The recent observation by the Delhi High Court highlights that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, travel information of an individual is considered "personal information" and should not be disclosed to a third party unless there is a significant public interest involved.

Justice Subramonium Prasad emphasized that,

“Travel information of any person is personal information and such details cannot be divulged to a third party unless the same is in larger publicinterest which justifies the disclosure of the said information,”

The court's observation came in the context of dismissing a plea filed by Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, a death row convict in the Mumbai twin blast case (7/11 bomb blast). Siddiqui had challenged an order issued by the Central Information Commission in January 2022, which denied him access to information concerning the travel entries (departure or arrival) of a witness in the case from Mumbai International Airport to Hong Kong between January 01, 2006, and June 30, 2006.

The Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Bureau of Immigration rejected Siddiqui's RTI application, citing exemption under Section 24(1) and the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act. Additionally, the Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissed Siddiqui's appeal, stating that he was seeking third-party information, which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act.

Justice Prasad upheld the CIC's order, stating that the Commission's decision was not sufficiently unreasonable to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The court noted that Siddiqui could still pursue obtaining the information he sought by approaching the relevant court under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), even if it wasn't part of the criminal court's record or included in the chargesheet.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Rathi and Mr. Vikrant Dhama, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Rahul Sharma, SPC with Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, GP and Mr. Angad Gautam, Advocates

Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUI v. CPIO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR