The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the RTI Act aims to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities, and exemptions from disclosure of information should be interpreted in line with this objective. The court clarified the interpretation of 'personal information' and emphasized the right of citizens to access information related to public activities and conduct of public authorities.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioner, Jamia Millia Islamia, a statutory public central institution regulated by Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988, assails the order dated 21.06.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission (in short referred to as “CIC”) in the respondent’s appeal No.CIC/SG/A/2010/001106, whereby the CIC has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the petitioner to provide the complete information available as on record in relation to query No.1 of the respondent.

2. The respondent had sought information vide query No.1 as follows: “Copies of Agreement/settlement between Jamia and Abdul Sattar S/o Abdul Latif & mania and Kammu Chaudhary in Ghaffar Manzil land”. Two other queries were also raised, however, I am not concerned with them in this petition as the impugned order directs disclosure of information raised in query No.1 only, as aforesaid.

3. The PIO vide reply dated 18.03.2010 rejected the application of the respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the Act for short) by stating that the information sought had no relationship to any public activity or interest and, as such, the same could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The first appellate authority also affirmed the order of the PIO on the same grounds. The CIC, as aforesaid, has allowed the appeal insofar as query No.1 is concerned.

4. Before the CIC, the submission of the petitioner was, and even before me is, that the disclosure of the title documents of the petitioner/public authority/institution is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. It was argued that the information sought by the respondent was an invasion of the privacy of the institution and had no relationship with any public activity or interest. It was argued that in case the title documents of the petitioner fall in wrong hands, it could be highly prejudicial to the cause of the petitioner-Institution, as there was a possibility that the said title documents may be misused.

5. On the other hand, the argument of the respondent herein was that since the petitioner is a University, it had no right to withhold the information about it.

6. The CIC held that to qualify for the exemption contained in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, the information sought must satisfy the following criteria:-

“The information sought must be personal in nature. Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In common language, we would ascribe the adjective „personal? to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. From this, it flows that „personal? cannot be related to Institutions, Organisations or Corporates. Hence, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act cannot be applied when the information concerns Institutions, Organisations or Corporates. . The phrase „disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest? means that the information must have been given in the course of a public activity. Various public authorities while performing their functions routinely ask for „personal? information from citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. Public activities would typically include situations wherein a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, license or authorization, or provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation. The disclosure of the information would lead to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a citizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusi