CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION .. F.No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00205 Dated, the 26th March, 2008. Appellant (Reviewpetitioner) : Shri P.C.Wadhwa, H.No.

100, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh, Pincode - 160 002.

Respondents : Shri Babu Lal, Joint Director of Census Operations & CPIO, Directorate of Census Operations Delhi, Room No.207, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110 054. Shri R.C. Sethi, Addl. Registrar General, India, Office of the Registrar General, India, 2A, Mansingh Road, New Delhi-11. This is a review-petition filed by the appellant, Shri P.C. Wadhwa on 9.4.2007 against the Commissions earlier order dated 28.12.2006. 2. Parties were called for a hearing on 28.02.2008 for this review-petition filed by appellant. 3. The appellants second-appeal dated 5.7.2006 came up for hearing on 18.12.2006. According to the appellant, the hearing could not be held as originally stipulated on 18.12.2006, but was held on the next date, i.e. 19.12.2006 as mentioned in the Commissions order dated 28.12.2006. This order was issued on the conclusion of the hearing on 19.12.2006. The review-petitioner made the point that he could not make his personal submission to the Commission on account of the fact that the hearing took place on 19.12.2006 and not on 18.12.2006 as notified to him through Commissions notice dated 20.11.2006. 4. He, therefore, wanted that the Commission gave him a personal hearing. Accordingly, the review-petitioner and the respondents were called for a hearing. Both were present. 5. The review-petitioner, through his RTI-request dated 01.02.2006 had asked for the following information:Details of the information sought with office file reference, of [sic] any:I. 1991 CENSUS

Entries regarding Names and Religion in answer to Q.1 (Column 2) and Q.7 (Column 8) in CENSUS OF INDIA 1991 HOUSEHOLD SCHEDULE, From-A in respect of: (1) Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi; (2) Smt. Sonia Gandhi;

} }10, Janpath, New Delhi Page 1 of 3

(3) (4) II.

Shri Rahul Gandhi; and Ms.Pyriyanka [sic] Gandhi 2001 CENSUS

} }

The above information in respect of : (i) Smt. Sonia Gandhi }10, Janpath, New Delhi (ii) Shri Rahul Gandhi; } (iii) (iv) (v) Smt.Pyriyanka [sic] Gandhi Vadra; } Shri Robert Vadra; and } 35, Lodi Estate, New Delhi Son of (ii) & (iv) above }

6. Through its order dated 28.12.2006, the Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO and the AA not to disclose the information to the appellant and rejected the appellants second-appeal on considering the written-submission of the appellant and the submissions of the respondents. 7. During the hearing of the review-petition, the petitioner argued that late Shri Rajiv Gandhi and Smt. Sonia Gandhi and other members of her family were public figures who had projected certain public image regarding their religious belief and faith. They performed rituals at religious places which would show them as belonging to a particular faith. According to the review-petitioner, their publicly displayed faith was divergent from the reality of their faith. He believed that the country was entitled to know what the truth was, which could come out only if the review-petitioner was given access to the census record, which contained statements of the third-parties about their religion. 8. The respondents repeated the points which they had previously made. They had nothing more to add. Decision: 9. Commission has steadfastly held that the matters private to an individual cannot be forced out into the open through invoking the provisions of the RTI Act. Faith or belief of a person is an intensely private matter. There is absolutely no reason why the privacy, which is valuable for an ordinary individual, should not be precious also for public figures. Having a public persona, does not imply surrender of privacy or making public information acknowledgedly personal. It was a fallacy that there was any public interest in disclosure of matters admittedly private, simply because such matters related to a public figure and not to an ordinary individual. Commission has to be specially careful about disclosure of information private citizens / individuals place at the disposal of public authorities in complying with requirements of law, and more so, when such parting of personal information is preceded by an assurance, by the public authority, to keep the information confidential. The sanctity of the private domain must be kept inviolate at all times.

Page 2 of 3

10. The Commission, therefore, sees no merit in the submissions of the review-petitioner and holds that there is no reason to alter the order of the Commission dated 28.12.2006. 11. Review-petition is rejected. Sd/(A.N. TIWARI) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Authenticated by Sd/( D.C. SINGH ) Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar Address of parties: 1. 2. Shri P.C.Wadhwa, H.No.100, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh, Pincode - 160 002. Shri Babu Lal, Joint Director of Census Operations & CPIO, Directorate of Census Operations Delhi, Room No.207, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110 054. Shri R.C. Sethi, Addl. Registrar General, India, Office of the Registrar General, India, 2A, Mansingh Road, New Delhi-11.

3.

Page 3 of 3