Back
Supreme Court of India
G.S. SINGHVI, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
R.K. Jain
Versus
Union of India & Another
Civil Appeal No. of 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No.22609 of 2012)
Decided on : 16-04-2013
Right to Information Act -Section 11 - Public Information Officer- employment - appeal, the appellant challenges the final judgment and order dated 20th April, 2012 passed by the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 22/2012. In the said order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th December, 2011, wherein the Single Judge held that “the information sought by the appellant herein is the third party information wherein third party may plead a privacy defence and the proper question would be as to whether divulging of such an information is in the public interest or not.” Thus, the matter has been remitted back to Chief Information Commissioner to consider the issue after following the procedure under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act.
3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
The appellant filed an application to Central Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPIO’) under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTI Act’) on 7th October, 2009 seeking the copies of all note sheets and correspondence pages of file relating to one Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, Member/CESTAT –Held, 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 been 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 performance of an employee/officer in an organisation 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 or 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.
13. 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 –petition dismissed
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
The case concerns the right to access information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, specifically focusing on whether personal information of third parties, such as employees or public servants, can be disclosed (!) (!) .
The appellant sought detailed information related to a third-party individual, including employment records, property details, investments, and personal gifts, which are generally considered personal information and are protected from disclosure under the RTI Act (!) (!) .
The authorities denied the request, citing exemption clauses that protect personal information from disclosure unless there is a larger public interest that justifies such disclosure (!) (!) .
The denial was upheld through multiple levels of appeal, emphasizing that disclosures related to personal information, such as performance records or confidentiality of employment files, are exempt unless overriding public interest is established (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts and commissions consistently held that information related to an individual's performance, integrity, or confidentiality in employment is primarily a matter of privacy, and its disclosure could cause unwarranted invasion of privacy unless a clear larger public interest is demonstrated (!) (!) (!) .
The procedures outlined in the RTI Act for third-party information, especially Section 11, must be strictly followed before such information can be disclosed. This involves notifying the third party and providing an opportunity to object, with a decision to be made based on whether public interest outweighs privacy concerns (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Disclosing third-party information without following the prescribed procedures under Section 11 is not permissible, and such procedural violations can lead to the reversal of disclosure orders (!) (!) .
The courts have reaffirmed that information contained in personal records, such as Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), is protected unless there is a compelling public interest, and the disclosure of such information should be carefully weighed against privacy rights (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal framework emphasizes that personal and confidential employment information, including performance and integrity records, are protected from disclosure unless the requester can convincingly demonstrate a significant public interest that justifies overriding privacy rights (!) (!) .
The procedural safeguards and privacy protections are fundamental to ensuring that the RTI Act's exemptions are correctly applied, and any deviation from these procedures can result in the reversal of decisions to disclose such information (!) .
Please let me know if you require a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
Judgment :-
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
Leave granted.
2. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the final judgment and order dated 20th April, 2012 passed by the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 22/2012. In the said order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th December, 2011, wherein the Single Judge held that “the information sought by the appellant herein is the third party information wherein third party may plead a privacy defence and the proper question would be as to whether divulging of such an information is in the public interest or not.” Thus, the matter has been remitted back to Chief Information Commissioner to consider the issue after following the procedure under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act.
3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
The appellant filed an application to Central Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPIO’) under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTI Act’) on 7th October, 2009 seeking the copies of all note sheets and correspondence pages of file relating to one Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, Member/CESTAT. The Under Secretary, who is the CPIO denied the information by impugned letter dated 15th October, 2009 on the ground that the information sought attracts Clause 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which reads as follows:-
“R-20011-68/2009 – ADIC – CESTAT
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
New Delhi, the 15.10.09
To
Shri R.K. Jain
1512-B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg,
Wazir Nagar,
New Delhi – 110003
Subject: Application under RTI Act.
Sir,
Your RTI application No.RTI/09/2406 dated 7.10.2009 seeks information from File No.27-3/2002 Ad-1-C. The file contains analysis of Annual Confidential Report of Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram only which attracts clause 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. Therefore the information sought is denied.
Yours faithfully,
(Victor James)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India”
4. On an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, the Director (Headquarters) and Appellate Authority by its order dated 18th December, 2009 disallowed the same citing same ground as cited by the CPIO; the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“2. I have gone through the RTI application dated 07.10.2009, wherein the Appellant had requested the following information;
A) Copies of all note sheets and correspondence pages of File No. 27/3/2002 – Ad. IC relating to Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram.
B) Inspection of all records, documents, files and note sheets of File No.27/3/2002 – Ad. IC.
C) Copies of records pointed out during / after inspection.
3. I have gone through the reply dated 15.10.2009 of the Under Secretary, Ad. IC-CESTAT given to the Appellant stating that as the file contained analysis of the Annual Confidential Report of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, furnishing of information is exempted under Section 9 (1) (j) of the R.T.I. Act.
5. The provision of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 under which the information has been denied by the CPIO is reproduced hereunder:
“Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information……”
6. File No.27/3/2002- Ad.1C deals with follow-up action on the ACR for the year 2000-2001 in respect of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (Judicial), CEGAT” (now CESTAT). The matter discussed therein is personal and I am not inclined to accept the view of the Appellant the since Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram is holding the post of Member (Judicial), CESTAT, larger public interest is involved, which therefore, ousts the exemption provided under Section 8 (1) (j). Moreover, Ms. Jyoti Balasun
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
