Back
AIR 2010 Delhi 216, 172(2010)DLT124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S. Muralidhar, J.
Arvind Kejriwal – Appellant
Vs.
Central Public Information Officer – Respondent
W.P. (C) 6614/2008 and CM Appl. No. 12685/2008, W.P. (C) 8999/2008 and CM Appl. No. 7517/2008, W.P. (C) 8407/2009 and CM Appl. 5286/2009
Decided On: 30.07.2010
RTI Act - Information Disclosure - Section 11(1)
Fact of the Case:
Mr. Arvind Kejriwal sought information from the Department of Personnel and Training ('DoPT') under the RTI Act regarding appointments at various levels in the Government of India. The DoPT withheld certain information citing exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act and the need to follow the procedure outlined in Section 11(1) for disclosing third party information.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the information sought by Mr. Kejriwal, including ACRs, grading, and vigilance clearance of officers, constituted 'third party information' and had to be viewed as such. It emphasized the procedural safeguard in Section 11(1) to balance privacy rights and public interest in disclosure.
Issues: The key issue was whether providing copies of the documents sought by Mr. Kejriwal would attract the provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, emphasizing that information relating to a third party, including that supplied by a third party, constitutes 'third party information' and must follow the mandatory procedure outlined in Section 11(1) for disclosure.
Final Decision: The court set aside the CIC's order and directed compliance with the procedure outlined under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act for the information Mr. Kejriwal sought. Mr. Kejriwal's writ petition was dismissed, and the Union of India's petitions were allowed.
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. A short but interesting question arises for determination in these petitions arising out of an order dated 12th June 2008, passed by the Central Information Commission ('CIC'). That question is whether the information seeker Mr. Arvind Kejriwal can be provided with copies of documents in the files concerning appointments at the levels of Deputy Secretary, Director, Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and Secretary in the Government of India without the procedure outlined in Section 11(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act') having to be followed?
2. The CIC allowed Mr. Kejriwal inspection of the relevant files concerning empanelment of Additional Secretaries and Secretaries to the Government of India and he was to be provided by the Department of Personnel and Training ('DoPT'), Government of India copies of the documents and records, as might be specified by him after inspection. Further, it was held that since Mr. Kejriwal had already been allowed inspection of the files of the appointments of officers in the rank of Deputy Secretary, Director and Joint Secretary, the denial of photocopies of the documents was not justified. These documents included the annual confidential rolls ('ACRs'), the grading of the officers, their vigilance clearance etc., However, since Mr. Kejriwal himself stated that he did not want copies of the ACRs of each of the officers "but required only the chart which contained the grading of the officers" and "since such chart would not contain any personal information", the CIC directed the DoPT to provide copies of the chart to him within 20 working days.
3. Mr. Kejriwal has filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6614 of 2008 seeking implementation of the above order dated 12th June 2008 of the CIC. The Union of India ('UOI') has filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8999 of 2008 challenging the said order. It has also filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8407 of 2009 challenging a subsequent order dated 27th November 2008 passed by the CIC taking exception to the DoPT's non-compliance of its earlier order dated 12th June 2008 and directing compliance by 30th December 2008.
4. While directing notice to be issued in the Writ Petition (C) No. 8999 of 2008 filed by the Union of India, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 12th June 2008 of the CIC. Likewise, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8407 of 2009 while directing notice to be issued, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 27th November 2008.
5. The background to the proceedings before the CIC has been set out elaborately in the impugned order dated 12th June 2008 of the CIC. Mr. Kejriwal sought information from the DoPT by filing three separate applications on 17th November 2005 under the RTI Act. This information related to empanelment of officers in the Government of India at the level of (i) Deputy Secretary and Director (ii) Joint Secretary (iii) Additional Secretary and above. Under each category the Petitioner sought the following information:
(i) Service-wise list of all the officers empanelled during Financial Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 for the posts of Deputy Secretary, Director, Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary & above and date of empanelment of each officer.
(ii) List of all posts of Deputy Secretary, Director, Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary & above on which, appointments were made under Central Staffing Scheme (CSS) during the Financial Years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
(iii)After the panels of suitable officers have been made, what is the procedure for appointing officers at various posts falling vacant at these levels. Which clause of the Central Staffing Scheme deals with the selection of officers from the panels and their final appointment? Please give copies of all rules, regulations etc. which guide this process.
(iv) Inspection of all files, including file notings, through which the officers were picked up from panels for particular posts during the period from Janu
AI
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
