Important information on filing RTI for Passport

[bennyjose]

During my course of filing a RTI with the passport office i found that you are entitled to information within 48 hours due to below reason. Would help get a response at the earliest if you add the below to your RTI application.

Kindly provide the information and records within the stipulated 48 hours (Section 7 of RTI ACT 2005) from the time of receipt of this request as this concerns my life and liberty as governed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India on Personal Liberty that states that “the meaning of the word life also includes the right to go abroad” which is also acknowledged by The Passports Act 1967, that states “the right to travel abroad is a part of person’s personal liberty”.

[prbhat_gen]

Benny,

great find


Members,

Please check if the article 21 of our consititution actually says so ?

Also while filing our First appeal, can we make a reference of it to the appellate authority?

[bennyjose]

My source of Information

Article 21
Article 21 Of The Constitution - Author - Aakriti Agrawal
The first decision given to interpret the scope and meaning of life and personal liberty under article 21 of the Indian constitution was:
Unni krishnan vs. State of Andhra pradesh
the apex court has widened the scope of article 21 and has provided with the rights article 21 embraces within itself. They are
Right to go abroad
Right to privacy

Passport Act
http://passport.nic.in/passport_act.pdf

[prbhat_gen]

article 21 of the constitution says

"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

but then right to go abroad was also included

[karira]

Beeny,

Did the PIO of the Passport Office accept this as a Life and Liberty case ?

Please give the progress.

[bennyjose]

This link has a better description.

Article 21 Of The Constitution Of India - The Expanding Horizons - Author - Vidhan Maheshwari

The meaning of the word life includes the right to live in fair and reasonable conditions, right to rehabilitation after release, right to live hood by legal means and decent environment. The expanded scope of Article 21 has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. and the Apex Court itself provided the list of some of the rights covered under Article 21 on the basis of earlier pronouncements and some of them are listed below:
(1) The right to go abroad.

[prbhat_gen]

is it at the discreation of the PIO to decide (even after all the reference are given) ?

[bennyjose]

In my case i filed for a RTI and didnt get any response for 80 days. Finally i lodged a regular complaint with the CIC portal CIC and was meanwhile preparing a stronger case for RTI (since i had lapsed on the first appeal time frame) during which time i found this information. However i could not test it out as based on my CIC complaint
i got a call from the CIC office and then the passport office the very next day and the passport was dispatched the same day.

I had plans of perusing the RTI to its logical conclusion but my family moves abroad so there is nobody to chase this up.

[prbhat_gen]

your RTI application was filed with which RPO ?

[bennyjose]

with Hyderabad RPO and i had infact used your template :-)

[prbhat_gen]

had your case been against RPO Ghaziabad, i would had offered you to persue your case on your behalf.

[bennyjose]

I can understand the frustration. I spend the last 4 months following your case progress. It took me 9+ month trying to get a passport for my mom.

Keep the faith and still feel RTI is the best bet we have.

[jiwateshwar]

i Dont think above would be maintainable

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/CIC_Ord...03032006_1.pdf
Appeal 04/IC(A)/CIC/2006
Dated, the 3rd March, 2006
The appellant has requested for certified copies of statements recorded by the CBI and the Metropolitan Magistrate as well as for inspection of files within 48 hours as it pertain to his life and liberty. The said files contain information about his prosecution initiated by the CBI. As the appellant is performing his normal duties as a government official and is leading a normal life, there is no perceived threat to his life and liberty. Therefore, appellant’s appeal under Section
7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not justified.

also

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_13032008_14.pdf
Appeal No.1634/ICPB/2008
F.No.PBC/08/132
March 13, 2008
During the hearing the PIO has stated that they did not treat the case as life and liberty since the disease by which the patient was suffering was only chronic hyper tension and had no potential threat to the life of the patient and the medicines prescribed by the attending doctor were only the normal medicines. I am inclined to agree with this view since the issue has been explained to my satisfaction during the hearing.

For an application to be successful under 7(1), the applicant has to prove that it poses significant threat to his life and liberty. The CIC does not really seem to take the meaning of life and liberty as defined in constitution of India.

See the following

http://www.cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Dec...18072006_1.pdf
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00128
Dated : 24/25.2.2006
On the question of life and liberty, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution reads as follows:. “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Similarly proviso to sec. 7(1) deals with information sought being described as one that concerns the life or liberty of a person. Whereas matters of an administrative nature may not necessarily be considered a threat to life or liberty, programmes for demolition of inhabited structures must surely be so construed. It is open to the CPIO to rule that since structures are no longer inhabited, the application is of no concern for life & liberty, he or she must satisfy himself/herself of this fact before so ruling, while the applicant can do so by providing substantive evidence of this, as held by us in the above cited case. In the present case, therefore, not taking account of the application under the proviso to sec. 7(1) by the PIO and the summary disposal by the Appellate Authority that “present case does not fall in the ambit of the provisions of sub section 1 of section 7 of the Act” without giving reasons as to why it does not do so, cannot be construed as being in consonance with the requirements of the Act.

However the CPIO is required to validate his rejection of applicability of 7(1). Very few CPIOs might be able to do that. Thus the PIO in some cases might agree to teh above claim, but I dont see this standing in CIC!

[bennyjose]

I would agree on the face of it, passport doesnt seem a threat to life and liberty question and is subjective but "travelling abroad" has been included in the definition as a "life and liberty" by Article 21 and the Passport Act mentions (the right to travel is part of person's liberty").

So administrative aspects aside ( which is 45 days to issue a passport) if there is no reason to deny anyone a passport, such matters can be filed as a "matter of life and liberty" in my opinion.

[taurus]

To me it appears to be stretching things too far. If one can prove that denial to go abroad may put one's life in imminent danger, perhaps then, it would fall under the definition of 'concerning life and liberty'.

[sandeepbaheti]

May be the RPO can point out that if you wanted to go abroad so urgently that you consider delay in issue as threat to your liberty then you should have applied for a tatkal passport.

[taurus]

As already pointed out Art 21 says.."..except as per procedure established by law." The procedure established by law for issue of passport takes some time. It is not reasonably possible to issue passport to all applicants within 48 hours. All fundamental rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. No right is absolute devoid of any restrictions whatsoever!