कय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुनरका, नई दल – 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: – CIC/UIDAI/A/2020/117913
In the matter of
Ravi Jindal … Appellant
VS
CPIO
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI),
Regional Office, SCO 95-98,
Sector 17 B Chandigarh – 160017… Respondent
RTI application filed on : 12/03/2020
CPIO replied on : 18/05/2020
First appeal filed on : 26/05/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 05/06/2020
Second Appeal Filed on : 19/06/2020
Date of Hearing : 21/01/2022
Date of Decision : 21/01/2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone
Respondent: Jitender Setia, CPIO, heard over phone
Information Sought:
The Appellant has stated that his aadhaar no. is 305671948853 and that of his ex-wife Dr. Ratika is 996992264787. A daughter namely Shanaya Jindal was born to them on 15.09.2015 at Masih Hospital, Model Town, Yamunanagar. In the said context, he has sought the following information:
1. Provide a copy of the aadhaar card of his daughter Shanaya Jindal.
2. Provide address of his daughter as per records of UIDAI.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the sought for information cannot be denied to him u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as he being the father of the minor and her natural guardian as per Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is entitled to get the desired information. He relied on the order passed by the Commission in File No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2018/124652 dated 04.09.2019. He also submitted that his written submissions may be taken on record.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply had been provided to the appellant on 18.05.2020. He also reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 17.01.2022.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved as according to him, he being the natural guardian of his minor daughter cannot be considered as a third party. Per contra, the CPIO in his written submissions has explained as to why the information was denied to the appellant. Apart from the submissions already made, he further submitted that the appellant has failed to mention any Aadhaar number of his minor daughter without which it is nearly impossible for them to take any action whatsoever and by giving the names only, they will not be able to find the Aadhaar number associated with the names.
In the instant case, the information sought relates to the appellant’s daughter.
As per the Act, the CPIO, if he/she intends to disclose the information should issue notice to the third party u/s 11 of the RTI Act. However, in the present case, the third party is a minor. Hence, the legal principle applies that minor’s consent is no consent. However, the CPIO while denying information u/s 8(1)(j) was supposed to follow the procedure envisaged u/s 11 of the RTI Act which has not been done.
The Commission considered the submissions of both the parties and came to the conclusion that the reply of the CPIO claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not proper as Section 11 procedure was not followed by him.
However, since the appellant has failed to give Aadhaar number to the CPIO, he is directed to provide the same to the CPIO so as to enable the CPIO to follow the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Based on the above observations, the appellant is directed to provide the Aadhaar number to the CPIO within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of this information from the appellant, the CPIO is directed to follow due procedure prescribed u/s 11 of the RTI Act and issue notice to the third party. It is to be noted that in the present case, the third party being the minor daughter of the appellant, her consent is no consent, hence the CPIO should issue notice to the mother of the daughter who is having the custody of the minor at present and upon receipt of the response from her, an additional reply along with a copy of the objections, if any, should be provided to the appellant. The direction is to be followed within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of reply from the appellant and a final reply is to be provided to the appellant within a period of 30 days under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त)
Authenticated true copy
(अभमाणत स या
पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
