Important Decisions of the Supreme Court on RTI Act – Part IX
Article
Important
Decisions of the Supreme Court on RTI Act – Part IX
The
performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter
between the employee and the employer… the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of
that individual…
The
details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal
information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section
8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest…
In the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, Petitioner versus Central Information Commissioner & Ors the Supreme Court (in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012) considered the question whether the Central Information Commissioner (for short ‘the CIC’) acting under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the RTI Act’) was right in denying information regarding the third respondent’s personal matters pertaining to his service career and also denying the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. It held as under
“12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the
courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all
memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of
censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in
clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The
performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter
between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed
by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”,
the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public
interest. On the other hand, the
disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that
individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is
satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim
those details as a matter of right.
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
16. We are, therefore, of the view that the
petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is
for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to
entertain this special leave petition.
Comments
Post a Comment