Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
M/s. Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd. Bhubaneswar - Appellant
Versus
Orissa State Information Commission & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 2456 of 2011
Decided On : 13-12-2023
RIGHT TO INFORMATION - Disclosure of Personal Information - RTI Act, 2005, Sections 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), 8(1)(j) - The court analyzed the provisions of the RTI Act, particularly Section 8(1)(j), which exempts disclosure of personal information that does not relate to public activity or interest. The court interpreted that the information sought by the Opposite Party No.2 was not merely personal but involved private communication between two juristic persons, thus falling under the exemption. The court emphasized the need for a balance between the right to information and the right to privacy, concluding that the information did not warrant disclosure under the RTI Act.
Fact of the Case:
The Opposite Party No.2 sought information regarding his performance appraisal from the Petitioner-Corporation, which was initially denied on the grounds that it was personal information. The Information Commission later ordered the disclosure of the information, which led to the Petitioner challenging this order in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the information sought was not simply personal information of the Opposite Party No.2 but involved private communications between the Petitioner-Corporation and Orissa Mining Corporation, thus falling under the exemption provided in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The court concluded that the Information Commission failed to consider this aspect adequately.
Issues: Whether the information sought by the Opposite Party No.2 falls under the personal information exemption in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and whether its disclosure would invade the privacy of the Petitioner-Corporation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the information sought was not merely personal to the Opposite Party No.2 but involved confidential communications between two juristic persons, thus exempting it from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The court emphasized that the right to information must be balanced against the right to privacy, particularly when the information pertains to private communications between entities.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Information Commission, ruling that the information sought by the Opposite Party No.2 was exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
JUDGMENT
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Order dated 16th September, 2010 (Annexure-7) passed by Orissa Information Commission, Bhubaneswar (for brevity, 'Information Commission') in Second Appeal No.47 of 2006 is under challenge in this Writ Petition, whereby setting aside the order of the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act') as well as the Public Information Officer (PIO), The Information Commission directed to furnish information to the Opposite Party No.2 as available on record within two weeks from the date of receipt of the said order and report compliance through the Registrar of the Information Commission.
3. Undisputed facts relevant for proper adjudication of this case are that the Opposite Party No.2 filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Act seeking for the following information:-
4. 5. (a) (b) (c) (d) | Particulars in respect of identity of the applicant Particulars of the information solicited: Subject matter of information The period to which the information relates Specific details of information required Whether information is required by post or in person: (The actual postal charges shall be included in providing information) | Employee of this Company from which information is sought FACTS SUBMITTED BY OPGC TO ORISSA MINING CORPORATION REGARDING A) PERFORMANCE FOR LAST FIVE YEARS; B) ANY VIGILANCE CASE PENDING C) ANY DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDING PENDING AGAINST SRI B. N. PANDA; THESE DATA WERE SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO OMC'S QUERY REGARDING B.N.PANDA FOR DECIDING A THREE YEAR DEPUTATION TO OMC. 2003-04 OPGC wrote to OMC that B. N. Panda's 5 years performance is satisfactory, there is no vigilance case against him, no Departmental proceeding pending against him. In person |
The PIO rejected the application vide communication dated 28th January, 2006 (Annexure-3) stating as follows: -
"The undersigned regrets to express his inability to furnish the information asked for vide your application/communication dated 03.01.2000 on the following reasons-
The information sought for by you, are purely personal in nature, the disclosure of which has no relationship to a public activity or interest.
However, if you feel aggrieved for above said refusal you may file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within thirty days of receipt of this letter.?."
3.1 The Opposite Party No.2 assailing the letter under Annexure3 filed Appeal No.1 of 2006 [under Section 19(1) of the Act]. The 1st Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 10th March, 2006 (Annexure-5), dismissed the appeal. Amongst other, the 1st Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that information sought for are personal in nature and has nothing to do with larger public interest. It is also held that the information sought for being directly connected to a matter, which is sub judice before this Court, is not fit to be disclosed to Parliament or State Legislature.
3.2 Being aggrieved, the Opposite Party No.2 preferred Second Appeal No.47 of 2006 before the Information Commission. The said Appeal was disposed of vide order dated 24th May, 2006 (Annexure-6) setting aside the orders passed by both the fora, viz. the PIO as well as First Appellate Authority, and directing the PIO to provide information sought for by Opposite Party No.2 positively by 11.00 AM on 25th May, 2006 failing which action for initiation of proceeding under the penal provision of the Act was directed to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
3.3 Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.7781 of 2006 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 2nd February, 2010 setting aside the order passed under Annexure-6 and directing the Information Commission to hear the Second Appeal afresh.
3.4 Accordingly, the matter was taken up by the Information Commission afresh and the impugned order under Annexure-7 has been passed.
4. Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate submitted that on the d
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 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....
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 ....
Under the RTI Act, personal information related to government employees is exempt from disclosure unless a demonstrable larger public interest exists.
Personal information, including salary details of an employee, is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act unless a larger public interest is demonstrated.
RTI Act does not permit indiscriminate disclosure of personal employee information absent larger public interest; balances transparency against privacy and administrative efficiency; vague queries in....
Personal information like interview marks exempt from disclosure under S.8(1)(j) RTI Act absent larger public interest.
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
