Exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act apply to personal and service-related information. File noting in the case of vigilance are sensitive matters and ought not to be disclosed.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India seeking the setting aside of order dated 21st April, 2014 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner (hereinafter `CIC') in respect of point no. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the RTI application filed by the Respondent and RTI Applicant-Madhumita Mondal. The relevant portion of the order dated 21st April 2014 of the CIC directing the said information to be furnished to the RTI Applicant is extracted as under:

"As for point No. 3, the CPIO shall furnish categorical reply to the Appellant regarding referring the Rhynoplasty treatment of Ms. Gargi Kaul to the Medical Board, whether all medical reports were sent to the Board.

As far as point Nos. 4, 5 & 6, the CPIO shall furnish the complete information to the Appellant."

3. The RTI Applicant was seeking information relating to one Ms. Gargi Kaul, an IA&AS officer who was working in the office of the CAG. The said RTI application was filed on 12th February, 2013 which was replied to by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). Some of the information was revealed to the Applicant. However, in respect of points 2, 3, 5 and 6 exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) were relied upon. Further, Section 11 of the RTI Act was also referred to by the CIPO. The relevant extract of the letter of the CPIO where the said references have been made are extracted as under:

"2, 3, 5 & 6: The information sought are third party details which are exempt under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Further, the public authorities are not required to furnish replies to the argumentative queries, as brought out in these points. In this connection, your attention is Invited to DOPT circular No. 1/18/2011-IR dated 16.9.2011 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations on RTI Act, which states 'public authorities are not supposed to solve the problems raised by the applicant or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions, or to furnish information which requires drawing of inference and/or making assumptions. In view of this, no information is required to be furnished.

4: The requisite Information cannot be furnished as the concerned officials had recorded their notes in confidence as part of their assigned duty. Further in terms of Section 11(1) read this section 2(n) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of these details will not serve any purpose of public interest."

4. Aggrieved by the letter of the CPIO, the RTI Applicant filed an appeal dated 28th March, 2013 against the said letter of the CPIO which was decided by the Appellate Authority on 15th May, 2013. The Appellate Authority also took the position that the disclosure of the names of the functionaries of the final notings would not serve any public interest. Further, the officials of the Vigilance deparment who make notes, do so in confidence and the said files are confidential in nature. The relevant extract of the said order of the Appellate Authority is extracted as under:

"4. The disclosure of the names of the lower functionaries of file-notings, as sought by you does to serve any public interest. The officials of vigilance section of this office made the notes in confidence in confidential file to facilitate the decision making process. Your attention is invited to CIC's decision in case of D.P Bhatia v. Custom and Central Excise, New Delhi, (appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757, date of decision 12.11.2010) and to Section 11(1) read with section 2(n) of the RTI Act However, the information is denied."

5. Thereafter, the RTI-Applicant then filed a second appeal before the CIC specifically stating as under: