Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 777
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
P. Adhavan Seral – Appellant
Versus
The Tamilnadu Information Commission, Repd. by State Information Commissioner, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 21018 of 2015 & MP. No. 1 of 2015
Decided on : 18-07-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :P. Balamurugan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Niranjan Rajagopalan, C. Sathish, Government Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of personal information, invasion of privacy, and the public interest in justifying disclosure of information under the RTI Act, 2005.
Headnote:
RTI Act - Right To Information - Section 6(1) - Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j) - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED: The court discussed the exemptions provided under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. It emphasized the interpretation of personal information, invasion of privacy, and the public interest in justifying disclosure of information. The court also highlighted the application of Section 11 of the Act, which requires putting third parties on notice before disclosing their information.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought information under the Right To Information Act, 2005 regarding the certificates submitted by individuals registered under the special category of 'Inter-Caste Marriage' at the District Employment Office. The 3rd respondent denied the information for the second query, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the information sought involved personal details and would invade the privacy of the individuals. It also emphasized the public interest in justifying the disclosure of information and the application of Section 11 of the RTI Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to the certificates of individuals registered under the 'Inter-Caste Marriage' category, considering the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the information sought involved personal details and would invade the privacy of the individuals. It emphasized the public interest in justifying the disclosure of information and the application of Section 11 of the RTI Act.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. The court upheld the decision of the respondents in denying the issuance of the certificates of the candidates registered under the 'Inter-Caste Marriage' category.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the 1st respondent in Case No. 16278/E/2014 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to provide exact information sought by the petitioner by the way of RTI Petition dated 27.08.2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.)
1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 19.11.2014 and for a direction to the 3rd respondent to provide the information sought for by the petitioner under the Right To Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’).
2. The petitioner made an application under the Act, before the 3rd respondent on 27.08.2013 and sought for the following informations:
1. “The name of the persons registered in the district employment office, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai district under the special category of “Inter-Caste Marriage” (ICM) during the months from March 2010 to May, 2010 and their respective registration number?
2. Please furnish the certificates provided by the said persons in the course of their registration?”
3. The 3rd respondent provided the information for the first query. Insofar as the 2nd query is concerned, the petitioner was informed that the certificates sought for by the petitioner cannot be given to him.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent with respect to the second query for which information was denied to him. The 1st respondent through an Order dated 19.11.2014, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the stand taken by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.
5. Heard Mr.P.Balamurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Niranjan Ragagopalan, learned counsel for R1 and Mr.C.Sathish, learned Government Advocate for R2 and R3.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had sought for the copies of the certificates that were submitted by those who have registered themselves under the special category of “Inter-Caste Marriage”. The learned counsel submitted that the persons, who come under this category have an upper hand when it comes to public employment and hence, the nature of documents submitted by them must be available in the public domain and only then a person who has been pushed back in public employment can question the authenticity of those certificates produced by the concerned candidates. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no bar under Section 8 (1)( j) of the Act, since no personal information is sought for and the documents in question are in the nature of public documents and the same is being used for securing a public employment.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the exemption provided under Sections 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) ( j) of the Act, will apply in the present case. That apart, the documents sought for by the petitioner tantamount to providing 3rd party information and such information cannot be given without making them as parties and without hearing them as provided under Section 11 of the Act.
8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
9. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking for the certificates that were submitted by persons who registered themselves in the District Employment Office under the special category of “Inter-Caste Marriage”.
10. The respondents have taken a stand to the effect that the petitioner is seeking for personal information of the candidates, who have registered themselves in the Employment Exchange and the same is exempted under Section 8 (1)(j) of the Act.
11. Insofar as the contention raised by pointing out to Section 8 (1)(e) is concerned, it deals with an information available with the person in his fiduciary relationshi
