Live Law: Bengaluru: Sunday, 26 October 2025.
The Karnataka High Court has said that information relating to the passport of a person accused of cheque dishonour, including a copy of the passport is personal in nature and cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act.
The court also observed
that the disclosure was exempted under Section 8(1)(h) as being information the
disclosure of which would impede the probe and Section 24(4) as per which the
Act is not applicable on special intelligence and security organization/units
organized and established by the State Government.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said:
“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.”
Praskash Chimanlal Sheth had filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said matter, the accused having absconded, a lookout circular had been issued, in pursuance of which the accused had been detained at Mumbai International Airport and later released.
He had made an application under RTI for furnishing a copy of the passport of the accused, the date on which the LOC was issued against the accused, and a copy of the LOC issued against him.
The same came to be rejected on the ground that the information sought for cannot be furnished in view of Rule 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and further on the ground that the document sought for pertains to the Special Branch and in terms of the notification issued, the RTI Act does not apply to Special Branches in District Police Offices. The order was confirmed in appeal. Against this the complainant approached the high court.
The bench noted that exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act is available to information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Apart from 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, the court noted that the authorities, had categorically rejected the disclosure of the same on account of the RTI Act not being applicable to special units in terms of the notification issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
For Context Section 24(4) of the RTI Act provides that nothing contained in the RTI Act would apply to such an intelligence and security organization being organized and established by the State Government, as the government may from time to time by notification in the official gazette specify.
The bench then said “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.”
Rejecting the petition the court clarified that “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. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application.”
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17341 OF 2025
(Click Here to Download Order)
The Karnataka High Court has said that information relating to the passport of a person accused of cheque dishonour, including a copy of the passport is personal in nature and cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said:
“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.”
Praskash Chimanlal Sheth had filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said matter, the accused having absconded, a lookout circular had been issued, in pursuance of which the accused had been detained at Mumbai International Airport and later released.
He had made an application under RTI for furnishing a copy of the passport of the accused, the date on which the LOC was issued against the accused, and a copy of the LOC issued against him.
The same came to be rejected on the ground that the information sought for cannot be furnished in view of Rule 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and further on the ground that the document sought for pertains to the Special Branch and in terms of the notification issued, the RTI Act does not apply to Special Branches in District Police Offices. The order was confirmed in appeal. Against this the complainant approached the high court.
The bench noted that exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act is available to information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Apart from 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, the court noted that the authorities, had categorically rejected the disclosure of the same on account of the RTI Act not being applicable to special units in terms of the notification issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
For Context Section 24(4) of the RTI Act provides that nothing contained in the RTI Act would apply to such an intelligence and security organization being organized and established by the State Government, as the government may from time to time by notification in the official gazette specify.
The bench then said “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.”
Rejecting the petition the court clarified that “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. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application.”
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17341 OF 2025
(Click Here to Download Order)
.JPG)
.JPG)
