Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Bahri, Manisha Batra, JJ.
Dr. Jagrati Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Information Commissioner, Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
LPA No. 145 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-01-2023
Right to Information - Personal Information - RTI Act, 2005 - [Right to Information] - [Personal Information] - [Section 8(1)(j), Section 2(f)] - The court discussed the interpretation of personal information under the RTI Act, 2005, and its application to the specific information sought by the respondent. The court referred to the judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner and others, and Dr. R.S. Gupta vs. Government of NCTD and others to determine the scope of personal information and its exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The court held that certain information related to the appellant's appointment could be provided under the RTI Act, but other personal information, including details of her posting, deputation, leave, attendance register, and Form-16, could not be disclosed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Dental Surgeon, filed a writ petition against an order of the State Information Commission, Haryana, which directed the provision of certain personal information to a third party under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant argued that the information ordered to be supplied was her personal information and there was no public interest involved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that certain information related to the appellant's appointment could be provided under the RTI Act, but other personal information, including details of her posting, deputation, leave, attendance register, and Form-16, could not be disclosed. The court set aside the impugned judgment and directed that only the date of appointment of the appellant should be provided to the third party.
Issues: The main issue was whether the information sought by the third party under the RTI Act, 2005, constituted personal information and whether there was a public interest involved in providing the information.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the interpretation of personal information under the RTI Act, 2005, as established in previous judgments and held that certain information related to the appellant's appointment could be provided, but other personal information could not be disclosed.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and the order of the State Information Commission, Haryana, were set aside, and it was directed that only the date of appointment of the appellant should be provided to the third party.
JUDGMENT
Ritu Bahri, J. - This is an intra court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against the judgment dated 06.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, vide which the writ petition i.e. CWP-22358-2015, preferred by Dr. Jagrati Sharma-petitioner (appellant herein) against the order dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure P-6) passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-appellant is employed as a Dental Surgeon at Uchana Lake Dispensary, Karnal. She lodged a criminal case bearing FIR No.24 dated 15.01.2015 at Police Station, Sadar, Karnal, against respondent No.4-Dr. Vipul Gupta son of Satya Prakash Gupta, who is also working as a Medical Officer and is posted at Civil Dispensary, Mewat. In that case, charges were framed against respondent No.4 on 28.04.2015. As per appellant, with an intention to harass, humiliate and tarnish her image, respondent No.4 had been filing false complaints against the appellant, including various applications under the Right to Information Act, seeking her personal information. In continuation of this, Shri Satya Prakash Gupta-respondent No.5 (father of respondent No.4) filed an application under the Right to Information Act, on 02.02.2015, out of vengeance and personal vendetta. The intent and purpose of this harassment is to pressurize the petitionerappellant to enter into a compromise in the criminal case or to force her to withdraw the said FIR, registered against him. By filing the application dated 02.02.2015 (Annexure P-2) addressed to the Deputy Civil Surgeon-cum-State Public Information Officer, Karnal, respondent No.5 sought information which is absurd, irrelevant and uncalled for, which relates to the personal information of the petitioner-appellant. There is no public interest involved therein.
3. When no information was supplied by the Deputy Civil Surgeon-cum-State Public Information Officer, Karnal-respondent No.2, within the time stipulated, respondent No.5-Shri Satya Prakash Gupta filed his first appeal, in which third party comments were sought from the present appellant. Written objections were filed by her on 16.03.2015. Thereafter, parties were given personal hearing and order dated 13.04.2015 (Annexure P-5) was passed by the First Appellate Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon, Karnal, dismissing the appeal and rejecting the application filed by respondent No.5 on the ground that the information sought by him (respondent No.5) was related to personal information of the petitionerappellant and it was filed with an intention to mentally pressurize her. Against the said order, respondent No.5 filed second appeal before the State Information Commission, Haryana, which was decided on 27.07.2015 (Annexure P-6). It was ordered to supply some of the information, as sought for by respondent No.5. Petitioner-appellant challenged the said order by filing CWP No.22358 of 2015, which was dismissed by the learned Single judge of this Court vide impugned order dated 06.03.2019. Hence, the present appeal.
4. The appellant's main objection was that while passing the order dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure P-6), information which has been ordered to be supplied to respondent No.5 is her personal information and there is no public interest involved to provide the same.
5. As per the facts of the present case, information sought by respondent No.5 in his application dated 02.02.2015 (Annexure P-2) was as under:-
'Kindly supply the certified copy of the following information as under:-
1. Date of her appointment, place of posting during service.
2. Place and period of deputation, working hours, place of headquarter during deputation between 01.07.2014 to 31.12.2014.
3. Any type of leave availed during the period 01.07.2014 to 31.12.2014 along with the permission to leave the headquarter may be supplied.
4. Copy of her attendance register, movement register from 01.07.2014 to 31.12.2014 may be supplied.
5. The residential address of Karnal and
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of personal information under the RTI Act, 2005, and the application of the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act to specif....
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, including salary details of an employee, is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act unless a larger public interest is demonstrated.
Under the RTI Act, personal information related to government employees is exempt from disclosure unless a demonstrable larger public interest exists.
Requests for personal information must demonstrate public interest; privacy rights protected under RTI Act exemptions.
Individual employee service records, salary details, and income tax particulars constitute 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, unless a larger ....
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
