted from the purview of the RTI Act under a state government notification issued pursuant to Section 24(4) of the Act. Aggrieved by these rejections, Mr. Sheth filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.

The High Court's Rationale: Balancing Information Access with Personal Safety

Justice Suraj Govindaraj conducted a thorough analysis of the statutory exemptions under the RTI Act, ultimately siding with the state authorities. The court's decision hinged on the personal and sensitive nature of the information requested.

In a key observation, Justice Govindaraj stated, “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.”

This reasoning aligns the passport with other forms of personal data that are protected from indiscriminate disclosure. The court emphasized that the potential for misuse of such detailed personal information—which includes date of birth, address, and travel history—outweighs the petitioner's interest in obtaining it through a general public information channel like the RTI.

Statutory Exemptions Under Scrutiny

The High Court's order validates the application of multiple exemption clauses within the RTI Act.

• Section 8(1)(h) - Impeding Investigation: The authorities initially cited this section, which exempts information that could "impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders." The court agreed that releasing details of an LOC and the passport of an accused who had previously absconded could compromise ongoing efforts by law enforcement to ensure their presence during the trial.

• Section 24(4) - Exemption for Intelligence and Security Organizations: This was a decisive factor in the court's ruling. Section 24(4) of the RTI Act empowers state governments to exempt certain intelligence and security organizations from the Act's provisions. The respondents argued that a government notification had been issued exempting the Special Branches of District Police Offices. Since the requested documents were held by the Special Branch, the RTI Act was deemed inapplicable. Justice Govindaraj affirmed this position, stating, “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.”

Legal Implications: Demarcating RTI from Legal Discovery

The judgment provides critical clarity on the role of the RTI Act in the context of active litigation. The court firmly established that while the petitioner’s goal of using the information for his Section 138 case might be legitimate, the RTI framework is not the correct avenue for evidence collection.

The court clarified the proper procedure for the petitioner, stating, “In the event the petitioner seeking for and 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 in its wisdom, could consider.”

This direction is pivotal for legal practitioners. It reinforces the principle that procedural laws, such as the Code of Criminal Procedure, provide specific mechanisms for parties to summon documents and witnesses. A trial court is the appropriate forum to weigh the relevance and necessity of a document against the privacy and safety concerns of the individual involved. By seeking the documents through the court, the request becomes subject to judicial scrutiny, ensuring a balanced consideration of the rights of all parties.

The High Court was careful to note that its decision did not prejudice the petitioner's ability to make such an application in the trial court. "It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application," Justice Govindaraj added, leaving the decision on summoning the documents entirely to the discretion of the trial judge.

Dismissing the writ petition, the court upheld the decisions of the RTI authorities, solidifying the principle that personal privacy and the integrity of law enforcement processes are paramount considerations that can override the general right to information, especially when alternative and more appropriate legal remedies are available.