IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J.
Shri T John Longkumer, IPS And Anr – Appellants
Versus
Naga Tribal Union Chumukedima Town And Anr – Respondents
WP(C) 39 of 2022
Decided on : 16-12-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs– Aggrieved by order and order passed by Nagaland Information Commission, directing them to furnish complete information sought by respondent regarding appointment of Police personnel, and administrative staffs in Police Department of Nagaland during period writ petitioners filed writ petition challenging two orders –Held, Careful reading together of provisions of RTI Act given herein above and relevant portions of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court which is also reproduced herein above, clearly shows that when an information relating to personal information of a third party is sought such information can be denied, but if information sought for relates to or is connected with larger public interest, same can be given – In other words, information sought for may relate to personal information but if public interest involved in it is so overwhelming, then information sought for has to be given – Petition dismissed.
Certainly. Please specify the legal question or issue you would like me to address based on the provided document.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 27/07/2021 and the order dated 24/11/2021 passed by the Nagaland Information Commission, directing them to furnish complete information sought by the respondent No.1 regarding appointment of Police personnel, and administrative staffs in the Police Department of Nagaland during the period 2019-2020, the writ petitioners filed the writ petition challenging the two orders.
3. The undisputed facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:-
“1. Number of post advertised under the establishment of Director General of Police, Nagaland Kohima for the year, 2019.
2. Number of appointments made under the establishment of Director General of Police, Nagaland Kohima from 2019 till date.
3. Appointment orders of the following categories of posts for the year 2019-2020:
(i) UBSI (GD)
(ii) SI (Opr)
(iii) SI (Tech)
(iv) ASI
(v) LDA Directorate (PHQ Kohima)
(vi) LDA District
(vii) Stenographer (GR-III)
4. Appointment Orders of Non Combatant Executives (NCE) w.e.f.1 st Jan.2018-2020.”
(2) On receipt of the application, the petitioner No.2 furnished some of the informations vide his letter dated 28/10/2020, as follows:-
“1. Number of posts advertised under the establishment of Director General of Police, Nagaland, Kohima for the year 2019.
Reply:- Constables - 206
2. Number of appointments made under the establishment of Director General of Police, Nagaland, Kohima from 2019 till date
Reply:- Sub-Inspector - 14
ASI - 01
Constables - 897
LDA (District – 13
The information sought by you at queries Sl.no.3 and 4 are protected under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and thus cannot be revealed.
The First Appeal, if any, against the reply may be made to the First Appellate Authority mentioned below within 3o days of the receipt of reply.”
(3) Not being satisfied with the reply/information provided, the respondent No.1 approached the First Appellate Authority i.e. the DGP (writ petitioner No.1) reiterating his request for the following informations:-
“A-1 Number of posts advertised under the establishment of Director General of Police (DGP) Nagaland, Kohima for the year 2019.
2. Number of appointments made under the establishment of Director General of Police (DGP) Nagaland, kohima from 2019 till date.
3. Appointment Order of the following categories of posts for the year 2019-2020:
(i) UBSI (GD)
(ii) SI (Opr)
(iii) SI (Tech)
(iv) ASI
(v) LDA Directorate (PHQ Kohima)
(vi) LDA District
(vii) Stenographer (GR-III)
4. Appointment order od Non Combatant Executives (NCE) w.e.f.1st Jan.2018-2020.
B. To initiate proceeding as per Sec.20 of RTI Act 2005 as deem and proper.”
(4) The First Appellate Authority heard the appeal and dismissed the same by order dated 17/12/2020. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order of the First Appellate Authority, the respondent No.1 (the RTI applicant) approached the Nagaland Information Commission. After hearing the parties the Nagaland Information Commission disposed the same by the impugned order dated 27/7/2021 directing the DGP, Nagaland (petitioner No.1) to furnish complete information as sought by the RTI applicant and to submit action taken report to the Commission within 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commission(Second Appellate Authority), the petitioner No.1 submitted an appeal to the State Information Commission contending that the information sought for pertains to personal information of Police personnel which comes under the exemption clause given under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act,2005, therefore the orde
The main legal point established in the judgment is that personal information sought under the Right to Information Act must have a relationship to a public activity or interest and its disclosure sh....
Personal information like interview marks exempt from disclosure under S.8(1)(j) RTI Act absent larger public interest.
Personal information like interview marks exempt under S.8(1)(j) RTI Act unless larger public interest shown; privacy prevails over disclosure in recruitment processes.
The court established that communications between public authorities regarding an employee's performance, when classified as private, do not warrant disclosure under the RTI Act if they do not relate....
Personal employee information exempt under RTI Section 8(1)(j) absent public interest; repetitive vague RTI queries constitute misuse, undermining administrative efficiency; right to information not ....
Personal employee details exempt under RTI Section 8(1)(j) absent larger public interest; RTI not absolute, misuse through vague/repetitive queries for litigation rejected; exercise right judiciously....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.